Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8950 total)
26 online now:
DrJones*, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, xongsmith (4 members, 22 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,076 Year: 22,112/19,786 Month: 675/1,834 Week: 175/500 Day: 3/69 Hour: 3/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Always a laugh
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3781
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 16 of 75 (3650)
02-07-2002 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by gene90
02-07-2002 12:34 AM


Requoted from message 13:
quote:
"F. By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

Aig Statement of Faith Part F.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp


[/URL] -->]http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp[/QUOTE]

< !--UE-->

Focusing in on "...evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

I think that the fundimental failing of the fundimentalist creationist viewpoint is a refusal to recognise that "the content of the Bible has been and is subject to input by and interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

Moose

Edited to fix UBB format

------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 02-07-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by gene90, posted 02-07-2002 12:34 AM gene90 has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 510 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 17 of 75 (3654)
02-07-2002 10:36 AM


Here are some dubious Creationist credentials. Mind you, these are rather PROMINENT Creationists. these are the movers and shakers in the "field":

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html

"he following is a list of prominent (or once-prominent) creationists whose only doctoral degrees are either honorary or of suspicious origin. A degree is considered to be of suspicious origin if it was earned from a "degree mill" or an unlocatable institution. A degree mill is defined as any degree-granting body that is not accredited by a federally recognized accreditation body.

It would be wrong to infer from this list that all creationists have suspicious credentials. In fact, a good number of prominent creationists have legitimate -- even noteworthy -- doctoral degrees in scientific fields. For example, Duane Gish earned a doctorate in biochemistry from Berkeley, Steve Austin earned a doctorate in geology from Pennsylvania State University, and Kurt Wise earned his doctorate in paleontology from Harvard while studying under Stephen Jay Gould. So just because a few well-known creationists failed to earn their graduate degrees the traditional way does not mean that all or even most of them did.

Thomas Barnes (b. 1911) Thomas Barnes, formerly affiliated with the Institute for Creation Research, is perhaps best known for the argument that the decay of the Earth's magnetic field is proof of its young age.

Barnes, who is an emeritus professor of physics at The University of Texas at El Paso, holds a legitimate M.S. degree in physics from Brown University. However, his Sc.D. degree from Hardin-Simmons University, a Christian school and his undergraduate alma mater (when it was known as Hardin-Simmons College), is merely honorary.

(Thomas Barnes the creationist is not to be confused with the University of Texas at Austin's Thomas G. Barnes III, who is a highly respected astronomer and associate director of the McDonald Observatory.)

Carl Baugh (b. ?) Carl Baugh is best known as a tireless proponent of the claim that human footprints appear alongside dinosaur tracks in the Paluxy Riverbed of Glen Rose, Texas. He has appeared on numerous
Christian radio talkshows and was even touted as an "expert" on the 1996 NBC pseudoscience program, The Mysterious Origins of Man. He operates a small museum out of Glen Rose, Texas.

Baugh is a Baptist minister who claims to be an archeologist with a Ph.D. from the California Graduate School of Theology in Los Angeles. This school is unaccredited by the Western Assocation of Schools and Colleges, the primary body responsible for college and university
accreditation in the region. It is also unaccredited by the state of California, although it is listed as "approved".

Baugh has also claimed Ph.D. degrees in education and anthropology from the Pacific College of Graduate Studies in Melbourne, Australia and the College of Advanced Education in Irving, Texas. According to Glen Kuban, who has thoroughly researched Baugh's Paluxy "man-track" claims and his credentials, neither Pacific College nor the College of Advanced Education is accredited or authorized by any regional or national body to grant degrees [4]. Pacific College is a small religious school run by Australian creationist Clifford Wilson, a close associate of Baugh's. The College of Advanced Education is a division of the International Baptist College, of which Baugh himself is president.

Baugh's dissertation for his degree from Pacific College is titled "Academic Justification for Voluntary Inclusion of Scientific Creation in Public Classroom Curricula, Supported by Evidence that Man and
dinosaurs were Contemporary". Its contents include descriptions of his field-work on the Paluxy river "man-tracks", speculation about Charles Darwin's religious beliefs and phobias, and odd ramblings about the biblical Adam's mental excellence.

Richard Bliss (1923-1994) Richard Bliss, formerly a member of the ICR staff, claimed to be "a recognized expert in the field of science education" and was co-author of a "two-model" book that creationists have pushed for use in the public school system.

