Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > FL "Debate Thread"

Pages: (100) < ... 88 89 90 91 92 [93] 94 95 96 97 98 ... >

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2009,23:38    Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,14:35) Quote Or to put it another way, could the "EuroAmerican slavery show" have happened in such a way as to meet the "biblical regulations" you speak of? Not possible at all. Too many biblical violations on TOP of the kidnapping game (which itself warranted the death penalty). Consider this:  if God were to punish America (of that time period) for each slave who died in the Middle Passage, on a "life-for-life" basis, America may well have been WIPED OUT!! and you know what, Fold? every single one of those slaveowners is DEAD. that's right!  WIPED OUT. now, I say that right there could be my God acting indirectly.  and you say that it's YOUR God, by God, and YOUR God don't do no sissy in-di-rect-ly kind of acting. how would we resolve this? I say that God punished America (of that time period) for each slave who died in the Middle Passage, on a "life-forlife" basis!  America may well have been WIPED OUT!!.   And the fact that this is TRUE, BABY*, means that God did punish America for violating the biblical regulations and that it could have been biblical but fallen man could not keep to God's plan.  And then he killed them all, some really slowly. *Is this ID science yet? -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2009,23:38    and by the way, answer my question please -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2009,23:48    Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,14:45) Quote And, ye masters .... forbear threatening: Oooops......ANOTHER biblical violation by the Euro-Americans!!   Quote .... their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no respect of persons with him" (Eph 6:5-9). Double the violation.   How many different ways does one need to explore the fact that the Bible does NOT endorse slavery??? hey Fold i could see you probably being the kind of guy who likes to say with big moo cow eyes and all pouty faced "but some slaves loved their masters and they were very good to them" blink blink right?  so heck i mean you know some of those guys with all the nice friendly masters where they all slept in the same bed and sang campfire songs in the yard and stuff, they were doing it biblically? is THAT what you are saying?  because i don't know you'll climb way way way up in a damn tree and tell a lie rather than kick the dust spit and tell the truth standing on the ground.  that's all i know, you're a damn fraud as far as i can see. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2009,23:50    hey tell you what floyd, i shouldn't comment as i try to catch up on the thread.  you just put themmar questions in that pile over thar in the corner where you flung all my other ones.  mebbe for a rainy day or suntin -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

didymos Posts: 1828 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2009,23:53    Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,15:42) (Incidentally, even the OEC astronomer Dr. Hugh Ross subscribes to this rule of interpretation.  You don't even have to be a YEC!!) Fantastic. The context there in Genesis is apparently so ambiguous one can still be "literal" and arrive at one of two ages....which only differ by a measly 4.5 or so billion fucking years.  But evolution, well, that shit is right out.  You know..'cause of the context. Makes perfect sense...to the intellectually cauterized. -------------- I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2009,23:58    Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 02 2009,19:37)   Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,15:42) Here's a simple rule for you to determine when to interpret something literally, and when to interpret something non-literally.         Quote Literal is a commitment that the meanings expressed in a biblical text are true and have reference to what is real unless the context indicates otherwise. Literal is an expectation that the words are meant to be understood and used in their primary, matter-of-fact sense unless the context indicates otherwise. -----Elliott E. Johnson There you go.  It's considered literal "unless the context indicates otherwise."   I think you meant this:       Quote Literal is a commitment that the meanings expressed in a biblical text are true and have reference to what is real unless Floyd Lee indicates otherwise. Literal is an expectation that the words are meant to be understood and used in their primary, matter-of-fact sense unless Floyd Lee indicates otherwise. haaaaahahahahaha let this thread be proof that the expansion of  (postmoderns + batshit fundie) = raving nutter indistinguishable from asylum resident frikking context, eh, jackie?  whooooooaaaaahahahaha!!  context!  hear that?  this boy said "Hit varries!"  ahahaaaaaahahahahahaha well fuck you too lollipop!!!  You loved WW2!1! -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

