|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/7/2006 4:07:09 PM | "I know this is a re occuring issue , but really people shouldn't be adressed in this manner just because they don't believe a certain way."
It's not that it was a reoccurring issue; it was that my last post directly above hers had JUST addressed it, and what she believes is irrelevant. If you don't understand then read my last two posts.
Coffee you reply with another knee jerk reaction instead of listening. Some of those posts have nothing to do with Evolution. Evolution is not Atheistic. And a small handful of scientists (some from disparate fields even) amongst the vast vast number of the scientific community that consider it a sound theory, yes, is fringe. Again, you sidestepped the whole issue. Give me IN YOUR WORDS your logical, empirical and rational issues with the theory. I'm assuming, since you hold such a strong opinion on it, that you are familiar with the theory and what it actually states? I'm gone for the evening, but there are plenty others here who can respond to you in the interim. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/7/2006 4:14:55 PM | This pattern has repeated several times in this thread. Essentially, some people decide rather than attempting to use reason to support their position they will attempt instead to use deception to make it look like their opponent is attacking them.
This was a response to Sock Puppet #2 way back in message 555 and later it was also applied to Sock Puppet #3. It can also be applied to this case.
Basically you do this: You say, "My argument is 1 + 1 = 5." and then offer a verbose and convoluted explanation for why we should believe you. Someone else comes along and says simply, "1 + 1 = 2, you are wrong". Then you come in and say, "Why do you hate so-and-so?" and "Don't call people names". Which is to cast the aspersion that someone actually has said that they hate something or called someone names.
See how that works? Not very well. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/7/2006 4:31:16 PM | Now I'll be the first to admit, in my first ever post to this thread, that I do not know much about evolution. But I feel I can add to this particular furball:
Also , her post is perfecetly logical, if one will goto wikapedia and read about Darwin, it clearly says , that he was a religous man and it wasn't until his daughter died, that he fully pursued his theories. It is possible to theorize that he did have a resentment towards God over that, and this influenced his actions.
I totally agree with this. I've heard the same thing about Darwin's personal struggles. The problem is the implication: this alone is enough to invalidate Darwin's theory. Now this is where the "NO! NO! NO!" is entirely reasonable.
That's akin to saying Volkswagen Bugs are "evil" or useless cars because they were originally manufactured under Hitler's supervision. I wonder how many people who drive them even know that...
And as far as respectable, prize winning scientists discounting evolution, you still have to consider the field of expertise. A person can be a PhD in mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology and still know nothing about the real science behind evolution. I personally know quite a few people with science degrees who know almost nothing about the theory of evolution. Dr. Laura Schlessinger makes a living giving out relationship advice, but most people don't bother to ask what her PhD is in! It does give the illusion of credibility, though.
Peace, out...
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/7/2006 5:07:43 PM |
And as far as respectable, prize winning scientists discounting evolution, you still have to consider the field of expertise. A person can be a PhD in mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology and still know nothing about the real science behind evolution.
I take it Flyguy that you didn't bother to check through Google the credentials of any of the ones listed. Each and every one of them spent years in the field researching various aspects of evolutionary (psuedo)science.  | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/7/2006 5:28:15 PM | ahhhh, message 555 ... the good old days.
even though she wont be back to read it, i dont believe her post was slanderous wonka. dont get me wrong. you and mlr are doing a fine job to which my posts would pale in comparison, but your response was a little too direct for most mere mortals. i can appreciate bluntness bc i'm sure my words have been deemed to be insensitive, but i can see where other more sensitive souls (not a bad thing in any respect) might be offended. | |
|
Enryk
|
Joined: 12/15/2005
Msg: 2981 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/7/2006 5:47:11 PM | mmm... me again.
Sometimes when people mention words like "creation" or "God", I would like to know the definition these people are using for each term... and particularly the "level of involvement" of this God. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/7/2006 6:08:16 PM |
Sometimes when people mention words like "creation" or "God", I would like to know the definition these people are using for each term... and particularly the "level of involvement" of this God.
To my mind the level of involvement would need to be at least the beginning of life ie pre-Cambrian explosion, and then likely at those points where punctuated equilibrium was a factor.
As far as the interpretations of God...well there is probably as many as there is people that believe in one. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/7/2006 6:12:02 PM | I take it Flyguy that you didn't bother to check through Google the credentials of any of the ones listed. Each and every one of them spent years in the field researching various aspects of evolutionary (psuedo)science.
This is a variation of Argumentum ad verecundiam (the Appeal to Authority) which uses admiration of a famous person or persons to try and win support for an assertion. But if you are going down that road, you should know that far more nobel prize winning scientists advocate evolution than do not. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/7/2006 6:19:20 PM |
This is a variation of Argumentum ad verecundiam (the Appeal to Authority) which uses admiration of a famous person or persons to try and win support for an assertion. But if you are going down that road, you should know that far more nobel prize winning scientists advocate evolution than do not.
Well thank MLR, I didn't realize there was cool latin name for it. Unfortunately it wasn't the road I was going down. Admiration for the work they did in furthering the level of knowledge and the level of expertise they likely had to rise above the rest and be rewarded for their achievement in the life sciences would be more like it. What's the cool latin name for that? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/7/2006 6:38:43 PM | "To my mind the level of involvement would need to be at least the beginning of life ie pre-Cambrian explosion, and then likely at those points where punctuated equilibrium was a factor."
I'm back early. Punctuated equilibrium is always a factor as the term expansively refers not only to the points of speciation, but also the long periods of stasis in between. That being said, there is really nothing contrary to the theory in believing that God's hand is involved in the mechanisms. You can believe that God's intention alters the environment and places the necessary pressures on the individuals of genes, cells, organisms, demes, and species, and in the hierarchical feedback loops between these levels of emergence, to serve a teleological purpose. It's irrelevant to the theory, as the theory is the study of those mechanisms and causal loci, but it does not contradict the theory to believe in God, or even a God active in the universe. Metaphysical beliefs do not by necessity contravene the theory or vice versa. They are simply not scientific concerns, so they are not relevant one way or the other.
"As far as the interpretations of God...well there is probably as many as there is people that believe in one."
Precisely. It's a personal issue that is not subject to verifiability or falsifiability, therefore it is not a scientific concern. It can be viewed as complementary (if you are spiritually inclined,) but not coherent with science.
"Also , her post is perfecetly logical, if one will goto wikapedia and read about Darwin, it clearly says , that he was a religous man and it wasn't until his daughter died, that he fully pursued his theories. It is possible to theorize that he did have a resentment towards God over that, and this influenced his actions."
Guys, that's highly speculative making guesses as to what a person's convoluted motives may be who is still alive, not to mention one long dead. That kind of broad speculation wouldn't hold up in court, and it hardly does as an argument. Sometimes people can scarcely understand their own motives. Frankly, I highly doubt Darwin was on a vendetta against God, and I'll tell you why by repeating what I just said in an earlier post. Darwin's theory has a perfectly consistent and logical provenance in the study of natural philosophy. It was a subject that fascinated him all his life, and he clearly developed his theory partly in response to other theories such as Paley's and Lamarks, and partly from his exhaustive documentation of animal and plant life. Just like Einstein's Relativity if consistently follows in response to other theories and disparate ideas floating about the cultural ethos of his time.
Thisis2weird- I don't think she was intentionally slanderous, but even in her misinterpretation, she still said I stated something I didn't.
"Admiration for the work they did in furthering the level of knowledge and the level of expertise they likely had to rise above the rest and be rewarded for their achievement in the life sciences would be more like it. What's the cool latin name for that?"
You're missing Lizard's point, which is that a person's credentials are logically irrelevant to the content of their argument. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/7/2006 7:12:56 PM | You're correct, Coffee. I did not check out those scientists, but at your recommendation, I checked a few out. I didn't find anything really compelling, but I did find a large and surprisingly unbiased (I hope) website along the way:
home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho29.htm
This particular article in the site says that Michael Denton (#3 on the list) converted to supporting evolution in the late 90's.
Now the information that I have found to be very compelling is in this site:
www.livescience.com/othernews/050923_ID_science.html
It discusses the concepts of Irreducible Complexity and Complex Specified Information quite well. | |
|
Enryk
|
Joined: 12/15/2005
Msg: 2987 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/7/2006 7:24:58 PM | Well this is going to be long so here we go
I've seen these phrases over and over and got fed up with them, so went to have a closer look at them. This kind of argumentation is quite "thin".