Bliss claimed to earn a D.Ed. from the University of Sarasota in 1978. A previous version of this article described the university as a "diploma mill operating out of a Florida motel" as late as 1984. However, the university's status has since improved. The University of Sarasota was accredited in 1990 by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools to grant masters and doctoral degrees. According to the 1997 edition of Bears' Guide to Earning College Degrees Nontraditionally [1], a student's total residency at the University of Sarasota can be as short as six weeks.

Clifford Burdick (1894-1992) Clifford Burdick, a researcher for the Creation Research Society and a member of the Creation-Science Research Center, is a "flood" geologist who has spent forty years trying to prove that giant humans once roamed the earth and even mingled with the dinosaurs.

Burdick has displayed a copy of his Ph.D. from the University of Physical Sciences (Phoenix, Arizona) in Carl Baugh's Glen Rose Creation Evidence Museum. According to Ronald Numbers' The Creationists [2]: "[Creationist Walter Lammerts'] inquiries revealed the University of Physical Science to be nothing more than a registered trademark. As described in its memographed bulletin, 'The University is not an educational institution, but a society of individuals of common interest for the advancement of physical science. There are no campus, professors or tuition fee.'"

John Grebe (1900-1984) John Grebe, an old-earth creationist and a founding member of the Creation Research Society, was a physical chemist and inventor. His Sc.D. degree from Case School of Applied Science was merely honorary.

Kent Hovind (b. 195?) Kent Hovind is a young-earth creationist who gives frequent public lectures on evolution and creationism. He is well-known for repeating the claim that the remains of a basking shark found by Japanese fishermen off the coast of New Zealand were actually those of a recently deceased plesiosaur.

Hovind claims to possess a masters degree and a doctorate in education from Patriot University in Colorado. According to Hovind, his 250-page dissertation was on the topic of the dangers of teaching evolution in the public schools. Formerly affiliated with Hilltop Baptist Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, Patriot University is accredited only by the American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions, an accreditation mill that provides accreditation for a $100 charge. Patriot University has moved to Alamosa, Colorado and continues to offer correspondence courses for $15 to $32 per credit. The school's catalog contains course descriptions but no listing of the school's faculty or their credentials. Name It and Frame It lists Patriot University as a degree mill [3].

Don Patton (b. ?) Don Patton is a young-earth creationist who, along with Carl Baugh, is known as a proponent of the claim that human footprints appear alongside dinosaur tracks in the Paluxy Riverbed of Glen Rose, Texas. Patton has claimed Ph.D. candidacy in geology from Queensland Christian University in Australia. According to Glen Kuban:

When I asked Patton for clarification on this during the [1989 Bible-Science] conference, he stated that he had no degrees, but was about to receive a Ph.D. degree in geology, pending accreditation of QCU, which he assured me was "three days away." Many days have since passed, and Patton still has no valid degree in geology.Nor is the accreditation of QCU imminent. [4]

Glen Kuban has written more extensively on Patton's claimed degrees in his articles on the Paluxy "man-tracks".

Kelly Segraves (b. 1942) Kelly Segraves is the director and co-founder of the Creation-Science Research Center (not to be confused with the Creation Research Society). In 1975, Segraves listed himself as M.A. and D.Sc. on CSRC letterhead. Segraves claimed his honorary D.Sc. from Christian University, but no such university could be located. It is possible that he was referring to Indiana Christian University, which also conferred an honorary doctorate on Harold Slusher (see below). After having this degree called into question, Segraves dropped the
D.Sc. in 1981 and now lists D.R.E. in its place. A D.R.E. degree is a doctorate of religious education and does not qualify as a scientific degree.

Segraves also claims to have received his M.A. from Sequoia University in 1972. According to Bears' Guide [1], Sequoia University was issued a permanent injunction in 1984 by a Los Angeles judge and ordered to "cease operation until the school could comply with state education laws." The school offered degrees in osteopathic medicine, religious studies, hydrotherapy and physical sciences.

Harold Slusher (b. 1934) Harold S. Slusher, formerly of the Institute for Creation Research, is best known for his critiques of radiometric dating techniques. He is also known for the rather bizarre suggestion that the universe is much smaller than it appears, because its geometry is Riemannian as opposed to Euclidean.

Slusher claims to hold an honorary D.Sc. from Indiana Christian University and a Ph.D. in geophysics from Columbia Pacific University. Robert Schadewald discovered that Indiana Christian University is a Bible College with only a 1/2 man graduate science department. As for Columbia Pacific, it "exhibits several qualities of a degree mill" [3]. Ronald Numbers describes CPU as an unaccredited correspondence school that recruited students with the lure of a degree "in less than a year." Slusher's dissertation consisted of a manila folder containing copies of five memographed ICR "technical monographs" and a copy of the ICR graduate school catalog, all held together with a rubber band. The supervising professor was his creationist colleague from El Paso and the ICR, [Thomas] Barnes, who himself possessed only an honorary doctorate. [2]

According to Bears' Guide [1], Columbia Pacific was denied its application for state license renewal in early 1996 for undisclosed reasons. The university appealed the decision in late 1996, but the
appeal had not been acted upon by the time Bears' Guide went to press.