FrankH Posts: 525 Joined: Feb. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2009,03:38    Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 02 2009,15:52) Quote (FrankH @ Nov. 02 2009,15:33) Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 02 2009,15:25) Quote (FrankH @ Nov. 02 2009,15:15)     Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,15:09) Quote And, not that I am especially happy about agreeing with FL, and not that I even know that I am because I will not be bothered to go back and read the previous posts, but just for a point of argument, the New Testament does not, at all, condone slavery. Hmm.  Now to move on.  :) Of course Floyd but please note, the NT does not Condemn Slavery either. Yes it does. The second greatest commandment for the Christian, and the first when it comes to how humans are to behave toward one another, is to love our neighbor as ourself. Slavery is manifestly incompatible with Jesus' primary instruction for human relations. Color it however you want.  I disagree it condemns slavery.  Slave traders, yes.  Jesus also said that he was to reinforce the Laws of Moses, not repeal them. Seems to me that the NT told the Slave Master to "Love" their slaves. But then again, I also think that any literal reading of the NT and OT if they ever two parts for some god, shows a bi-polar god. Actually he never said that. And in effect he replaced them all (Moses' laws) with a fuller revelation of the law. Moses' law against adultery got replaced, in a direct statement, by Jesus' law against lust. Moses' law against murder, in a direct statement, by Jesus' law against hate. Moses' law on divorce was effectively replaced with: never. Laws on tithing were replaced by: give what you can joyfully, or don't even bother. Moses' pattern "Don't do this or that" was in fact entirely abandoned, replaced by Jesus' tougher laws concerned what you think rather than what you do or don't do. The law that maintains each jot and tittle is Jesus' law, not Moses'. Following the pattern, the OT is a type or shadow of the NT. If you take the time to study Jesus' law, as his teaching on what is sin, which is quite different from the Mosaic law, and if you understand Paul's proper emphasis on the true gospel as opposed to an imaginary social gospel--then you can grasp why there is no explicit condemnation of slavery. If you are interested, I have a small post on this subject here. It is not a bi-polar God, but one who demonstrated through the Jews that even the most privileged nation will not be able to save itself through obedience. That a savior was necessary or all are lost. So Jesus didn't come to strengthen God's laws as said by Moses?  Wow. That sarcasm wasn't meant for you but all of the literalists out there, like Floyd.  So often we hear how the OT is literal and that "Jesus said Mosaic Law is 100% right" . Personally, I don't know what Jesus said or didn't say or if he was real and not just some amalgamation of different people, faiths and superstitions. One thing I do know though is that the different writers of the NT seem to downplay the Communistic/Socialistic words of Jesus as do many of his most strenuous adherents today. As to a "bipolar god", if one reads the bible literally, I think that is what one comes up with when comparing the OT to the NT, literally.  Then again as the whole thing was written by men with their own ideas on how things should be, one should expect to see what was "good in the day" being extolled as "righteousness". -------------- Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

Dan Posts: 77 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2009,05:27    Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,17:42) There you go.  [The Bible is] considered literal "unless the context indicates otherwise." Just what I've been saying.  The context of Genesis 1 is a creation myth, so it should not be considered literal.  The context of Genesis 2 is a morality tale, so it should not be considered literal either. The contradiction between the two is not fatal, just as the contradiction between two Shakespeare plays is not fatal.  The plays of Shakespeare are fictional, and thus can get to the deeper truths than "name, rank, and serial number".  Same goes for the Bible.