More quotes from Nobel-prize winning fringe hacks on the lack of support for the theory of evolution:... .
First of all, I wanted to know the DATES of these quotes. I was trying to find them, but couldn't in most cases. Please let me know if you guys can. Second, the internet is packed with these quotations but without context it is hard to guess what was the reasoning behind a few of them.
Lets divide these in three groups and one subgroup.
a) those quoted solely implying that God exists. Not providing any further discussion about Evolution itself (at least not in the quote)
1, 12
The "involvement" these people (1 and 12) attribute at "their" God is, as always very variable. Evolution science would never dare to ask whether God exists or not, and solely tries to understand biological phenomena by the scientific method. Neither Evolution science would try to ask questions such as what happened during the "creation of the universe", yep the one that happened 15 billion years ago.
Interesting that 1 published a book on "molecular evolution" but during the 1950's.
Subgroup here:
Those stating that our rational explanations of the universe are flawed.
9
b) those critisizing Darwin only.Not Evolution science as a whole.
3, 5, 8.
3 is interesting because he supports microevolution and speciation but not macroevolution... but he certainly qualifies as an ID supporter with statements like "We haven't told an evolutionary story for it yet, and it seems difficult to me to believe that such a story could exist, therefore there is not one."
5, hello, the first word sells it all. Saltationist! but still an evolutionist, wrongly misquoted.
c) Those opposing Evolution science
all the rest.
Number 2 has published in an article you can easily find "The structures of life are complex, and complex structures get made in this, the purely human world, only by a process of deliberate design. An act of intelligence is required to bring even a thimble into being; why should the artifacts of life be different?" Very similar argumentation to Number 3 above.
Number 4: couldn't find anything written by him, other than the phrase.
Number 6: there was no number 6.
Number 7 also said "none of the explanations furnished is adequate"... in the 1930's!!!! I think explanations now are much more robust than 50 years ago.
Number 10: Penzias is one of the discoverers of the Big Bang and I found this quotation that seems more "complete": "The creation of the universe is supported by all the observable data astronomy has produced so far" as opposed to "Creation is supported by all the data so far".
and it was related to the idea of explaining that the Universe was born at some point, in contrast to the idea of the eternal universe.
Number 11: There was no 11 either.
Number 13: "Creationist, Chemist, & Lecturer " says at the top of his CV (resumee). A top creationist.
Number 14: I could not track Bounoure in the CNRS website but came across this interesting piece of writting. The original phrase apparently was "Transformism is a fairy tale for adults." from 1952, and he was not the director, neither the one to create the phrase. Read here.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part12.html
wow, I was a bit  when started this post an hour ago! | |
|
| |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/7/2006 8:04:50 PM | | I didn't have time to research each name- good work Enryk. It is as I suspected, and the same old song- quotes taken out of context, quotes that are antiquated and criticising particular points of the theory that have been subsequently resolved, quotes by people from disparate unrelated fields, and quotes from those who clearly are pushing an agenda and not practising science. Amazing out of all the thousands and thousands of scientists working in the field that such prevaricating tactics must be used to even dredge up a handful. Not only is it argumentum ad verecundiam, but it's largely species in addition. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/7/2006 9:54:32 PM | Wow!!
New year, New People, New 'Arguments'!
Hmm, so, one wonders, if there is but a subliminal thrust to push us now to shoot for 200 pages of debate?  | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/7/2006 10:11:11 PM |
I don't see Creationism (or any variant of it) as a challenge to the theory of Evolution on the simple ground that Evolution is a scientific theory and not a religious belief. The basis of one is irrelevant to the other and vice versa.
Be that as it may (and is), it doesn't hurt to have folks point out the apparent holes in the theory, if only so the research can be directed to answering those questions raised.
in true reality the theory of evolution was created to challenge religion not vice versa. The theory of evolution was not around 2006 years ago nor 6000 years either.
True, in a sense, the concepts of Darwinian evolution did, in the minds of many, challenge the long-established religious notions, however the theory was not formulated for such a purpose and was never intended to be an alternate view. As for the theory being a relatively new development, this also is true, but I see no reason that has any bearing on its viability as a scientific theory.
one who hope and believe one will be money wealthy will occur if one has faith and a belief.