Acknowledgements

This document is a heavily revised version of an article written for talk.origins by Michael Cranford. I would like to thank Richard Trott, Robert Schadewald, Jim Foley, and Ed Brayton for their helpful information, comments and suggestions.

References

[1] John B. Bear and Mariah P. Bear, Bears' Guide to Earning College Degrees Nontraditionally (C&B Publishing, Benicia, California 1997).

[2] Ronald Numbers, The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism (University of California Press, Berkeley, 1991).

[3] Steve Levikoff, Name It and Frame It? New Opportunities in Adult Education and How to Avoid Being Ripped Off by 'Christian' Degree Mills, 4th ed. (1995),
available at <http://training.loyola.edu/cdld/nifi.html>, last accessed on June 24, 1998.

[4] Glen Kuban, The Texas Dinosaur/"Man Track" Controversy (1986), available at <http://members.aol.com/Paluxy2/paluxy.htm>, last accessed on June 24, 1998.


Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by KingPenguin, posted 02-08-2002 4:31 PM nator has not yet responded

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 75 (3700)
02-07-2002 3:28 PM


The whole "Creation scientists find facts to fit around a theory" is total hypocrisy. I'm sure most evolutionists start out with their theory, and then find facts to fit. If you can prove me wrong about this, I will be very suprised. Just because evolutionists don't have a statement of faith, they still are subject to the act of bias. And not all Creation scientists have signed a statement of faith. Gary Parker actually CONVERTED after he re-analyzed the facts!

Please, somebody prove me wrong or stop claiming this silly argument!


Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by gene90, posted 02-07-2002 4:09 PM Cobra_snake has not yet responded
 Message 20 by mark24, posted 02-07-2002 4:54 PM Cobra_snake has not yet responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 2163 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 19 of 75 (3713)
02-07-2002 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Cobra_snake
02-07-2002 3:28 PM


[QUOTE][b]The whole "Creation scientists find facts to fit around a theory" is total hypocrisy. I'm sure most evolutionists start out with their theory, and then find facts to fit.[/QUOTE]

[/b]

No, but they look for facts to test it. Note also that the theory of evolution was the result of 20 years of observation on behalf of Darwin and Wallace. They didn't make up the theory and then spend 20 years trying to shoehorn evidence.

Also you cannot simply ignore evidence you don't like, because evidence does not go away when you ignore it. AiG, however, comes right out and states that any evidence they don't like they throw out (Part F of their Statement of Faith). ICR and others strongly imply it by stating that the Bible is infallible. We also know that the Creation Research Society Quarterly requires members to adhere to their statement of faith and that their journal has a policy of rejecting all papers that do not adhere to the Creationist view.

How many scientific journals can you find that do that?

[QUOTE][b]If you can prove me wrong about this, I will be very suprised.[/QUOTE]

[/b]

We can't agree on a definition of proof, remember? Because it does not exist outside of mathematics.

[QUOTE][b]Just because evolutionists don't have a statement of faith, [/QUOTE]

[/b]

Why do Creationists need a Statement of Faith? Because so much evidence is piled against them it is impossible to be a Creationist without rejecting any and all evidence that contradicts the Bible. That is not science, it fits no definition of science, and to even call it a science is offensive to real scientists.

[QUOTE][b]they still are subject to the act of bias.[/QUOTE]

[/b]

I'd be surprised if you can back that up. Are you familiar with the peer-review system?

[QUOTE][b]And not all Creation scientists have signed a statement of
[/QUOTE]

[/b]

I'm sure that if an ornithologist examines enough ravins, he'll find an albino bird. Does that mean that as a general rule, ravins are not black? Does one "Creation Scientist" a rule make? No. Do Statements of Faith from the leading groups show a general trend that applies to most all Creationists? Probably. Is "Creation Science" science? No.

[QUOTE][b]Gary Parker actually CONVERTED after he re-analyzed the facts![/QUOTE]

[/b]

An evolutionist became a creationist. What does that show? What about the Creationists who became evolutionists?