FloydLee Posts: 577 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2009,09:28    Quote The context there in Genesis is apparently so ambiguous Ohhhh no, it's not.  Not even slightly.  I didn't mention the OEC astronomer Hugh Ross as an endorsement of his OEC views, I mentioned him as an endorsement of his adherence to the same Bible interpretation rule that YECs adhere to. The Genesis creation account is clearly talking about six literal 24-hour days in which God created.  Multiple times, for example I have posted the following explanation and analysis from Dr. Robert McCabe to that effect, and not one of you has refuted it, or even made the attempt. http://www.dbts.edu/journals/2000/mccabe.pdf So yeah, the Genesis text is quite clear; it's not ambiguous.  As McCabe points out, nobody even started trying to interpret the biblical days of creation as any kind of long pro-evolution "deep time" ages, until Darwin heated things up with his challenges.   IOW, "Old-Earth" is not what the biblical data itself points to. Make no mistake though:  OEC Hugh Ross is still an excellent creationist and evangelical Christian apologist (and in fact I'm hoping to post today a small snip of his famous list of cosmological "fine tuning coincidences" that greatly helped establish the cosmo-ID hypothesis). FloydLee

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2009,09:46    Floyd, this would be a fascinating discussion... except that it's very off topic. I've given you 7 questions (plus another one suggested by someone else) to help you in your defense that ID is science. That was at least 3 days ago (Friday if I recall correctly).  So far you have presented one 'theoretical' claim, that unfortunately cannot be differentiated from what mainstream science presents (that would be the 9th question). Why don't we just go there?  If you choose to not go there, why not (10th question)? -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2009,09:54    Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 03 2009,09:28) As McCabe points out, nobody even started trying to interpret the biblical days of creation as any kind of long pro-evolution "deep time" ages, until Darwin heated things up with his challenges. And what does that prove, exactly? Nobody even started to question the "fact" that the sun revolves around the earth until somebody started to question the "fact" that the sun revolves around the earth. So what? Should all such questioning stop in case the answerers  happens to contradict the bible? Why don't you go live in a cave with the other cavemen? That's where you and yours would have us all... -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2009,09:59    Quote (Dan @ Nov. 03 2009,05:27) Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,17:42) There you go.  [The Bible is] considered literal "unless the context indicates otherwise." Just what I've been saying.  The context of Genesis 1 is a creation myth, so it should not be considered literal.  The context of Genesis 2 is a morality tale, so it should not be considered literal either. The contradiction between the two is not fatal, just as the contradiction between two Shakespeare plays is not fatal.  The plays of Shakespeare are fictional, and thus can get to the deeper truths than "name, rank, and serial number".  Same goes for the Bible. Dan, you're just rationalizing your picking and choosing. How about this - it's all a *fictional* morality tale. Why would the omnipotent use such an imprecise and ambiguous medium? -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

FloydLee Posts: 577 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2009,10:21    Quote I've given you 7 questions And the first one, the most important one, was directly answered.  From there, the only task is to show that it's a scientific hypothesis.  That, in turn, is a matter of establishing falsifiability.  Just following the scientific method.  (Saves time.) Doesn't really matter if mainstream scientists like Dr. Gonzalez present it, or if other mainstream scientists have already presented the hypothesis.

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2009,10:25    As has already been established... it is not falsifiable because there is no difference between A) the universe that we live in is was designed specifically for us B) the universe that we live in is a giant simulation to determine if live could evolve in a universe like ours C) the only (or one of a few) of an infinite number of universes Please explain, in detail, the difference that would be used to judge between these possible scenarios.  Then describe the experiment that would be used to test that hypothesis. You're right, the scientific method works. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2009,10:27    sorry 'C' should be "C) the only (or one of a few) universes out of an infinite number in which life like ours evolved" -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2009,10:35    Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 31 2009,01:18) Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,13:26) And in their book, Gonzalez and Richards specifically write about how to Falsify their ID hypothesis.   Quote The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment, which, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment. In addition to the many other objections raised, this core "decisive way" to test the Privileged Planet hypothesis is not a scientific test at all, and merely provides a foundation for future waffling.   To make this a meaningful test, we first need to count the number of diverse scientific discoveries it's possible to make in our local environment.  Actually, cancel that.  What's a "diverse scientific discovery"?  (Special and general relativity: one diverse scientific discovery, or two?)  What's the "local environment"?  (Earth?  Inner Solar System?  Arms of a spiral galaxy?) OK, so we need to define our terms. Then we need to count our discoveries.   Then we need a methodology for determining how many discoveries are possible in other environments - which are hostile to life, so we can't just ask the locals. Sounds straightforward to me.  Let's see your data, Floyd. here's some more questions that need to be answered before we can even begin... Don't forget to define 'superior platform' as well.   Actually, on further reflection... the whole argument is stupid.  "Quite hostile to life" means that there would be no life, therefore how can a scientific discovery be made.  If there was life, the environment wouldn't be hostile. Therefore that part can never be met. Try again. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

