Subject:
|
Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:42:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
756 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Culberson writes:
> 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)
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 indicate that
periods of time have passed in excess of the theorized age of the universe
according to Creationist theory.
James
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
