Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-24-2019 9:15 PM
21 online now:
frako (1 member, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,628 Year: 3,665/19,786 Month: 660/1,087 Week: 29/221 Day: 29/36 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456
...
24NextFF
Author Topic:   Kent Hovind
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 352 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 31 of 349 (627034)
07-24-2011 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Coyote
07-24-2011 6:29 PM


Re: Debating creationists
If there is such a level of agreement, why are there some 40+ thousand different Christian denominations? (And some 4,300 world religions?)
And why is there no way to determine which belief is correct?

So if there is disagreement about moral issues, creationism and ID are false by default.? Im not sure i follow your logic here.

Tell you what, you guys fight it out among yourselves and when you get down to a single religion, then science can take on the winner. That's fair, eh?

Fight what out amoung ourselves? The Apostles had twelve different opinions all at once on many topics. Does that mean the truth in the form of Christ was not there or valid as truth

Theres already a winner, its called logic. Why would creationism and ID be false if evolutiomn "were" true?

As I suspected, you are unwilling to admit or acknowledge this imaginary wedge you shove inbetween science and religion, to keep up the prejudice you harbor against religion

Start with the basics C, admit that the two positions have nothing or litlle to do with eachother, then my son you will grow intellectually. Heck it could be your first baby step in rejecting prejudices and taking an honest intellectual approach to reasoning.

Test tubes are fun, but that not all thats involved in reality

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Coyote, posted 07-24-2011 6:29 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-24-2011 8:45 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


(1)
Message 32 of 349 (627035)
07-24-2011 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Dawn Bertot
07-24-2011 7:16 PM


Re: Debating creationists
Fight what out amoung ourselves?

Well, for starters you could try to convince Kent Hovind to adopt your particular brand of incoherent piffle, and then at least it would become on-topic for you to post about it on this thread.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-24-2011 7:16 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-24-2011 10:35 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 352 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 33 of 349 (627036)
07-24-2011 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Dr Adequate
07-24-2011 8:45 PM


Re: Debating creationists
Well, for starters you could try to convince Kent Hovind to adopt your particular brand of incoherent piffle, and then at least it would become on-topic for you to post about it on this thread.

Did I not respond to direct statements made by Coyote? He's the the one that made the assertions.

There is only an imaginary wedge that he and others have created, to fuel an argument that has no reason to exist in the first place

Does Kent have a reasoning problem as well, Im not familar with him. In fact, do either of you, you or him, understand what is involved in the proposition concerning creation, ID and evolution

Incoherent? I doubt it.

Piffle? perhaps you could demonstrate

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-24-2011 8:45 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-25-2011 2:38 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2501 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 34 of 349 (627037)
07-25-2011 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Dawn Bertot
07-24-2011 5:59 PM


Re: Debating creationists
Dawn,

I think you missed Coyotes point. I have made and agree with his
point that it is very difficult to debate Christians because each one has their own correct interpretation of all things Christian.

There is nothing to be resolved amoung Christians, since reality has done that for us

Seeing as though there is nothing to be resolved among Christians you should be able to let us all know who is right among the following issues. I am sure you will be able to use your "reality, logic and simple common sense" and sort these issues out.

Age of the Earth -

Biblical literalists -

6000 years old

Roman Catholics -

4.5 Billion years old

Creation -

Mormons -

Mormon teachings clearly deny the doctrine of creation ex nihilo (creation out of nothing). They claim this is a late development in the theology of the Christian church, believing that Joseph Smith's understanding of eternal matter has more in common with restored Christianity. What is found is a God who did not necessarily create the world and everything in it, but instead organized the world. God found himself in an arena of chaotic matter that had always existed. Realizing this, he chose to organize and order this matter into the world we have today.

Young Earth Evangelicals -

The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of creation. This occured about 6000 years ago.
The gap theory has no basis in Scripture.

Gap Creationism -

Gap creationists believe that science has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the Earth is far older than can be accounted for by, for instance, adding up the ages of Biblical patriarchs and comparing it with secular historical data, as James Ussher famously attempted in the 17th century when he developed the Ussher chronology.

To maintain that the Genesis creation account is inerrant in matters of scientific fact, Gap creationists suppose that certain facts about the past and the age of the Earth have been omitted from the Genesis account; specifically that there was a gap of time in the Biblical account that lasted an unknown number of years between a first creation in Genesis 1:1 and a second creation in Genesis 1:2-31. By positing such an event, various observations in a wide range of fields, including the age of the Earth, the age of the universe, dinosaurs, fossils, ice cores, ice ages, and geological formations are allowed by adherents to have occurred as outlined by science without contradicting their literal belief in Genesis.

Progressive Creationsim -

In contrast to young Earth creationists, progressive creationists accept the geological column, of the progressive appearance of plants and animals through time. To their viewpoint it reflects the order in which God sequentially created kinds, starting with simple, single-celled organisms and progressing through to complex multicellular organisms and the present day. They do not however accept the scientific consensus that these kinds evolved from each other, and believe that kinds are genetically limited, such that one cannot change into another. They are no more specific than YECs about what constitutes a kind.

Proponents of the Progressive creation theory include astronomer-turned-apologist Hugh Ross, whose organization, Reasons To Believe, accepts the scientifically determined age of the Earth but seeks to disprove Darwinian evolution. Answers in Creation is another organization, set up in 2003, which supports progressive creationism. The main focus of Answers In Creation is to provide rebuttals to the scientific claims of young earth creationism which are widely regarded as a pseudoscience.

Framework Interpretation -

The framework interpretation is an interpretation of the first chapter of the Book of Genesis which holds that the seven-day creation account found therein is not a literal or scientific description of the origins of the universe; rather, it is an ancient religious text which outlines a theology of creation. The seven day "framework" is therefore not meant to be chronological but is a literary or symbolic structure designed to reinforce the purposefulness of God in creation and the Sabbath commandment.

Day-Age Creationism -

Day-Age creationism, a type of Old Earth creationism, is an interpretation of the creation accounts found in Genesis. It holds that the six days referred to in the Genesis account of creation are not ordinary 24-hour days, but rather are much longer periods (of thousands or millions of years). The Genesis account is then reconciled with the age of the Earth, providing a broad base on which any number of theories and interpretations are built. Proponents of the Day-Age Theory can be found among both theistic evolutionists (who accept the scientific consensus on evolution) and progressive creationists (who reject it). The theories are said to be built on the understanding that the Hebrew word yom is used to refer to a time period, with a beginning and an end, and not necessarily that of a 24-hour day.

Dawn Bertot version - ID as far as I can tell

Evolution -

Roman Catholic Church - (this statement covers the Big Bang Theory too)

According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.54 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.

Evangelicals and any denomination who follow a literal interpretation of the Bible

Evolution has not and cannot occur. Regardless of any evidence to the contrary. No amount of evidence will ever be able to support this theory.

Dawn Bertot version - not really sure but seems pretty anti evolution.

Homosexuality -

Baptists -

The Southern Baptist Convention, the largest of the Baptist denominations and the largest Protestant group in the U.S., considers same-gender sexual behavior to be sinful, stating clearly that its members "affirm God's plan for marriage and sexual intimacy one man, and one woman, for life. Homosexuality is not a 'valid alternative lifestyle.' The Bible condemns it as sin. It is not, however, an unforgivable sin. The same redemption available to all sinners is available to homosexuals. They, too, may become new creations in Christ.

Eastern Orthodoxy -

The Orthodox Church holds the opinion that sexuality, as we understand it, is part of the fallen world only. In Orthodox theology both monasticism and marriage are paths to Salvation (sotiriain Greek; literally meaning, "becoming whole"). Celibacy is the ideal path, exemplified in monasticism, while marriage is blessed under the context of true love ("Man must love his wife as Jesus loved his Church": this phrase is part of the Orthodox Marriage Ritual). This context can be interpreted by the non-Orthodox as not being exclusive of homosexuality; whereas it is seen as exclusive of homosexuality by the vast majority of the Orthodox. Traditionally, the church has adopted a non-legalistic view of sin (see above), in which homosexuality is a sin. Although some members of the church may have assumed an active role in encouraging negative social stereotypes against gay individuals who do not repent, they misrepresent the stance of the Orthodox Church, which does not promote judgment of people but judgment of actions. However, several prominent members of the clergy have made statements condemning homosexuality.

All jurisdictions, such as the Orthodox Church in America, have taken the approach of welcoming people with "homosexual feelings and emotions," while encouraging them to work towards "overcoming its harmful effects in their lives," while not allowing the sacraments to people who seek to justify homosexual activity

Lutherans -

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the largest Lutheran church body in the United States, as of 21 August 2009, voted 559 to 451 in favor of allowing non-celibate gays to become ordained ministers. During the national meeting in 2005, delegates voted against a measure that would have allowed non-celibate gay ordination and the blessing of same-sex unions by 503 against to 490 in favor. ELCA Lutheran policy states that LGBT individuals are welcome and encouraged to become members and participate in the life of the congregation. The ELCA does not yet have a rite for blessing same-sex unions, but another motion passed at the 2009 Assembly directed its leaders to develop one. ELCA congregations that specifically embrace LGBT persons are called Reconciling in Christ congregations. The group Lutherans Concerned supports the inclusion of LGBT members in Lutheran churches in the ELCA and ELCIC. All other Lutheran churches in the United States oppose ordination and marriage of homosexuals.

I am glad you will be able to point out the correct interpretation of the Christian Faith. It should not take you too long to let all of the 2 billion or so Christians know which of them are in error and they will all be able to have 1 unified interpretation.

One thing I am not sure of. As you do not believe that evolution is occuring, how are you going to convince the Roman Catholics?

Disclaimer **I plagarised my arse off throughout this post. If you want to find out where the info came from, just cut and paste the sentence into google and you should find it.**

Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add one more blank line which I found to be marring an otherwise wonderful message -Besides, it was in the section I was most interested in.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-24-2011 5:59 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-25-2011 11:31 PM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 35 of 349 (627038)
07-25-2011 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Dawn Bertot
07-24-2011 10:35 PM


Re: Debating creationists
Does Kent have a reasoning problem as well, Im not familar with him. In fact, do either of you, you or him, understand what is involved in the proposition concerning creation, ID and evolution

As no-one understands you, and Kent Hovind doesn't understand anything, the chances are slim that he would understand you even if you exposed him to your nonsense, which apparently you haven't.

Now pack up your non-Hovind related spam and begone from this thread. I cast thee out.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-24-2011 10:35 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2501 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 36 of 349 (627039)
07-25-2011 2:49 AM


Back to the original topic...
I agree with a lot of points about a debate with Hovind.

I know it can be a problem debating some creationists.

I know that debating some creationists seems to give credibility to their arguements.

However, not debating them leaves them as unnopposed lecturers.

As Hovind is such a predictable creature, it may be possible to soundly defeat him.

I have noticed, after (painfully) watching a great many of his debates and videos, that he used an almost identical Gish Gallop for each debate.

He uses the same slides and the same arguments. He has a selection of arguements, with slides which to tackle any response.

He seems to do a quick search on his laptop for the correct rebuttal. As soon as someone mentions carbon dating, he uses the same 5 or so examples of why it does not work. All of his examples have been soundly refuted.

Because he works on such a program, as he has less and less ground to stand on, it should not be hard to demolish him.

Any debator against him would have to continually narrow the discussion back to the actual topic as he does smash out a huge amount of bullshit in a very short period of time.

Are there any members on this forum who actually use the sort of arguements he does? eg the carbon dating examples he still uses on his webpage (http://www.drdino.com/carbon-dating/)


Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by ZenMonkey, posted 07-25-2011 10:48 PM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

    
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2589 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 37 of 349 (627040)
07-25-2011 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Butterflytyrant
07-25-2011 2:49 AM


Re: Back to the original topic...
Butterflytyrant writes:

I know that debating some creationists seems to give credibility to their arguements.

However, not debating them leaves them as unnopposed lecturers.

So the answer is to increase efforts to educate, especially among youngsters. Don't debate, lecture like they do without them in the room to blind the audience with bullshit.

The problem is, it's hard to make the facts entertaining enough to hold most kids' interest when creationists like Ken Ham or Dr Dino are free to just make stuff up. Go check out some of the videos on YouTube of Ken Ham doing his song and dance in front of gullible grade-schoolers. It's horrifying.


Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
-Theodoric

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-25-2011 2:49 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by hooah212002, posted 07-25-2011 11:28 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

  
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 38 of 349 (627041)
07-25-2011 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by ZenMonkey
07-25-2011 10:48 PM


Re: Back to the original topic...
The problem is, it's hard to make the facts entertaining enough to hold most kids' interest

I can certainly attest to this. My son, ever the inquisitive being, asks me all sorts of questions. As a father, I hate telling him I don't know. I know it would be easier (and more fun) to tell tales of a magic wizard in the sky who makes it rain or created the earth (he asked me how the earth came to be. Try explaining planet formation and the big bang to a 7 year old). Science can be fun. It is fun. You just have to make it so and it ain't easy...


"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square
This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by ZenMonkey, posted 07-25-2011 10:48 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-25-2011 11:34 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 352 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 39 of 349 (627042)
07-25-2011 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Butterflytyrant
07-25-2011 1:57 AM


Re: Debating creationists
Seeing as though there is nothing to be resolved among Christians you should be able to let us all know who is right among the following issues. I am sure you will be able to use your "reality, logic and simple common sense" and sort these issues out.

Age of the Earth -

Biblical literalists -

6000 years old

Roman Catholics -

4.5 Billion years old

Creation -

Mormons -

Is your indirect implication that you are correct in and about these matters. My point was simply that logic and reality has already decided the choices that i have, concerning creationism, evolution and ID. Opinions are realatively unimportant

I am glad you will be able to point out the correct interpretation of the Christian Faith. It should not take you too long to let all of the 2 billion or so Christians know which of them are in error and they will all be able to have 1 unified interpretation.

Coyotes statement of differences was concerning the different views of creationism amoung christians. My point was that those opinions and differences matter little when trying to decide between evolution and creationism, because they are not opposites

Secular fundamentalist atheists use this strawman argument and wedge to advance evolution and crush religion by contrasting the two items.

Theres no need for that and the only reason is to keep the ID principle, creationism and design out of the science classroom

If his implication is to imply (and it was) that because there are different views of creationism, creationism is invalid and christians are illogical and inconsistent, he is wrong and I am prepared to deal with that as well

His implication is dirty pool and sloppy debating tactics

Differences of opinion do not a contradiction make. Differences of opinion do not mean something is not logically demonstratable, atleast concerning creationism

One thing I am not sure of. As you do not believe that evolution is occuring, how are you going to convince the Roman Catholics?

If any amount of time passes evolution happens. My contacts are now dirty because they are no longer clean as a result of time and materials. Eventually they will fail completely

I only need to convince the individual person (catholic) of what is logically deonstratable and possible. If they do not accept the logic of reality, they are dishonest or not paying attention

Maybe you could make all of this tie into Hovind

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-25-2011 1:57 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Coyote, posted 07-25-2011 11:55 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 43 by Percy, posted 07-26-2011 5:24 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 352 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 40 of 349 (627043)
07-25-2011 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by hooah212002
07-25-2011 11:28 PM


Re: Back to the original topic...
I know it would be easier (and more fun) to tell tales of a magic wizard in the sky who makes it rain or created the earth

tell him what the logical and rational possibiltes are, you dont have to make stuff up at all.

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by hooah212002, posted 07-25-2011 11:28 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 41 of 349 (627044)
07-25-2011 11:42 PM


Hovind v. Shermer debate video
Here is the video from the first time Shermer and Hovind debated:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4225985675446958159


  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 185 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 42 of 349 (627045)
07-25-2011 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Dawn Bertot
07-25-2011 11:31 PM


Re: Debating creationists
Coyotes statement of differences was concerning the different views of creationism amoung christians. My point was that those opinions and differences matter little when trying to decide between evolution and creationism, because they are not opposites

No, the issue is that on the creationist side there are thousands of denominations, all believing different things. Hovind is a good example: many creationists seem to disagree with his particular beliefs.

Secular fundamentalist atheists use this strawman argument and wedge to advance evolution and crush religion by contrasting the two items.

Religion makes its own problems by having some 4,200 different types.

Of these, Christianity alone has some 42,000 different denominations.

If you folks can't agree on these matters, and have no way to judge between competing claims, don't expect to convince outsiders that your particular brand of belief is the only one that is accurate.

Theres no need for that and the only reason is to keep the ID principle, creationism and design out of the science classroom

That's a good enough reason all by itself. Preach in your churches and leave the rest of us alone.

If his implication is to imply (and it was) that because there are different views of creationism, creationism is invalid and christians are illogical and inconsistent, he is wrong and I am prepared to deal with that as well

Deal away. But first explain why there are about 42,000 different denominations of Christianity. And explain why your denomination is the only correct one. (That leaves 41,999 or so that are incorrect.)

His implication is dirty pool and sloppy debating tactics

It's not my fault you folks can't agree on your beliefs, and have so many differences among yourselves. If you all believed the same things, and had some empirical methods for demonstrating that those, and only those beliefs were correct, then maybe you'd have something. As it is, you folks all over the place. Why should we have any trust in what you are preaching to us if you have no evidence and no empirical methods for discerning who is right and who is wrong?

I'd sooner buy a used car that ran on snake oil.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-25-2011 11:31 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 43 of 349 (627046)
07-26-2011 5:24 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Dawn Bertot
07-25-2011 11:31 PM


Re: Debating creationists
Dawn Bertot writes:

Maybe you could make all of this tie into Hovind

This thread's opening post proposes working toward a debate with Hovind, but he's in jail, so the topic quickly morphed into debating creationists in general.

Probably the best way for evolutionists to achieve victory in a debate would be to debate not one creationist but a panel of them. A panel of Kent Hovind, Ken Ham and Hugh Ross would be perfect. Not wanting to contradict each other in public, they would have to remain silent and cede all their time to the lone evolutionist.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-25-2011 11:31 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Chuck77, posted 07-26-2011 5:51 AM Percy has responded
 Message 53 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-26-2011 4:53 PM Percy has responded

    
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 349 (627047)
07-26-2011 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Percy
07-26-2011 5:24 AM


Re: Debating creationists
Here ya go Percy. Not quite what you were suggesting but there is umm, a panel

It's really good. The best on youtube IMO. Check it out if you havn't already and have the time. I think the debate is a good one.

1-8 Evolution -VS- Creationism DEBATE (This is part 1 of 8)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT3NZTGCtrI

Kenneth Miller reminds me a little of Hovand. Yeah, refuting IC with a mouse trap Although he doesn't do that in this particular debate he does struggle to explain "tansitional fossils". He basically says they are "transitional" because well, he says so.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Percy, posted 07-26-2011 5:24 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Percy, posted 07-26-2011 6:24 AM Chuck77 has responded
 Message 46 by Pressie, posted 07-26-2011 6:44 AM Chuck77 has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 45 of 349 (627048)
07-26-2011 6:24 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Chuck77
07-26-2011 5:51 AM


Re: Debating creationists
That's the 1997 Firing Line debate. It's kind of long and in the first 15 minutes seems only to discuss evolution, not creation. Where in this debate do the positions of creation get discussed?

Nice to see a young(er) Eugenie Scott, and I'd never seen Michael Ruse before. By the way, Berlinski, the first creationist to take the podium, is an agnostic and a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Chuck77, posted 07-26-2011 5:51 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Chuck77, posted 07-26-2011 7:10 AM Percy has responded

    
Prev12
3
456
...
24NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019