quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
While I'm simply flattered that you hold such a high opinion of my efforts, I still don't see much attempt to thoroughly show why my claims are way off base.
So exactly how does your 'model' explain creationism? Elaborate. Repost your theory, explain how the physical evidence fits with it and how it could potentially be falsified.
quote:
I also find it interesting that a few posts back, TrueCreation asked for some specifics. Seems to me nobody has offered him any. I would have to conclude that you don't WANT to see a theory of Creation because then your point would be refuted.
I find it interesting that he can't provide a theory. I've given him as much latitude as anyone could want. Either he can provide a theory or he cannot. I want one, why is giving him latitude a problem in the provision of one?
quote:
It also might be of interest if you post your own theory so that TrueCreation or I could see exactly what your criterion is for a scientific theory.
First, let's stay to the subject of this thread, okay? My thery is irrelevant to the status of a scientific theory of creationism.
Second, I posted a link to such a theory for common descent in this thread. If you wish to discuss it, let's start another thread.
Third, my criteria is the scientific method. What are you unclear about concerning the scientific method?
quote:
If you don't feel like spending your time doing this, so be it. It will only show even further that you have no real interest in hearing a scientific theory of Creation.
How is providing you a competing theory relevant to the status of the scientific theory of creation? Either it exists or it does not. If you wish to discuss the scientific theory of evolution let's start a new thread. However, the question of this thread is what is the scientific theory of creation.
[This message has been edited by lbhandli, 02-14-2002]