Not the direction I'd want to take this discussion, but that's a little simplistic, don't you think?
Believe in what you wish to disagree, I wish to believe in those who can build a hospital and research center to move medical progress ahead than dreaming out the window back to the beginning of time billions of years ago gaining nothing for humanitian causes.
I entirely concur. You may believe in special creation, a world-wide flood, or whatever, but I also choose to believe that there are wealthy people willing to donate philanthropically. Of course, I do fail to see how these sets of believe can even be contrasted, but if you think it's important, carry on.
Tell how humbly I must be to allow you to believe in yourself than foolishly believe in Darwin and his theory on evolution? What part of the $10,000,000 is worth you to join a cause worth while as Darwin thought it was only worth 500 pounds or $2500 to continue his investment into his cause.after his death.
Not my call on the humble thing, but since I'm arrogant, I'd say probably at least as humble as the sorts of people who say, sure, believe what you want, it's your life. As for what that even has to do with what I assume you mean to be "accepting" the theory of evolution, that too is a personal choice, based on understanding and whether or not one accepts the theory as an explanation of the evidence. How money is even relevant, I suppose I'll never understand.
passport charlie, I certainly appreaciate that your posts have become more legible.
Hear, hear.
Now that I can believe. Isn't that why Darwin started it in the first place?
I'm afraid not, ASB. Of course, since spending 20+ years of one's life to find evidence to refute a belief that can't even be tested would rather lend itself to folks thinking so.
When you are presented with evidence that points to a logical conclusion, it is difficult to ignore that conclusion.
But, Brain, how then do you explain the vast multitudes that insist on doing just that?
The more I learn about evolution, the more I don't trust it.
ASB, I'd like to know why you feel that way. What is it that needs or threatens your trust?
People, stopp calling each other names! It is not nice (you should know better). Respect other people's oppinions. I see here people worship Darwin (his oppinion). Darwin was just a regular human being
Okay, I must have missed what this was in reference to, but I honestly see a lot more folks taking offence than giving it. As for Darwin's opinion, I don't recall reading anything about whether he viewed what he studied as good or bad, just that he formulated observations. He certainly did seem to value the observations and the conclusions, and from the viewpoint of modern medical and biological understanding, he definitely seems to have been justified in doing so.
No one in this entire thread has said anything to even remotely indicate they worship Charles Darwin, not the Creationists or those advocating Evolution.
This is true, as far as the thread goes, but a great amount of the anti-evolutionist literature I've been reading lately certainly does give the impression of Charles Darwin as enshrined in a "godlike" or at least saintly capacity over the strawman evolutionist pseudoreligion that is purported to exist.
I don't know how you can honestly pull the notion of a religious belief out of that.
Philip Johnson, Darwin on Trial, and Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, do a passable job showing how someone bent on finding a path to religion therein can do so. AiG does somewhat as well, although with only the rudimentary arguments, for the most part.
The issue is not so much whether an argument is true, but that it is presented rationally and free of logical fallacy, so it can either be expanded upon or soundly refuted.
Speaking of which, getting back to Johnson, he points out an argument that I hadn't seen previously, stating that "natural selection" as it is understood is a tautology: basically to the effect that it states that the fittest survive to reproduce, while the measure of fitness is having survived to reproduce. I disagree, but don't want to get into the long, drawn out argument I've got in my head (sooner or later I'll condense it), but I would like to know what folks thing on this one.
...I read what people wrote on this thread from the beginning to this point (didn't you?) and I saw plenty of insults people were hurling on one another.
True, some have, and it's not acceptable. I don't count myself innocent, but I do make a distinction between sarcasm and outright offence. Buffoonery in the instance of making a point will fly, but direct, confrontational name-calling is unwarranted. The fact that it has happened is unfortunate, but dwelling on it merely validates it further. For my part, I try not to call anyone names and ask the same of others. If they want to waste their time, fine by me; it just loses their argument for them.
And please don't criticise people who believe in God/Creation.
I don't recall seeing anyone do this. Critical thought is important here, though, and I do believe that many people, firmly entrenched in their beliefs, may take critical review of their assertions to be criticisms of themselves or their beliefs. So far as I've observed, most folks on here have been perfectly open and accepting of others' rights to believe as they will.
