 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Darwin's Witnesses
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Musket Date: 06 Mar 14 - 06:00 AM Religion however isn't a theory, or at least not in the established religion way. You observe and you put a theory as to why that happened. Easy. Gravity, evolution, only putting a single goal past Denmark last night etc. You observe and try to figure out why it happened. The theory representing a working hypothesis. Religion started like that. The rain comes? God did it. The other lot kicked the shit out of our soldiers? God was unhappy. We have famine? God punishes us. We are enjoying life too much? God'll put a stop to that malarkey! What gives you the right to be the boss and order us around? God put me here. However, as superstition decreases and science informs our lives more, the theory of God did it doesn't hold for a single second on a single subject. Except perhaps the very last one I stated? All you need to know in that one sentence. Perhaps I'm God? I know who will be the first one here that I will out a painful boil on the arse of..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Dave the Gnome Date: 06 Mar 14 - 05:47 AM Tell me where I can see some evolution. Michigan State University maybe? Dozens of others but that was the first on a simple search. Evolution happens Gravity happens Both theories are that. Theories. Simple really. DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Musket Date: 06 Mar 14 - 05:10 AM Snails crawling around and ignoring the beer and salt traps I put out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: TheSnail Date: 06 Mar 14 - 05:03 AM Troubadour Evolution happens! FACT! (or to put it another way, TRUE!) I have asked Steve and got no response. Tell me where I can see some evolution. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Musket Date: 06 Mar 14 - 03:38 AM I noticed a snippet from pete that sums this up nicely. He said in his last post that creationists believe in gravity. Now... I don't know how many creationists there are, or whether the default position for a sentient being is to be a creationist until decided otherwise, or not a creationist until decided otherwise, but to believe in gravity? Do they believe in gravity because when they jump up, they come back down again? Do they believe that if you carry out calculations using Newtonian formulae they have a knack of being consistent? Do they believe the theory of gravitons? How do you believe in an observable phenomenon that has had a word attached to it? I do see where he is coming from. Descartes said, I think therefore I am. In other words, I have to believe in gravity for it to exist. Lots of people splattered on the ground at the foot of cliffs over the years, contesting for the Darwin awards. We see the same silly notion here on Mudcat in other discussions too. We have some one who analyses every word you put and goes to see if he can find any corroboration or triangulation on dubious websites. Your position is subject to him believing it, and in that regard whether it fits with his prejudice. If he can't find it or indeed finds it and then spends time finding something to contradict it, he calls you a liar. Regardless of whether you were honest or not, it rather spoils the idea of debate, and is boorish. I am sure there are websites where you "debate" by playing top trumps with hyperlinks, but most on Mudcat do actually like to debate. Respect can be relative, but so can gravity. (See Newton's bucket for details.) pete however does give good entertainment. Yes, his dishonesty is appalling when you think how many people abuse children by feeding them such rubbish, but he is at least willing to debate it. Expect with me. Or Jack. Or Steve. Or God. (Not you Dave, sit down...) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 06 Mar 14 - 03:12 AM Well said, Bill D. But we both know that, whatever we tell him, pete will go on persistently, blindly and/or wilfully confusing 'belief' and 'evidence'. For example, he insists on BELIEVING that 'all came from something via someone' but the only evidence that he can present is that 'it-says-so-in-the-Bible'. He also refuses to even think about the further implications of his beliefs e.g. if God created everything, where did he get the materials and where did He come from and who created HIM from what materials? All that he can come up with is that he BELIEVES that God is ineffable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Bill D Date: 05 Mar 14 - 10:57 PM Pete.. re: " I leave the doubting of operational science to atheists who think all came from nothing via no one." Tell me which ones actually said that. Some 'may' think that, but most, like me, simply say they do not know! It is not so much a matter of asserting "something came from nothing", but of saying "I don't know... and YOU don't either!" The burden of proof