[This message has been edited by gene90, 02-07-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-07-2002 3:28 PM Cobra_snake has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3535 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 20 of 75 (3721)
02-07-2002 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Cobra_snake
02-07-2002 3:28 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
The whole "Creation scientists find facts to fit around a theory" is total hypocrisy. I'm sure most evolutionists start out with their theory, and then find facts to fit. If you can prove me wrong about this, I will be very suprised. Just because evolutionists don't have a statement of faith, they still are subject to the act of bias. And not all Creation scientists have signed a statement of faith. Gary Parker actually CONVERTED after he re-analyzed the facts!

Please, somebody prove me wrong or stop claiming this silly argument!


http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/buffon2.html

“Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon (1707-1788)

Sometimes it is hard to imagine how revolutionary an idea was, especially when that idea is currently accepted as common knowledge. Many such ideas appear simple and are often taught at the elementary school level, yet the simplicity of these ideas belies the complexity involved in their origins.
During the eighteenth century, two church doctrines provided sweeping biblical explanations for most questions about biological diversity: Separate Creation, the idea that all creatures have been created independently of one another by God and organized into a hierarchy ("chain of being") with Man occupying the most elevated rank beneath God; and the 6,000 year limit on the age of the planet.
It is not the average person who questions two thousand years of dogma, but that is what Buffon did: 100 years before Darwin, Buffon, in his Historie Naturelle, a 44 volume encyclopedia describing everything known about the natural world, wrestled with the similarities of humans and apes and even talked about common ancestry of Man and apes.”

Evidence : Morphological similarity between organisms. Heritable traits.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/Edarwin.html

“Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802)

Charles Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, was one of the leading intellectuals of eighteenth century England, a man with a remarkable array of interests and pursuits. Erasmus Darwin was a respected physician, a well known poet, philosopher, botanist, and naturalist.
As a naturalist, he formulated one of the first formal theories on evolution in Zoonomia, or, The Laws of Organic Life (1794-1796). He also presented his evolutionary ideas in verse, in particular in the posthumously published poem The Temple of Nature. Although he did not come up with natural selection, he did discuss ideas that his grandson elaborated on sixty years later, such as how life evolved from a single common ancestor, forming "one living filament". He wrestled with the question of how one species could evolve into another. Although some of his ideas on how evolution might occur are quite close to those of Lamarck, Erasmus Darwin also talked about how competition and sexual selection could cause changes in species: "The final course of this contest among males seems to be, that the strongest and most active animal should propogate the species which should thus be improved". Erasmus Darwin arrived at his conclusions through an "integrative" approach: he used his observations of domesticated animals, the behaviour of wildlife, and he integrated his vast knowledge of many different fields, such as paleontology, biogeography, systematics, embryology, and comparative anatomy.”

Evidences : paleontology, biogeography, systematics, embryology, and comparative anatomy.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/lamarck.html

“Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829)

While the mechanism of Lamarckian evolution is quite different from that proposed by Darwin, the predicted result is the same: adaptive change in lineages, ultimately driven by environmental change, over long periods of time. It is interesting to note that Lamarck cited in support of his theory of evolution many of the same lines of evidence that Darwin was to use in the Origin of Species. Lamarck's Philosophie zoologique mentions the great variety of animal and plant forms produced under human cultivation (Lamarck even anticipated Darwin in mentioning fantail pigeons!); the presence of vestigial, non-functional structures in many animals; and the presence of embryonic structures that have no counterpart in the adult.”

Evidences : Vestigial structures, & embryo developemental structure.

We haven’t even reached his nibs, Charlie Darwin yet, & we already have :

Morphological similarity between organisms, heritable traits, paleontology, biogeography, systematics, embryology, vestigial structure, and comparative anatomy.

All these observations BEFORE Charles Darwin came along with natural selection, & the seed of the modern ToE.

Now, what had the bible got at the same period in history? Alleged divine revelation.

Charles Darwin based his theory on EVIDENCE.

EVIDENCE FIRST, THEORY LATER. The scientific method, no less.

quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

"Please, somebody prove me wrong or stop claiming this silly argument!"

My pleasure.

It really is intellectually bankrupt to try to claim evolutionary theory is based on pure faith & bias. The theory has had prediction after prediction come true, this is not faith or bias.

All you are attempting to do is drag true science down to creation "sciences" depth, & it is simply too bouyant.

If you claim scientific bias at the point of delivery, then produce a paper that you think has such bias, after being put through the rigours of peer review, having predictions born out, etc.

If you can't, the conventional wisdom is to retract your accusation.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-07-2002 3:28 PM Cobra_snake has not yet responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 75 (3776)
02-07-2002 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by gene90
02-07-2002 12:34 AM


The problem is, that creation science, all it is is the evidence, its not how creationism gives its conclusion. As for the statements of faith on various web sites, that is their creationist beleifs sealed in a box, any faith is not included in creation science.

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by gene90, posted 02-07-2002 12:34 AM gene90 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by gene90, posted 02-07-2002 11:17 PM TrueCreation has responded
 Message 24 by toff, posted 02-08-2002 2:49 AM TrueCreation has not yet responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 2163 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 22 of 75 (3779)
02-07-2002 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by TrueCreation
02-07-2002 11:03 PM


[QUOTE][b]any faith is not included in creation science.[/QUOTE]

[/b]

I'm sorry, but please go back and read those Statements of Faith, the ones that they require their members to adhere to.

How you can deny something made obvious is far beyond me. You might as well be saying that the Earth is flat or that things fall up.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by TrueCreation, posted 02-07-2002 11:03 PM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by TrueCreation, posted 02-08-2002 1:14 PM gene90 has responded

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 75 (3784)
02-08-2002 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by TrueCreation
02-06-2002 11:46 AM


Sorry to be lazy but here are some references to creationist dishonesty, false credentials and misquotations for those who might be interested or amused.

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/creationist_out_of_context_quotes.htm
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/creationist_frauds.htm


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by TrueCreation, posted 02-06-2002 11:46 AM TrueCreation has not yet responded

  
toff
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 75 (3785)
02-08-2002 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by TrueCreation
02-07-2002 11:03 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
The problem is, that creation science, all it is is the evidence

No, TrueCreation, creation 'science' has nothing to do with the evidence. As has been amply shown above, one of the tenets of creation science is to completely discard evidence that does not fit the creationist model. Creationists do not look for evidence, and then mold a theory around what they find (as scientists do). Creationists have a theory, and look for evidence to confirm it, discarding that which does not. That is not science, it's not even intellectually honest.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by TrueCreation, posted 02-07-2002 11:03 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 75 (3848)
02-08-2002 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by gene90
02-07-2002 11:17 PM


Thats their Creationist accusations, not making relevance to creation science. Creationism and Creation science are different concepts.

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by gene90, posted 02-07-2002 11:17 PM gene90 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by gene90, posted 02-09-2002 5:18 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded
 Message 33 by lbhandli, posted 02-09-2002 10:09 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded
 Message 61 by toff, posted 02-12-2002 1:45 AM TrueCreation has responded

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 6224 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 26 of 75 (3866)
02-08-2002 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by nator
02-07-2002 10:36 AM


i havent yet heard of those scientists until you mentioned them. even then they only effect the theories that they work on.

------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by nator, posted 02-07-2002 10:36 AM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by lbhandli, posted 02-08-2002 5:24 PM KingPenguin has not yet responded

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 75 (3874)
02-08-2002 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by KingPenguin
02-08-2002 4:31 PM


Gee, then what 'theories' would you like to discuss?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by KingPenguin, posted 02-08-2002 4:31 PM KingPenguin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by TrueCreation, posted 02-08-2002 5:35 PM lbhandli has responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 75 (3877)
02-08-2002 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by lbhandli
02-08-2002 5:24 PM


"Gee, then what 'theories' would you like to discuss?"
--Whichever one you would like to hear and discuss.

------------------

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-08-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by lbhandli, posted 02-08-2002 5:24 PM lbhandli has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by lbhandli, posted 02-08-2002 9:22 PM TrueCreation has responded

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 75 (3896)
02-08-2002 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by TrueCreation
02-08-2002 5:35 PM


Give me a scientific theory that relates to creationism. I keep asking and you disappear when I ask.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by TrueCreation, posted 02-08-2002 5:35 PM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by TrueCreation, posted 02-09-2002 12:27 AM lbhandli has responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 75 (3903)
02-09-2002 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by lbhandli
02-08-2002 9:22 PM


"Give me a scientific theory that relates to creationism. I keep asking and you disappear when I ask."
--Hm.. I don't think I disapear, I know I've addressed this before, I would like you to tell me what you would like to be associated with? What kind of explination would you like. There is a Theory for everything really that the creationists have, lets discuss one of a specific nature. I would find it more interesting if you would tell me what you would like me to explain, like I would rather ask you how you explain something. Probley because I don't have the Evolutionist mind-set, that is, It is harder for me to point out fallacies on the creationist side than the Evolutionists.

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by lbhandli, posted 02-08-2002 9:22 PM lbhandli has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by lbhandli, posted 02-09-2002 10:08 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019