Yes, I'm playing catch-up again, and it's getting long. I'll be back. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/7/2006 10:34:56 PM | interesting documentary (the journey of man) on pbs tonight. a micro-biologist/geneticist, dr. spencer wells traces modern mans' coastal and world migrations from when ancestors of the lisongo bushmen of the kalahari first left africa 50,000 years ago due to drought and lack of food caused by the ice age locking up all the world's moisture in the north. he looked for genetic markers (mutations) in Y chromosomes ranging back 2000 generations because these markers are only passed from father to son. he found one individual by the name of 'niazov' (sp?) in kazikhstan who has the same markers as asians, europeans and north american natives.
first migration was coastal to australia (oceans were receded due to ice age). they only had 150 miles of ocean to traverse from indonesia to australia. next major migration was to the middle east and india shortly thereafter (very successful >>> high population quickly, as in china). then two thrusts into northern and southern china. then 15,000 years later from central asian into europe. evidence shows first europeans were tall (like african ancestors), but of lighter skin to more successfully synthesize vitamin d from ultraviolet b if no fish were available.
he also studied the chuchis of siberia who followed the reindeer to the eastern reaches of siberia. and then 15,000 y.a. a few hardy arctic herdsmen crossed the ice bridge at the height of the last ice age into north america (he claims it could have been accomplished by as few as 2 men and 10 people), who were stuck in alaska bc of ice on this side and a disappearing ice bridge to take them back to asia until an ice free corridor formed through british columbia that allowed for migration south. within 800 years there were ppl in both south and north america.
interesting stuff. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/7/2006 11:12:43 PM | Mr enryk, after reading your reply I can see you are looking at thinks with a single eye and a flat plain. The only think you offer dimensionaly is from your own opinion and the method used is to allow all others to preceive your words are words i wrote.
For example "what you are saying is" then putting in contrived words that never came out of my reply, today, yesterday or in history.
"taking further your agrument" following with all your words again nothing which I have said.
t dobzhaonsky wasnt happy catching butterflies and failed at getting his university diploma had plobably given only once speech in his life, and died. my opinion based on reading his 1/2 bio review
 | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/7/2006 11:21:36 PM | "Speaking of which, getting back to Johnson, he points out an argument that I hadn't seen previously, stating that "natural selection" as it is understood is a tautology: basically to the effect that it states that the fittest survive to reproduce, while the measure of fitness is having survived to reproduce."
This is a good point that should be addressed. First let me point out that a tautology is not illogical, just meaningless. To resurrect an example I think I've used before in this thread, the sentence "we shall define a chair as an object which possesses "chairness,'" is a perfectly logical sentence, but it's essentially meaningless as a descriptor. That being said, a theory, being a complex logical construct of factual interpretation that is contingent upon empirical emergence, may contain a tautology amongst it's logic and still possess explanatory prowess and empirical verifiability. Still, tautologies should be routed out when recognized, and this particular tautology, which was implied by Darwin's initial verbiage, is really superfluous to the theory and can be, and has been, discarded. It is simply a parochial assumption, within the vernacular, of progression to a goal that is understandable in the context of his time, but actually contrary to his essential logic. The entire description is unnecessary as we can eschew the biased concept of "fittest" all together. What is "fittest" is entirely contingent upon biotic and abiotic interaction of the environment with the individual during its lifespan (individual on the genic, organismic or species level,) and has no substantive meaning in any larger sense. Homo sapiens are not "more" evolved in relation to other species. There is no teleological arrow towards "more fit." "More fit" is only relevant to the circumstances surrounding that particular speciation. The tautology arises from terminology, and has little really to do with the essence of the theory. Think of it more as an adaptation cohering with the environment and disregard such terms as "fittest" as they are unnecessarily laden with parochial implications of value.
thisis2weird- that sounds like a good show; I'd like to see that. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/7/2006 11:52:55 PM | Now that I can believe. Isn't that why Darwin started it in the first place?
ASB- Contrary to what a few here have been saying, there is evidence which strongly suggests that it is the reason he eventually published his book. Both his friends and supporters were predominently anti-clerical as well as anti-religious. Thomas Huxley, Darwin's "bulldog" was especially so. Without him the theory may not have garnered the support it did since it would appear that Darwin wasn't familiar enough with his own work to actually debate it in public. Huxley's strong anti-religious sentiments were what drove him to defend Darwin's theory to the degree that he did. Sir Charles Lyell, was likely the person most responsible for Darwin actually publishing his work. He was a strong supporter of uniformitarianism and saw Darwin's theory as a good complement to his own works and would go far in refuting creation and the flood which he didn't believe in.
Since Darwin's time, the majority and most passionate supporters and proponents of the theory have been those with anti-religious feelings. I'm not just talking about scientists but those with political power. It is the leaders around the world which have been most instrumental in supplanting belief in creation with evolution. Not because the scientists said it was right but for their own agendas.
It is a myth created by the powers that be that evolution wasn't meant to take the place of God. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/8/2006 12:25:57 AM | It is a myth created by the powers that be that evolution wasn't meant to take the place of God.
If you believe that you can believe anything.
It is a myth created by wingnuts that evolution was created to take the place of God.
it would appear that Darwin wasn't familiar enough with his own work to actually debate it in public. Especially, nowadays. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/8/2006 12:41:29 AM |
"Every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended hereafter) is imaginary as it is not supported by the scientifically established facts of microbiology, fossils, and mathematical probability concepts."
That's a beautiful example of personal opinion. Simply magnificent. Any chance he included references to support this view?
Absolutely untrue... Cohen is a hack... I could quote the raving lunatic by the bus stop... In fact, instead of pasting quotes by fringe hacks as you who are hostile to the theory of Evolution love to do... ...I tire of this sophistry.
Woah, brother. I agree with you, Wonka, but dude, check your coolness, man. I dig on the impassioned diatribe like nobody's business, but this is what it looks like between the lines, and that don't do nobody no good, dig?
The so-called insults you are referring to in recent posts were merely people civily and articulately advocating their own ideas and pointing out fallacies of logic and errors of fact in the opponents position.
True that, lizard, but I believe the lady's referring to past sins. Dreamer, it's a thing. And it's barely even peripherally associated with the topic. I say we drop it.
Holy stuff on a stick!! With cheese! When did I become a "voice of reason?!?"
I have never mocked someone for their religious belief.
In two voices, backed up by this third. And I'm the one with the whacked-out religious beliefs. So, I says to Mabel, I says, "DROP IT!"
Sophistry is mental masturbation.
Hey, man, don't knock it. I say, if it feels good... 
Okay, so getting back to the topic. You know, the topic? Yeah, okay, so here's my take: We got evolution and its supporters saying it's a scientific theory that explains a lot of biology, etc. and has some groovy predictive power. On the other hand, we've got the detractors (no need to go into Creationism for this, really) who say that evolution is not scientific, that it's a faith-based viewpoint, and that there is empirical evidence for a creator. Do I have that right? If not, shoot me down. If so, let's go over why people question the scientific nature of evolution, why it's supposedly "faith-based," what predictive power it has, etc. I, for one, would like to deal with the actual issues here. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/8/2006 3:00:31 AM | | omg one of these threads sadly no one has an answer to this because the bible and the truth about evolution are from ppl that are going to in some way endorse what they want you to belive. someone who belives in the bible will say what they think from that from evolution the same. no one person truely knows the answers of either me personally i like to belive thati control were i go what i do and no ammount of proof from anyone is going tomake me belive some all mighty being or some corprate shmuck with a two bit theroy has decided were i came from. | |
|
Enryk
|
Joined: 12/15/2005
Msg: 2999 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/8/2006 3:40:39 AM | Passportcharlie
I asked you directly whether my interpretation of the argument was correct or not and you replied...
Mr enryk, after reading your reply I can see you are looking at thinks with a single eye and a flat plain. The only think you offer dimensionaly is from your own opinion and the method used is to allow all others to preceive your words are words i wrote.
For example "what you are saying is" then putting in contrived words that never came out of my reply, today, yesterday or in history.
So please reexplain your philantropic argument then. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/8/2006 7:33:31 AM |
I can assure the reader the American Kennel Club would not certify an ancestor of your dog based on evidence such as paleontologists present.
So the AKC would not acept DNA comparason as evidence? Wow, they realy are living in the past arent they! | |
|
|
| Page 120 of 156
|
116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156 |
|
Home
login 
