Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 31 Jan 2001 01:59:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
404 times
|
| |
|
|
Snippety Snip.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
> The only links I've heard of have been faked.
Faked, faked... always with this faked. You sound like a broken record.
Everything that you can't explain away must be faked, right?
I found this quote from one of the creationist resources rather
interesting(http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c005.html):
> By basing our scientific research on the assumption that His Word is
> true (instead of the assumption that it is wrong or irrelevant) our
> scientific theories are much more likely, in the long run, to come to
> accurately represent reality.
It's so much easier to get the conclusion you want if you start out assuming
it as a premise, isn't it? creationists like that one show how little they
understand about science, the scientific method, hypothesising, theorizing,
how observations are used to support premises, etc.
You might find this an interesting read. Well packaged and based on easily
verifiable references. The whole site is pretty good, actually.
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/6733_creation_or_evolution_12_7_2000.asp
But I'd be much more interested in your response to my question... why
bother with this scientific creationist nonsense? Why do you creationists
have this inexplicable need to try to prove a myth real in the face of
overwhelming countervailing evidence?
Just a quixotic quest, or something deeper? If you can discredit science
among the credulous and the uncritical thinkers, what then? Some diabolical
plan?
++Lar
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
| (...) Democracy, individual human rights and the concept of "property" are all myths too, and myths with much shorter history in human culture than the idea of a divine creator. They're also less rational than belief in God. If we accept a literal (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
| (...) For starters, that's not a fair question, and you know it. ("Why do you beat your wife?" being the classic example.) Further, I never said anything about proving creation. Please re-read. SRC (24 years ago, 1-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
| (...) Ad infinitum? No I won't. The only links I've heard of have been faked. The recent reptile/bird fake that made the cover? of National Geographic being a great example. If cats really evolved from dogs (my example - feel free to adjust it to (...) (24 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
95 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
|
|
|
|
