To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 9055
9054  |  9056
Subject: 
Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:22:41 GMT
Viewed: 
819 times
  
Larry Pieniazek wrote:

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Culberson writes:

What I am trying to say is that those who claim that the Creationist
theory is impossible based on current scientific evidence are wrong.

If this is all you want, no problem. I concede that the creationist beliefs
(as they relate to macroevolution) are not impossible. They are highly
unlikely, unverifiable, and unsupported by the available observations, but I
concede that it is possible that a malicious god could have set things up
(faked the data) to make macroevolution seem likely while actually having
done things completely differently.

And I have repeatedly asked you to provide an example showing their
unlikeliness and telling me at least one or two available observations
that don't support it.  (Notice that I left out "Unverifiable" since the
claims of Evolution are also unverifiable)

It is no less absurd than using a single lottery ticket as your entire means
of retirement planning, and perhaps a bit more, since the probability is lower,

I feel like a broken record, but you continue to insist that the
probability of Evolution is low, but you refuse to support that claim
with an evidence that shows its low probability.

We have. You (and your pet Dr. Dino) haven't grokked what science is, what
an observation is, what a fact is, what a theory is, so you're not
understanding it. That's your fault, not ours.

Unless I missed a message somewhere along the line (very likely), I have
yet to see you present a scientific evidence that shows the Creation
theory absurd.  Please re-state the evidence that you presented.

The fossil record, my friend, the fossil record. Unless you posit that god
laid that record down to make scientists look foolish. That, I suppose, is
consistent with the rest of the sophistry that fundamentalists employ. But
then, fundamentalists, including you, are not critical thinkers so what do
you expect?

Just in case you don't read any of the three or four other posts I just
finished, please see:

"What does the fossil record teach us about Evolution?"
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c006.html

--
-TiM
NB, CA
http://echofx.itgo.com
t_c_c@yahoo.com
3ch0fx



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
 
(...) Carbon dating. Speed of light. (More specifically, observed doppler shift as pertains to stars (and other astronomical bodies), indicating direction, speed of travel & distance.) Two well established scientific processes, both of which (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
 
(...) If this is all you want, no problem. I concede that the creationist beliefs (as they relate to macroevolution) are not impossible. They are highly unlikely, unverifiable, and unsupported by the available observations, but I concede that it is (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR