Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,812 Year: 4,069/9,624 Month: 940/974 Week: 267/286 Day: 28/46 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   On creationists' beliefs
joz
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 59 (3869)
02-08-2002 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by KingPenguin
02-08-2002 4:47 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
/B]
Actually its just a convention I am pretty sure you will find that Muslims, Jews, the chineese etc have their own conventions as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by KingPenguin, posted 02-08-2002 4:47 PM KingPenguin has not replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 59 (4172)
02-11-2002 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Cobra_snake
02-11-2002 9:59 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
PLEASE do not turn this debate into one of these topics. These topics should be discussed in other forums.
My main arguments against evolution are:
1. Abiogenesis
2. Mutation-Selection
3. Puncuated Equilibrium
These are the sections of the theory in which I find the most unconvincing for evolution.

Just for reference could you please write a brief synopsis of what these terms mean to you, how they are supposed to work and how you find that explanation unconvincing....
This should result in a more focused debate....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-11-2002 9:59 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 59 (4179)
02-11-2002 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Cobra_snake
02-11-2002 10:33 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
1)PLEASE do not turn this debate into one of these topics. These topics should be discussed in other forums.
My main arguments against evolution are:
1. Abiogenesis
2. Mutation-Selection
3. Puncuated Equilibrium
These are the sections of the theory in which I find the most unconvincing for evolution.
2)It would not be as difficult to disprove the Atomic Theory, if indeed it were false. This is because the Atomic Theory is not too broad.

1)(just in case this got buried out of sight):
Just for reference could you please write a brief synopsis of what these terms mean to you, how they are supposed to work and how you find that explanation unconvincing....
This should result in a more focused debate....
2)Atomic theory not broad? How so?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-11-2002 10:33 PM Cobra_snake 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