Subject:
|
Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 9 Feb 2001 21:58:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
344 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> Not surprising since you don't grasp science and how it works.
"do not, do to, do not, do to, do not...." - how many times are you
going to say this Larry?
> Again, by supressing one theory and placing another one, one that has no
> validity, on an equal footing, you are destroying the ability to think in
> young minds. That is evil and I won't stand for it.
First of all, I never suggested that Creation should REPLACE all
"Eolutionary" teaching in the textooks - I personally would like to see
it happen but that wouldn't be presenting all of the facts - seeing as
some evidence seemingly points to Evolution rather than Creation, just
as the reverse is true. Secondly.....well actually there's not point in
me arguing anything because this has simply become a "do not, do to"
argument as well, but to say that Creationism has no validity is false.
> Why is it that you are out to destroy rationality with this foolishness?
> That is the part I just don't get.
I say the same thing to you. How many times are you going to repeat
this general, vague, no-meaning statement? It's another "do not, do
too" argument.
> I missed the smiley there... so I will assume you still don't get that no
> one is saying humans are descended from apes (or that cats are descended
> from dogs), merely that there are common ancestors. Your repeating this
> after it's been explained so many times is further evidence of your
> inability to grasp explanations even when presented in small words and tiny
> digestible bits.
What part of evolution is it that you believe again? If you're saying
all of the platypuses alive today are the eventual result of two
platypuses reproducing at some point in history, then we have nothing to
disagree on. I stated weeks ago that I believed that! (according to the
creationist theory, they're the 2 platypuses that survived Noah's flood
on the ark). Perhaps I do have an inability to grasp what you're
saying. If not one creature from another then what from what? Give me
an example of two animals with a common ancestor, and then tell me where
that ancestor came from. I've been arguing against the dictionary
definition (www.m-w.com, "Evolution", def.4b)
> Try Literal Creationism??? Are you not paying attention here or what? It has
> (little or) no scientific validity unless you posit a malicious evidence
> distorting creator.
I'm paying so little attention I've fallen asleep on a couple occasions
just reading your over-wordy pompous speeches. You're statement that it
has little or no scientific validity is incorrect. ("did not, did
to...")
> > > , or if you didn't try to destroy
> > > the thought processes of impressionable young children by presenting bunkum
> > > as valid. Either one.
> >
> > Hrmmm...I think you will find that textbooks have been presenting bunkum
> > for quite some time (peppered moth experiment
> > http://www.drdino.com/SeminarVideo/Part4/04apt16PepMoth.ram, horse
> > evolution:
> > http://www.drdino.com/SeminarVideo/Part4/04bptHorse.ram).....
>
> Haven't we debunked Dr. Dino (what a lovely appelation) enough yet? Don't
> bother citing from that source, please, unless you want to be ridiculed some
> more. Cite from Science, or Nature, or Scientific American, some nice peer
> reviewed journal, not bunkum creationist websites.
Ridicule me all you want. I'm guessing (although not assuming - as you
most often do) that you didn't click either of those. I don't care how
much you dislike Dr. Hovind, what is found in those two particular clips
is not something made up by himself. He cites what you would call very
credible sources in both to support his argument. Interestingly enough I
think that you're about the only one arguing for Evolution that pretty
much never cites any source except your own arse - which is where I seem
to think you pull most of your comments from.
> Give it up.
"no you give it up, no YOU give it up, no _YOU_ give it up, no
_*YOU......."
--
-TiM
NB, CA
http://echofx.itgo.com
t_c_c@yahoo.com
3ch0fx
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
| (...) 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)
|
25 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
