RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (58) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Evolution of the horse; a problem for Darwinism?, For Daniel Smith to present his argument< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2008,00:19   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 01 2008,22:57)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 02 2008,03:46)
Quote
Claiming that creationism is correct because Darwin didn't know that all mutations are particulate, digital events is ludicrous.

Yes it would be - if that's what I was doing.  However, I am not claiming anything regarding creationism when I'm defending Schindewolf.  His theory has nothing whatsoever to do with creationism.

So, unless you have a completely different definition of "creationism" than I do, your statement is a complete strawman.

Lovely, I note that you aren't actually addressing the point JAM is making, to whit, you are arguing as if science had not advanced since Darwin.

So was Schindewolf, who should've known better.

  
  1733 replies since Sep. 18 2007,15:27 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (58) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]