FrankH Posts: 525 Joined: Feb. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2009,10:42    Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 03 2009,10:21) Quote I've given you 7 questions And the first one, the most important one, was directly answered.  From there, the only task is to show that it's a scientific hypothesis.  That, in turn, is a matter of establishing falsifiability.  Just following the scientific method.  (Saves time.) Doesn't really matter if mainstream scientists like Dr. Gonzalez present it, or if other mainstream scientists have already presented the hypothesis. Do you even know the difference, in science not vox populi, between Postulate, Hypothesis and Theory? Also, are you even aware that the famous "laws of physics" are based on Classical, not modern Physics? Do you even know what "falsifiability" is? -------------- Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

FrankH Posts: 525 Joined: Feb. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2009,10:54    For a quick summation (please those of you "evilutionists" with more info than I feel free to jump in) of Falsifying ToE and predictions ToE makes: Falsification: Dogs giving birth (naturally) to cats A Rabbit in the petrified gut of a T-Rex Closely related species having no common DNA Predictions: Closer the species, the more commonality their respective DNA will be. Those individuals in a population most likely to survive and propagate are those who a selective "edge" (the oft totally mis-quoted "survival of the fittest" which is actually "survival of the ones with the best adaptation to do so") Mechanisms for genetic change and drift. There.  I'm no biologist but even I cam come up with a few things that will falsify evolution and even offered predictions for ToE. Your turn for ID. -------------- Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

FrankH Posts: 525 Joined: Feb. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2009,11:15    Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 03 2009,09:59) Dan, you're just rationalizing your picking and choosing. How about this - it's all a *fictional* morality tale. Why would the omnipotent use such an imprecise and ambiguous medium? An omni-anything caring creator deity would be more than willing to come down every generation or more and let people really know what it expects of them. Leaving fragments that people squabble and fight to the death over even when they read what is the same book is not the sign, to me at least, of what the bible says about its god. -------------- Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2009,11:51    Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,08:45) Okay, I see the thread's still open.  Thanks, and my apologies, had to shift gears because of illness situation again. Top priority for today is to answer that one post from Deadman, with other comments as best I can.  In and out today. You still haven't done this, Floaty. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2009,12:07    Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 30 2009,23:39) The "fine-tuning" argument or Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP) has some major problems when applied to "inferences for god". It also contains a large number of fallacies that disqualify it as a valid scientific hypothesis -- especially one that provides evidential support for deities (which is what you're supposed to be supporting, Flody.) 1.) Tautology.   2.) Argumentam ad Ignorantiam 3.) Assumed conclusions 4.) Post hoc ergo propter hoc 5.) God of the Gaps   6.) Improper use of "falsification" 7.) Purely subjective criteria for "falsification" 8.) Gonzalez' claims don't constitute a valid scientific research program FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF SUPERNATURAL DEITIES and cannot distinguish Gods from "Aliens from the planet Glurrgh" I compiled some objections to your use of Gonzalez' "fine tuning" claims, Floaty. These go back five days ago (Oct.30) ...you still haven't answered them. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Constant Mews Posts: 323 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2009,12:10    Let's lay out Floyd's principle difficulty. Christianity is not based on Biblical literalism.  The appropriate, rational reading of Biblical verses does not require literalism.  The reason no "incompatibilities" exist is that Biblical literalism is not a key tenet of Christianity, and the "incompatibilities" only exist with regard to Biblical literalism. Do you understand that, Floyd?  Biblical literalism and Christianity are not synonymous. Period. Does it bother you to realize that you are lying in order to save face?  That you have put your ego on a pedestal above God?

