 | | Re: In the interest of full disclosure... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | (...) That's OK, since that's the vision I have of every Literal Creationist. You don't have to physically burn a book to destroy knowledge or worse, destroy the very ability to think. You literal creationists, with your incessant pushing to get a (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: In the interest of full disclosure... —Mark Sandlin
|
| | | | | (...) EGAD! A Clone! What is the world coming to!?! ~Mark "Muffin Head" Sandlin (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: In the interest of full disclosure... —Tim Culberson
|
| | | | (...) Wow we MUST be good if we can control whether or not someone is able to think. It's a good thing you're smarter than everyone else Larry so we can't exercise our super powers over YOU! You must be among the more evolved humans....your (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: In the interest of full disclosure... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) The spanish inquisition didn't "control" Galileo, but it did destroy the ability to think in a host of lesser folk. You haven't grasped the pernicious damage that pushing a bunkum "theory" into impressionable kids, placing it as equally valid (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: In the interest of full disclosure... —Tim Culberson
|
| | | | | | (...) "do not, do to, do not, do to, do not...." - how many times are you going to say this Larry? (...) First of all, I never suggested that Creation should REPLACE all "Eolutionary" teaching in the textooks - I personally would like to see it (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: In the interest of full disclosure... —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) Such as, for instance, positing "Creation Science" as if it were science. (...) No one is blaming you for the ignorance of others, but others' ignorance doesn't excuse them, either. The fact is that certain people are pushing an agenda to have (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: In the interest of full disclosure... —Markus Wolf
|
| | | | (...) I guess the problem I have is that the peppered moth was shown as THE proof of evolution in our time to the masses. There should be some sort of accountability that expresses, "We were wrong here" in a very public way. You can't be so (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: In the interest of full disclosure... —David Eaton
|
| | | | | (...) I certainly agree-- but who? Let's say we discovered that, oh, I dunno, Rome didn't 'fall' to the Visigoths, but instead some disease infested the city and they were forced to relocate. But the Romans, not wanting to appear as though Gods (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: In the interest of full disclosure... —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) Maybe, but only insofar as the peppered moth was espoused as proof in a very public way, which it wasn't. Correction in future texts would be appropriate, as would a mention of the erroneous conclusions about the moth. For that matter, in my (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