is on the asserter. Pointing to one religious book among many is not the kind of proof that scientists require. Some of them are comparing various arcane cosmological/physical theories based on math, particle physics...and sometimse just plain 'creative wondering'... to speculate about multiple universes, multiple dimensions, endless-loop collapsing/reconstituting universes.... etc. But none of them have anything like 'proof', and most will admit they might never get a comfortable answer. It is theology which provides 'comfortable' answers.... or rather, dozens of answers comfortable to various people and cultures, most of which are just versions of "God did it!" Pretty easy, hmm? No more complex math or confusing measurements of astronomical phenomena! Wow... just some books translated from old manuscripts copied by fallible scribes who were usually just dedicated clerks who were told WHAT to copy. And what they copied were stories that served a purpose... sometimes political... sometimes psychological... sometimes coherent... sometimes contradictory- but all of which must "believed in order to be believed". And THAT is a paradigm example of "circular argument", "assuming the consequent", and a couple other fallacious bits of reasoning. Pete... most scientists do not BOTHER to 'deny' those stories... they just don't 'accept' them..... they are busy trying to see just how much they CAN find out about everything. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: GUEST,An Actual... Date: 05 Mar 14 - 09:30 PM gravity is observable, testable science Pete If you did not see the parallels, you are lost. I feel kinda bad... I am off to argue with a three year old to feel better. Next time you say "I am not up on all the science, but..." Just substitute a period for everything after "science". Really. And next time the Doc gives you a ten-day course of antibiotics,just stop after one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Jack the Sailor Date: 05 Mar 14 - 08:53 PM Troubadour, I am with TheSnail on this. I don't really mind that he thinks that evolution is true but it irks me when he lords his scienceness over others when he says so. Here is a proposal. I've looked it up. I can't find anyone but Steve and now you who has said "evolution is true." When I was studying Chemistry, Physics and Psychology in University I was told not to say things like that. I think that Steve in his zeal is overreaching and overstating the case. Tell you what though. Find a respected scientist with a reasoned argument who claims "evolution is true" and I will read it thoroughly and keep an open mind. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: GUEST,Troubadour Date: 05 Mar 14 - 08:25 PM Why oh why Snail, do you persist in misrepresenting Steve's POV? Evolution happens! FACT! (or to put it another way, TRUE!) The theory by which it may one day be almost fully explained, is a WORK IN PROGRESS! That is what I hear from Steve. Why do you hear something entirely different? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: TheSnail Date: 05 Mar 14 - 08:04 PM As all literate persons here might glean for themselves (if they could be arsed), 'twas YOUR quasi-philosophical burblings that I was farting in the general direction of. But Steve, as you have been so fond of pointing out in the past, I make no original contributions of my own. I have made no philosophical burblings, quasi or otherwise. All I have done is cite the work of others, mainly Popper but suppiorted by quotes from the famous as varied as Einstein and Dawkins along with contributors to this thread. Please enlighten me as to anything I have said that you consider to be "quasi-philosophical burblings". Neither Newton nor Popper burbled Excellent! I am glad to see that you have finally taken on board what Popper was saying. You have embraced falsifiabilty. You have recognised that science doesn't do "True". Welcome into the fold of modern scientific thought. I am glad to see that you will no longer be proclaiming (with religious fervour) "Evolution is true!". Well, I can dream. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Mar 14 - 07:08 PM I just watched 'Gravity'. I now have a few theories of my own. Mainly involving Sandra Bullock in vest and knickers. Yeah, I've seen it too and harbour similar sentiments. Not only her vest and knickers but all those little girlie grunts and sighs. Cor. It's sex, Jim, but not as we know it... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: GUEST,Troubadour Date: 05 Mar 14 - 06:46 PM "Since the flood at least, we have had free will and are not to be punished for exercising it. " So if I choose to exercise my God given free will and serve you up a .44 Magnum suppository, that's OK with your God? WOW! I can really go to town on the people I don't like, and then tell the boss he's wrong to punish me? I don't think you meant to SAY that! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Jack the Sailor Date: 05 Mar 14 - 06:26 PM Don't worry. He is ignoring me because I said Ham is a liar and if pete doesn't learn what science is then he is one too because it is dishonest to claim to know science is wrong when you don't have a clue what science is. I was comparing him to Adam and Eve in the garden. Once they put leaves on their naughty bits they showed God that they had disobeyed. Likewise once pete argues until painted into a corner until he admits ignorance about the topic. He does not get to do the same thing repeatedly. It is his responsibility to correct that short coming in his knowledge before again telling people they are wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: frogprince Date: 05 Mar 14 - 06:03 PM Yo, Jack; I was just curious to see how Pete might rationalize the differences in the stories in the effort to make them hold up as accurate literal accounts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Dave the Gnome Date: 05 Mar 14 - 05:19 PM I just watched 'Gravity'. I now have a few theories of my own. Mainly involving Sandra Bullock in vest and knickers. DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Jack the Sailor Date: 05 Mar 14 - 03:42 PM Penny :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Jack the Sailor Date: 05 Mar 14 - 03:41 PM If it is a story, it could be two versions from different points of view. The entire creation point of view vs the Eden centric views for the telling of the fall from grace story. But as a science text, as proof that this was the true story of and omniscient creator, divine, error free word of that creator, it falls short. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Penny S. Date: 05 Mar 14 - 03:40 PM Given the nature of platypus DNA, it probably is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: frogprince Date: 05 Mar 14 - 03:32 PM Pardon me while I "drift" back to a prior point in the discussion: Pete assured us that what some take to be discrepancies between the first and second creation narratives in Genesis are actually simply a matter of the second narrative focusing in on some of the details. Genesis 1:11-13 tell us that plant life was created on the third day. Verses 26-31 tell us that human beings, male and female, were created on the sixth day. Genesis 2:4-7 narrates how, before there was plant life, God created Adam. God then planted the garden of Eden for him. Does "focusing in on some of the details" mean that the narrator first focused from one end of time, and then focused from the other end of time? Or? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Jack the Sailor Date: 05 Mar 14 - 03:06 PM Hmmm a Tasmanian devil and a Koala are the same "kind" of animal in that they are both marsupial but they are wildly different species which could not possibly interbreed. I think the Ken Hamian definition of "kind" leaves much, much too much wiggle room. But the picture it paints of pete's theory of natural selection becomes more and more amusing. In the 4,000 years since the flood did some Asian marsupial migrate to Australia then branch out to become each _kind_ found today? Or did carnivores and Herbivores and other kinds of animals migrate there and spontaneously and simultaneously lose their placentas. Is the platypus the only remaining four footed creeping fowl? Certainly there seen to be enough wild theories to fill a $23,000,000 museum. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Greg F. Date: 05 Mar 14 - 02:42 PM this is not just a Christian and theoretical issue: Of course not- its an issue of the brain-dead Vs. reality, whatever the religious persuasion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: DMcG Date: 05 Mar 14 - 02:23 PM Ok, I'll throw in another step we need sometime, that I don't think you will have much objection to. It is relatively difficult for a land based animal in Australasia to move elsewhere. Birds and aquatic creatures, not so bad, but it is tough for a land animal. So land animal populations in Australia tend to stay there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: DMcG Date: 05 Mar 14 - 02:10 PM and pretty much seems to accord with creationist belief....assuming that when you say "new species" we are talking about the same kind of animal Well, of course, the theory is precisely that it is not the same kind of animal. But that's fine, because as I say the question was not whether it is thought to be true, but whether it is an accurate statement of the theory of evolution. Am I right, then, in thinking that it is an accurate statement of what you think the evolutionist's view is? If so, we can get onto the next step rather faster than I thought. Because, as a matter of logic, the new species that the theory claims occur (even if you disagree with the theory, I can't see how you can disagree the theory claims it) will share characteristics of the ancestor that were not those giving rise to the different species. