Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Significance of the Dover Decision
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 60 of 150 (452134)
01-29-2008 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by randman
01-29-2008 10:57 AM


Re: the applicability of the law to science
randman writes:
Really? I have asked here for peer-reviewed papers that establish the basic claims and assumptions of Darwinism, and they are non-existent.
I absolutely MUST be reading this wrong. Are you seriously suggesting that there is no scientific support for the ToE?
randman writes:
In fact, there are probably more published papers on ID than papers seeking to establish the basic claims of evos.
In that case, it should be no problem for you to come up with a staggering number of published papers seeking to establish the basic claims of I.D...but I'll settle for just one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by randman, posted 01-29-2008 10:57 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by randman, posted 01-29-2008 3:18 PM FliesOnly has replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 103 of 150 (452442)
01-30-2008 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by randman
01-29-2008 3:18 PM


Re: the applicability of the law to science
randman writes:
start a new thread and I will be glad to provide one......but I will expect you to do the same.
Even though this is off topic, I want to post a response only so you do not assume that I was ignoring you.
No, randman, I will not start a new thread to present scientific evidence that supports-the ToE. And do you know why? Because it would be a colossal waste of my time. You are either extraordinarily ignorant of what constitutes a science or you willfully refuse to learn. To even suggest that finding scientific evidence supporting the ToE is all but impossible only shows that you would simply deny anything I provide you as being scientifically valid. We both know that there are literally thousands upon thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles that support the ToE. To state otherwise only shows the level of your ignorance or your stupidity.
But as I stated, this is off topic so I'll stop now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by randman, posted 01-29-2008 3:18 PM randman has not replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 147 of 150 (453027)
02-01-2008 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Jazzns
01-31-2008 11:33 AM


Re: Curious to hear from iano, ICANT, other creationists
Jazzns writes:
Who else has read the transcripts and decision? Common people! This is the Scopes trial of our day!
Well, I didnt want to get dragged into a "discussion" with randman, so I have only trolled on this thread...but to answer your question:
I have read the transcripts at least a couple of times and the judges ruling more than that (I even have a copy of it somewhere here in my office). I followed the trial on a daily basis. I loved it. Oddly, I found myself rather sad and lonely when it was over.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Jazzns, posted 01-31-2008 11:33 AM Jazzns has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024