Subject:
|
Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 25 Jan 2001 05:46:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
751 times
|
| |
|
|
Jennifer Clark wrote:
>
> Ok Tim, you are surely trolling me here, but I'll reply anyway, magnanimous
> individual that I am ;-)
Please forgive me if this is how you took my writings. I assure you
that I intended no trolling at any point (I'll try to use less
punctuation :)
> It is correct to say that Big Bang theories do tend to mention that time,
> space and matter come from nothing (or more strictly speaking from a
> singularity beyond which we cannot observe); however none of this has
> anything to do with Darwinian Evolution.
>
> Which is precisely what I said before; my point stands. Darwinian Evolution
> and Big Bang theories have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.
So that I am clear on exactly what you are saying, could you please
define for me "Darwinian Evolution", "The Big Bang Theory", and tell me
the process through which you believe the earth has gotten to where it
is today (including how life forms arrived at what they are today)
> > > Wrong. No-one claims evolution is responsible for creating life from non-life.
> > > Evolution is cited as the process that happens once life is established.
> >
> > Wrong. Many people claim exactly that.
>
> No-one in my school textbooks did... I seem to recall that life is a
> prerequisite for evolution. It is implicit that evolution without life is
> impossible. I do recall reading about primordial soups and the like, again,
> none of which have anything to do with Darwinian evolution, micro or macro.
>
> I would however be interested to read the writings of anyone who claims that
> Darwinian Evolution is responsible for the invocation of life.
Dr. Kent Hovind in one of his seminars describes how he collects school
text books with blatantly incorrect claims.
> > If what you say is true, then how did life become established in the
> > first place?
>
> I have no idea. Fortunately I don't have to in this case, since the
> invocation of life is an entirely seperate process to Darwinian Evolution.
What is it that you disagree with in the Creation theory and why?
> He suggests that I, assuming that I am a (rich) defender of Darwinian
> evolution, offer up a large sum of money to anyone who can prove to me that:
[snip]
He suggests this:
> > If you are convinced that evolution is an indisputable fact, may I
> > suggest that you offer $250,000 for any empirical or historical evidence
> > against the general theory of evolution.
(He then goes on to give you suggestions as to how you may go about
this)
Jennifer,
Are you convinced that evolution is an indisputable fact (Y/N)?
If yes, then you should have no problem offering $250, 000.
Likewise if YOU can PROVE that it is an indisputable fact, then you are
the recipient of $250, 000.
> [1] His bet is pretty hokey anyway; I thought it was a different "point 3"
> in my other post, but essentially one has to prove that evolution is
> responsible for the creation of the universe. Since neither Darwinian
> Evolution nor anything else can be observed before "t0" (the creation of the
> universe) due to the aforementioned singularity, it is *impossible* (for
> anyone in our universe) to prove what he requests. Dr Dino has perhaps the
> safest bet in the galaxy.
Exactly. So why is it that the Evolutionary theory is so widely
accepted and taught in our public schools with no mention of its
*possible* downfalls?
--
-TiM
NB, CA
http://echofx.itgo.com
t_c_c@yahoo.com
3ch0fx
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
78 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
