Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Welcome!

Expand Messages
  • Dave Brodie
    Mark and Greg, I welcome both of you to this new creation - evolution discussion group. I created this group after I noticed there is no real free- for all
    Message 1 of 7 , Dec 6, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      Mark and Greg,
      I welcome both of you to this new creation - evolution discussion
      group. I created this group after I noticed there is no real free-
      for all discussion on this topic... just one-sided groups or
      "sophisticated high minded" snobbish sort of groups that don't care
      to get into anything mildly theological or controversal, though this
      whole topic, in addition to scientific, is very much those two things!

      I only put this group up 4 days ago and the fact 2 of you have signed
      up in that short time indicates to me that this group will be of high
      interest and will grow quickly. I am also hunting out people
      interested in this topic to join. If you want to invite anyone to
      join, tell them to go to

      http://www.egroups.com/subscribe/creation_evolution_debate

      So are you guys evolutionists? Creationists? Somewhere inbetween?
      Either of you care to fire the first shot in a conversation that may
      last for years?

      --Dave
    • mark
      Dave, Thanks for the welcome. I am a creationist. I used to be an old earth creationist, that believed evolution was also a fact. I am now leaning more to the
      Message 2 of 7 , Apr 16 10:29 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Dave,
        Thanks for the welcome. I am a creationist. I used to be an old earth
        creationist, that believed evolution was also a fact. I am now leaning
        more to the side of Young Earth, literal translation of the Bible.
        Reason for that, and I am not going to say I could not be swung back,
        is that I find the Darwinist theory of gradulism seriously lacking. For
        me. I find that to ofton science throws out anything that would show
        evidence of a creator or intelligent design, without serious study.
        It just says that is not possible and does not deal with it. I respect
        the ideas and values of theose (the Majority) that still believe purely
        in evolution. I am not here to preach, I am here to exchange ideas,
        information and evidence, discuss the subject, without the vile name
        calling, an hopefully learn.
      • ochs_matt
        ... earth ... leaning ... back, ... lacking. For ... show ... study. ... respect ... purely ... ideas, ... name ... MATT: Yes, welcome to the Group. Question,
        Message 3 of 7 , Apr 16 10:45 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, "mark" <mad@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > Dave,
          > Thanks for the welcome. I am a creationist. I used to be an old
          earth
          > creationist, that believed evolution was also a fact. I am now
          leaning
          > more to the side of Young Earth, literal translation of the Bible.
          > Reason for that, and I am not going to say I could not be swung
          back,
          > is that I find the Darwinist theory of gradulism seriously
          lacking. For
          > me. I find that to ofton science throws out anything that would
          show
          > evidence of a creator or intelligent design, without serious
          study.
          > It just says that is not possible and does not deal with it. I
          respect
          > the ideas and values of theose (the Majority) that still believe
          purely
          > in evolution. I am not here to preach, I am here to exchange
          ideas,
          > information and evidence, discuss the subject, without the vile
          name
          > calling, an hopefully learn.

          MATT: Yes, welcome to the Group. Question, what have scientists
          overlooked showing evidence?
          Young Earth? In a post yesterday, I asked if you knew anything about
          the Doppler effect, red-shift, and radiometric dating. Do you think
          no stars are beyond 6,000 light years away? Have you heard of
          punctuated equilibrium? If so, approximately how many years are
          involved in a given case of it relative to gradualism?
        • eduard at home
          mark ---, Thanks for the welcome. I am a creationist. I used to be an old earth creationist, that believed evolution was also a fact. I am now leaning more to
          Message 4 of 7 , Apr 17 1:33 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            mark ---,
            Thanks for the welcome. I am a creationist. I used to be an old earth
            creationist, that believed evolution was also a fact. I am now leaning
            more to the side of Young Earth, literal translation of the Bible.
            Reason for that, and I am not going to say I could not be swung back,
            is that I find the Darwinist theory of gradulism seriously lacking.
            For
            me. I find that to ofton science throws out anything that would show
            evidence of a creator or intelligent design, without serious study.
            It just says that is not possible and does not deal with it. I respect
            the ideas and values of theose (the Majority) that still believe
            purely
            in evolution. I am not here to preach, I am here to exchange ideas,
            information and evidence, discuss the subject, without the vile name
            calling, an hopefully learn.

            eduard ---
            I'm not sure what you mean about the "theory of gradulism", but
            one wonders what science would study as to the evidence of a creator
            or intelligent design. Beyond the matter that it's impossible for
            science to study the supernatural, I would ask the standard question
            of, what evidence??

            You see, that's the whole problem with the thing. Creationists
            keep saying that there is "evidence", but they never come up with
            anything. The only evidence they have is what they don't like or
            don't believe about evolution. And as for Intelligent Design, the
            IDers refuse to even discuss their "Designer", after they have finger
            pointed something they think is irreducibly complex.

            Lets face it, the central idea of Creationism is ... well ...
            creation by a god. And Creationists have neither evidence for the act
            of Creation nor of the god himself. If you look at the history of
            science, you will find that the initially unanswerable was* attributed
            to the supernatural. However, subsequent study had revealed a very
            natural explanation. That has been the case right from the start.

            You will find that there is no substance to any of the arguments
            of Creationists on this list. If you have something to offer, that's
            great ... I'm all ears.
          • Randy Crum
            ... Can you be more specific regarding what it is about gradualism that you find lacking? Would evolutionary theory be more appealing to you if it hypothesized
            Message 5 of 7 , Apr 17 9:11 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              > mark:
              > Dave,
              > Thanks for the welcome. I am a creationist. I used
              > to be an old earth creationist, that believed evolution
              > was also a fact. I am now leaning more to the side of
              > Young Earth, literal translation of the Bible.
              > Reason for that, and I am not going to say I could
              > not be swung back, is that I find the Darwinist theory
              > of gradulism seriously lacking...

              Can you be more specific regarding what it is about
              gradualism that you find lacking?

              Would evolutionary theory be more appealing to you if it
              hypothesized sudden, large changes?

              Randy
            • frank.mundo
              I guess the discussion did/does go on years....
              Message 6 of 7 , Dec 14, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                I guess the discussion did/does go on years....

                --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Brodie" <dave_in_america@...> wrote:
                >
                > Mark and Greg,
                > I welcome both of you to this new creation - evolution discussion
                > group. I created this group after I noticed there is no real free-
                > for all discussion on this topic... just one-sided groups or
                > "sophisticated high minded" snobbish sort of groups that don't care
                > to get into anything mildly theological or controversal, though this
                > whole topic, in addition to scientific, is very much those two things!
                >
                > I only put this group up 4 days ago and the fact 2 of you have signed
                > up in that short time indicates to me that this group will be of high
                > interest and will grow quickly. I am also hunting out people
                > interested in this topic to join. If you want to invite anyone to
                > join, tell them to go to
                >
                > http://www.egroups.com/subscribe/creation_evolution_debate
                >
                > So are you guys evolutionists? Creationists? Somewhere inbetween?
                > Either of you care to fire the first shot in a conversation that may
                > last for years?
                >
                > --Dave
                >
              • ochs_matt
                ... Frank Mundo MATT: That was very enlightening Frank. Thanks for your contribution. And your name isn t even Mark or Greg. Yes, it can go on for years due to
                Message 7 of 7 , Dec 14, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  > > Mark and Greg,
                  > > I welcome both of you to this new creation - evolution discussion
                  > > group. I created this group after I noticed there is no real free-
                  > > for all discussion on this topic... just one-sided groups or
                  > > "sophisticated high minded" snobbish sort of groups that don't care
                  > > to get into anything mildly theological or controversal, though this
                  > > whole topic, in addition to scientific, is very much those two things!
                  > >
                  > > I only put this group up 4 days ago and the fact 2 of you have signed
                  > > up in that short time indicates to me that this group will be of high
                  > > interest and will grow quickly. I am also hunting out people
                  > > interested in this topic to join. If you want to invite anyone to
                  > > join, tell them to go to
                  > >
                  > > http://www.egroups.com/subscribe/creation_evolution_debate
                  > >
                  > > So are you guys evolutionists? Creationists? Somewhere inbetween?
                  > > Either of you care to fire the first shot in a conversation that may
                  > > last for years?
                  > >
                  > > --Dave

                  > I guess the discussion did/does go on years....
                  Frank Mundo

                  MATT: That was very enlightening Frank. Thanks for your contribution. And your name isn't even Mark or Greg. Yes, it can go on for years due to poor parenting and the kids growing up ignorant so some of them come in here and on occasion even a new member and so that is how it can go on for years.
                  By the way, we bottom-post here so paragraphs follow like a book page, in replies to each other. And I typed your name in since you must be shy or from what I mentioned above, it begins with the letter 'i'.
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.