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 05 Mar 14 - 02:00 PM well played steve. my wife liked it also. dmcg,-thanks but I did not see much to argue with there , and pretty much seems to accord with creationist belief....assuming that when you say "new species" we are talking about the same kind of animal. but I think you misunderstood, as I was only asking what the convincing theory was concerning the geographical settling of marsupials. actual,- gravity is observable, testable science , which is why creationists believe in it. I leave the doubting of operational science to atheists who think all came from nothing via no one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: DMcG Date: 05 Mar 14 - 01:41 PM Thread drift, I know, but it is worth reminding ourselves that this is not just a Christian and theoretical issue: ========================================= BBC News 4 March 2014 Last updated at 20:57 GMT A Jewish girls school in Hackney has been redacting questions on evolution on science exam papers because they do not fit in with their beliefs. Fifty-two papers were altered by Yesodey Hatorah Senior Girls' School to remove questions on evolution. The examinations body, OCR, says it was satisfied that the girls did not have an unfair advantage. It now plans to allow the practice, saying it has come to an agreement with the school to protect the future integrity of the exams. ========================================= The decision of OCR seems very dubious to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Musket Date: 05 Mar 14 - 12:21 PM Huh. I tried loving my neighbour. I still have half the T Shirt. Dave, there were no profits! Officer.. Dunno about gravity, but my mate reckons the earth sucks. Will that do? I used to try to distinguish between the fact by observation and the theory by deduction in my own work years ago. A Prof tried using gravity rather mischievously by asking me, when challenging the ratio of displacement in a vibro feeder to its concreted in base, whether we could use that to deduce the natural frequency of the planet? In short, you can prove gravity not to exist as there is no reference point out of the universe that is not subject to gravity, so it is cannot be relative except to er.. Gravity.... I've emptied a few breweries along the way trying to get around that one, and to this day I reckon he was taking the piss. Still, if it looks like the effect of gravity and feels like the effect of gravity, it probably quacks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Jack the Sailor Date: 05 Mar 14 - 12:11 PM Cute satirical piece An Actual. It seems that the intended audience are those that understand gravity and the basic math. F = G x (m_1 X m_2}/{r^2} Obviously if you know the math, masses and distances you could calculate the relative attraction of the sun and earth on the moon. I would think that if you didn't know the math, the arguments would not seem as funny. There obviously is no theory of gravity effective at both relativity and quantum mechanics scales. Isn't that one of the goals of modern physics? Isn't that one of the things that string theory was invented to account for? Might one say that some iterations of string theory are, in fact, unproven theories of gravity? That is my understanding of it anyway. The good thing about gravity is that to "prove" it all we have to do is drop an anvil on a creationist's head and say, "the reason that hurts so much is a phenomenon scientists call gravity." IMHO the issue with "creation scientists" is their often intentional distortion of definitions of words such as "belief", "theory" and especially "scientist" to place doubt in the minds of people who can't or won't do the math. The issue with people who believe that "creation science" has anything to do with science is that they will not take the trouble to learn what science is. Bill D expresses this far more eloquently than I do in terms of logic and etymology. I was entertained by the thoughts above and wanted to share them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Jack the Sailor Date: 05 Mar 14 - 11:30 AM >>From: Steve Shaw - PM Date: 04 Mar 14 - 07:39 PM Jesus came up with love thy neighbor. But no government has ever tried to do that. Neither has any major religion. << I think these guys try to live it. They do a good job of taking care of the down and out everywhere that I have lived. They were founded in your country. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: GUEST,An Actual Scientist Date: 05 Mar 14 - 11:21 AM No doubt pete will see the impeccable reasoning in this: Belief in Gravity Requires Faith Points out (quite cleverly) the utter failure of the theory of gravity to explain *everything* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Greg F. Date: 05 Mar 14 - 10:21 AM Unless I can prove otherwise by quoting what must be true because it is on the internet ;-) Or, becuz God sez so. ;>) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Dave the Gnome Date: 05 Mar 14 - 10:06 AM Ah - OK. Sounds too sciencey for me so I will rely on the word of an actual scientist. :-) Unless I can prove otherwise by quoting what must be true because it is on the internet ;-) DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: GUEST,An Actual Scientist Date: 05 Mar 14 - 09:47 AM None that are effective at both relativity and quantum mechanics scales. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Dave the Gnome Date: 05 Mar 14 - 08:04 AM 'ere, when we were running our bingo DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Dave the Gnome Date: 05 Mar 14 - 07:54 AM Now, the theory of gravity... is terrible. In fact there isn't one. I thought there were a few? DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: GUEST,An Actual Scientist Date: 05 Mar 14 - 07:18 AM Quite correct. One must be careful to separate the *fact* of evolution from the theory of evolution. The theory always needs tweaking, but the fact is undeniable. Gravity is a good example. Does anyone deny the *fact* of gravity? Of course not! Now, the theory of gravity... is terrible. In fact there isn't one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: DMcG Date: 05 Mar 14 - 07:14 AM My other fear about this discourse was well expressed by Lewis Carroll in one of his less well known writings ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Mar 14 - 06:25 AM Evolution, to sane people, by the definition we apply to it, happens. If you deny that evolution happens you are in the same camp as flat-earthers or chocolate teapotters. That's what I mean when I say it's true. The theory of evolution is derived from the evidence that tells us that evolution is true. There is still plenty more to explain and argue about, but the general thrust of evolution in action can never be overturned. It is the theory that is the explanation. It's one of the best explanations we have for any natural phenomenon, but it is just the explanation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Mar 14 - 06:16 AM Darwin was at pains to point out that natural selection acts on heritable traits (he hadn't heard of genes), not on individual members of species. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Dave the Gnome Date: 05 Mar 14 - 05:30 AM Damn! Sussed right away. What you get for working with deities... DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: GUEST,Musket Date: 05 Mar 14 - 04:57 AM Oy! The job description we agreed to, subject to references, satisfactory occupational health return and consideration of psychometric reports was as follows: Co Messiah Emeritus with Gnomish attributes. Doesn't say anything about Dave the God. pete can spot false prophets you know. It goes with the territory. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Dave the Gnome Date: 05 Mar 14 - 03:41 AM I'm getting angry, Pete. I told you I was God and I didn't create everything. Why won't you believe me? Have you lost your faith? If this doubting doesn't stop immediately something bad will happen. Not straight away, but you watch. When something bad happens, you will know it is your fault for not obeying me!!! Dave the God. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 05 Mar 14 - 03:10 AM " ... it seems that the Hebrew word translated "creeping things" has a wide range but understood to mean reptiles, because of the qualifier ...nostrils." You'd think, wouldn't you, that if God had gone to the effort of creating all of these creatures, his taxonomy would be a bit more exact. You could claim - and no doubt you will, pete - that something of his infinite, omniscient exactitude has been lost in translation but a trifle like translation shouldn't be a problem to an infinite, omniscient being ... should it? I wouldn't argue with your outline of the Theory of Evolution, DMcG - but pete will. That's because he chooses not to believe it and chooses to believe piffle instead. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: DMcG Date: 05 Mar 14 - 02:09 AM Sigh. Ok, pete, I will give that explanation, but I fear it will be like drawing teeth. We will have to do it in very small steps, so it may take many, many posts, but here we go. The basis of the theory of evolution is: 1. Inheritance: characteristics are passed from parents to offspring. 2. Variation: individuals have slightly different inheritances. 3. Natural Selection: The chances of surviving to maturity can be affected by this variation 4. Speciation: With enough accumulated differences, decedents of a given collection of creatures can become sufficiently different they are different species. Now, to be absolutely clear whether we think that is true or not is not the question. All we are interested in is whether it is an accurate description of the theory. And for other readers of the thread, I'm doing my best to keep it to the simplest form, so I appreciate I haven't, for example, even mentioned genes. pete: Do you agree it is an accurate description of the theory? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Steve Shaw Date: 04 Mar 14 - 07:39 PM Jesus came up with love thy neighbor. But no government has ever tried to do that. Neither has any major religion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Steve Shaw Date: 04 Mar 14 - 07:34 PM I doubt I would need to retract ,when I say a lot of taxpayers money is spent on Darwinist propaganda. What "Darwinist propaganda"? Any clue as to how much money churches, here in this supposed secular nation of ours, make out of being charities? All that Gift Aid 'n' stuff? Or how much money we spend supporting faith schools or paying the salaries of religious "education" teachers? All money from taxpayers, even atheist ones! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Mar 14 - 07:30 PM So you are a scientist in the same way you are a boy? Steve Shaw, the boy. Nice playing for one so young. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Steve Shaw Date: 04 Mar 14 - 07:23 PM So you consider Popper's work to be "quasi-philosophical burblings," do you? Intellectually superior to both Newton and Popper. I bet you could tell Einstein a thing or two. Ah, nowt like a little naked misrepresentation when you get cross with someone (my recommendation: don't get cross. There are only two potential reasons for being here: making money or having fun. If you're achieving neither, well you know what to do). As all literate persons here might glean for themselves (if they could be arsed), 'twas YOUR quasi-philosophical burblings that I was farting in the general direction of. Neither Newton nor Popper burbled (well I suppose Newton did a little bit when he was doing his alchemy...), but you certainly give burbling your best shot at times. For the amusement of all or none, here is the quote of mine that you have so blatantly and foolishly misrepresented: If you really want to get heavy about your quasi-philosophical burblings, look elsewhere. You see? No Popper, no Newton, just that little word "your" that is such a f*<£!^g great big clue! And yes I could certainly tell Albert a thing or two. I have it on very good authority that he was a bloody useless blues harp player. His violin teacher told me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Steve Shaw Date: 04 Mar 14 - 07:03 PM >>>if you think I only "claim" to be a scientist, I will deliberately feed your paranoia. <<< I've never seen you claim to be a scientist? Are you one? Are you now claiming to be one? Other than teaching school children, please tell us, what are your scientific credentials? Where I come from, "teaching schoolchildren" does not amount to "scientific credentials". Do edit, Wacko. No I am not "claiming" to be one. I don't need to "claim" that I am one any more than I need to "claim" that I'm a boy and that my first name is Steve. Since you ask in such sneery and loaded terms about my credentials (which, in any case, I don't need in order to post here - at least, I don't remember sitting an entrance exam when I signed up), I'm not going to tell you. That would be seriously infra dig on this occasion, duckie. (Actually, I've declared them on this forum on one or two previous occasions, so dig it out for yourself, you lazy bugger). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 04 Mar 14 - 05:50 PM yes, shimrod. creationists wrote about it before Darwin did. there is even thinking that Darwin borrowed...shall we say... from blyth [ and other authors]. what Darwin did was extrapolate beyond the observable evidence. dmcg- I seem to remember that the challenge was for you to provide something from the "mountain of evidence" for evolutionism, that could not also/equally be explained by the creation model. I have been looking into the marsupial question and found [imo] that I was on the right track. I will extend on that perhaps after you explain....if possible in layman talk....what the convincing evolutionary explanation is. as far as the accusation of my being choosy re gen 7 v 22f , it seems that the Hebrew word translated "creeping things" has a wide range but understood to mean reptiles, because of the qualifier ...nostrils. I concede though, at least from the English translation, that an argument could be made that the meaning could conceivably be made that v23 extends the meaning. I watched the ark press on line thing a few days ago. and it seems that there has not been, is not being, is not expected to be, any taxpayers money used in the planning and construction of the project. I think aig are still waiting for a retraction of the wrong information. I doubt I would need to retract ,when I say a lot of taxpayers money is spent on Darwinist propaganda. |