Debate : Search Results: bruce half irish


Off-Topic / Debate / Search Results: bruce half irish

Results 341 – 360 of about 1900.

Search took 0.01 CPU seconds.

Messages: Full | Brief | Compact

Sort: Prefer Newer | Prefer Older | Best Match

		Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
(...) Do you understand what a theory is? Do you understand that gravity is a theory? Do you understand that science deals in theories all the time? (...) Man's best friend (dogs). Tested, observed, and demonstrable. Perhaps you may wish to be more (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

bruce
(score: 1.322)

		Re: A whole new debate.
(...) We pointed out that you don't seem to understand that theories are part of science. Your response is to change the subject. How can you tell us that evolution isn't science if you don't understand what science involves? How's this for another (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

bruce
(score: 1.322)

		Re: Why not Both?
(...) The Creationist movement is primarily U.S. Protestant driven. Not exclusively, of course. Perhaps it's part of the insular nature of the U.S., especially the interior of the country. Europe has been through this all before. Bruce (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

bruce
(score: 1.322)

		Re: I've said enough...
(...) Evolution. All "macro-evolution" is is a great accumulation of changes over a great deal of time. That's it! The process isn't any different. Since you acknowledge the process happens, all that needs to be established is geologic time (and (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

bruce
(score: 1.322)

		Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line))
(...) I'm only offering a quick $.02, since this isn't my branch of the debate, but I'm perceiving a miscommunication of intent here. I think Bruce's assertion is that the biological need for food and the need for the means to acquire food have (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

bruce
(score: 1.321)

		Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
(...) I have seen no such claims in any scientific source. (...) I listed those for human evolution from hominids to current man. That's the family/genus/species record. (...) A cat didn't evolve into a dog or vica versa. (...) It's hard to see with (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

bruce
(score: 1.321)

		Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line))
(...) That may be his assertion, but I would say that nuclear weapons are the natural outcome of eons of development too. The entire time that we've been growing more efficient at eating mroe things, we've been growing more efficient in defending (...) (24 years ago, 28-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

bruce
(score: 1.321)

		Re: The Fake Fossil (Was: Problems with Darwin's theory)
(...) I'm making the jump that this would not be an issue under Libertarian non-government schools. We'd have a bunch of scientific morons in the Creationist schools, which is why I say on the theoritical level. You are correct in my estimation that (...) (24 years ago, 2-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

bruce
(score: 1.321)

		Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
(...) I don't claim that God didn't make everything. I'm only concerned here with the evidence on hand on what happened. I'm not addressing whether it was directed by God in any fashion or not, but simply what actually took place. (...) If it's (...) (24 years ago, 2-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

bruce
(score: 1.321)

		Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
(...) It should be extremely obvious what I mean, except for someone doing their best to dodge the point. (...) November 98, if I recall. (...) By all means, share your source for it being a fake. (...) You don't admit beating your wife, is the (...) (24 years ago, 1-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

bruce
(score: 1.321)

		Re: The Fake Fossil (Was: Problems with Darwin's theory)
My God! Someone actually noted a source! Miracles do happen! :-) My wife has been on a anti-packrat campaign of late (me) and has been tossing my National Geographics when the new one comes in, whether I've read it or not. I'll have to go back and (...) (24 years ago, 2-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

bruce
(score: 1.321)

		Re: The Fake Fossil (Was: Problems with Darwin's theory)
(...) Kinda throws things into confusion, but it also reminds everyone to be wary. (...) Pretty much. If they want to seize on the small number of fakes, they'll have to answer to the large number of fake faith healers as a disproof of God. I don't (...) (24 years ago, 2-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

bruce
(score: 1.321)

		Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
(...) Mount Cadiz, southern California. An exposed abuttement of Cambrian and Precambrian rock. Zillions of Trilobites. Hip deep in them. Zillions may be an underestimate. Bruce (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

bruce
(score: 1.321)

		Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?")
(...) Hi again, I think that this will forever be our stumbling block. I presume that you base these theories on a holy text of some kind rather than observable phenomina? (Except, of course, the bit about the relationship between prey and predator (...) (24 years ago, 30-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

bruce
(score: 1.320)

		Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
(...) 1650 for Bishop Ussher (and some further expansion in 1654). 17th century. (...) The earth is slowing. Tidal forces are doing it, similiar to what the earth has already done to the moon, just a lot weaker. If one considers the 8 hour workday, (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

bruce
(score: 1.320)

		Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
(...) I gave a long list of fossils directly related to human evolution. No response from you. Please present your evidence that any or all are fake. Cite scientific sources, please. This is the third time I've asked. (...) There is ONLY evolution (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

bruce
(score: 1.320)

		Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
(...) Yup, been there, done that. I think it was for a class in stratigraphy many years ago. It was the quietest place I have ever experienced in my life. We weren't out there for the trilobites (and well noted about the Horseshoe crab), but you (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

bruce
(score: 1.320)

		Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
(...) This has been shot full of holes centuries ago when they found chinese genealogies going back further than 4004 BC. I've mentioned this before. Europeans were scratching their heads about this almost 400 years ago - why can't Creationists get (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

bruce
(score: 1.320)

		Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
(...) I haven't been there in a couple of decades, so I don't know what the policy is now. Certainly in the past you could collect them - it would be hard to enforce much in the middle of nowhere (don't take your low-slung sports car). Finding (...) (24 years ago, 7-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

bruce
(score: 1.320)

		Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
(...) I'm neither into biochemistry or microbiology, so I have no great opinion on the matter. Or were you refering to evolution in general? (...) Look at your statements: they don't say that anything is impossible - simply put, they do not argue (...) (24 years ago, 7-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

bruce
(score: 1.320)

More: Next Page >>