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2009,12:31    Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 03 2009,10:28) As McCabe points out, nobody even started trying to interpret the biblical days of creation as any kind of long pro-evolution "deep time" ages, until Darwin heated things up with his challenges. Bullshit. It was obvious to educated people back in the middle-to-end of the eighteenth century, including loads of ordained ministers, that the Earth was far older than circa 10,000 years. They didn't have very good tools for estimating how much older, but the lowest estimates were in the many millions of years. Pre-1900 Non-Religious Estimates of the Age of the Earth History of the Collapse of "Flood Geology" and a Young Earth

FloydLee Posts: 577 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2009,12:39    Quote It was obvious to educated people back in the middle-to-end of the eighteenth century, including loads of ordained ministers, that the Earth was far older than circa 10,000 years. But that notion was NOT coming from the Bible texts themselves.  That's the difference.

FrankH Posts: 525 Joined: Feb. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2009,12:46    Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 03 2009,12:39) Quote It was obvious to educated people back in the middle-to-end of the eighteenth century, including loads of ordained ministers, that the Earth was far older than circa 10,000 years. But that notion was NOT coming from the Bible texts themselves.  That's the difference. Again we see that Floyd is far too happy to answer these types of questions rather than providing evidence for ID. Oh and Floyd, I agree with you 100% here.  There is nothing in a "selectively read literal bible" as you do that says anything about the age of the Earth. -------------- Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2009,13:05    Cosmological ID and biological ID are two different concepts, so bringing in cosmological when the subject matter of this thread was biological, was changing the subject. Henry

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2009,13:13    Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 03 2009,13:05) Cosmological ID and biological ID are two different concepts, so bringing in cosmological when the subject matter of this thread was biological, was changing the subject. Henry Thanks, Henry. I'm sure other people can add in other objections to the list, too: 1.) Tautology.   2.) Argumentam ad Ignorantiam 3.) Assumed conclusions 4.) Post hoc ergo propter hoc 5.) God of the Gaps   6.) Improper use of "falsification" 7.) Purely subjective criteria for "falsification" 8.) Gonzalez' claims don't equal a valid scientific research program for the investigation of supernatural deities and can't distinguish Gods from "Aliens from the planet Glurrgh" 9.) The subject matter of this thread was evolution v. biological ID -- bringing up Gonzalez' cosmological ID = shifting goalposts. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

FrankH Posts: 525 Joined: Feb. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2009,13:16    Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 03 2009,13:05) Cosmological ID and biological ID are two different concepts, so bringing in cosmological when the subject matter of this thread was biological, was changing the subject. Henry I've noted that in the mind of a YEC, Evolution includes, but is not limited to: Big Bang Galactic Evolution Stellar Evolution Planetary System Evolution Abiogenesis Non flood Geology and more! -------------- Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2009,13:24    Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 03 2009,13:13) 7.) Purely subjective criteria for "falsification" That'd be Floydification. -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2009,13:51    Quote (FrankH @ Nov. 03 2009,12:16) Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 03 2009,13:05) Cosmological ID and biological ID are two different concepts, so bringing in cosmological when the subject matter of this thread was biological, was changing the subject. Henry I've noted that in the mind of a YEC, Evolution includes, but is not limited to: Big Bang Galactic Evolution Stellar Evolution Planetary System Evolution Abiogenesis Non flood Geology and more! Heavy element generation by supernova Radioactive decay rates Euclidean geometry Axiomatic set theory Well, maybe not those last two?

Pages: (100) < ... 88 89 90 91 92 [93] 94 95 96 97 98 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard