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

Re: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: Introduction

Expand Messages
  • Laurie Appleton
    ... From: David Williams To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 8:12 AM Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] Re:
    Message 1 of 384 , Jun 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: David Williams
      To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 8:12 AM
      Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: Introduction


      > >> orval:
      > >> Heck the only ones that really matter are where the
      > >> law is concerned. Creationists have lost nearly every
      > >> legal battle they have yet to wage.
      >
      > > Laurie:
      > > To restate that, it really means that the evolutionary
      > > establishment has succeeded, through Federal court
      > > cases to have PREVENTED students in the Public
      > > educational system from being provided with the
      > > evidence and data...
      >

      David Williams: Federal Courts prevent students from being exposed to the
      sectarian pseudoscience of creationism. Creationists are free to teach their
      stuff to people who enter their churches. Creationist evidence and data is
      spurious.

      LA> Since various evolutionists have admitted at various times and
      in various ways that the Creation scientists regularly "routed" their
      evolutionary opponents in that decade of all those hundreds of open,
      public, scientific debates, then the "pseudoscience" is clearly that off
      the evolutionists!

      David Williams:
      All fossils are transitional fossils. Some are more transitional than
      others.

      LA> So SOME evolutionists might claim thaat but noted evolutionist
      Prof. S.J. Gould has honestly admitted that;
      --------------------
      "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in
      the fossil record persist as the trade secret of
      paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our
      textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of
      their branches; the rest is inference, however
      reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.

      (Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and
      Paleontology, Harvard University), "Evolution's
      erratic pace". Natural History, vol.LXXXVI(5), May 1977, p.14.)

      ===========

      Laurie.

      From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed
      to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate
      creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed.
      (Chandra Wickramasinghe, respected, scientist and ex-atheist Buddhist, 1981)
      ..
    • orvalharmon@rocketmail.com
      ... REPLY: Ah Laurie, only you are allowed to use this tactic? Sucks when Karma rears it ugly head. Orval
      Message 384 of 384 , Jun 11, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, "Laurie Appleton" <lappleto@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: Randy Crum
        > To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 12:28 PM
        > Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: Introduction
        >
        >
        > >> Randy C:
        > >> The problem is that creationists accept what they
        > >> call "micro-evolution" but reject "macro-evolution".
        >
        > > Laurie:
        > > Micro-evolution is just a joke of course, since it
        > > is usually just Mendelian "recombinations" and nothing
        > > at all to do with evolution.
        >
        > RC: Actually that's completely incorrect.
        >
        > RC: But even if it was true, it would be evolution.
        >
        > LA> Recombinations is NOT evolution in the sense
        > of "molecules to man" evolution.and anyone who
        > knows anything about anything would surely know.
        >
        > LA> Thus you lose yet again!
        >
        > RC: The definition of evolution is:
        >
        > "In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any
        > change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool
        > from one generation to the next."
        > - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed.
        > 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974
        >
        > RC: Which is PRECISELY what you described.
        >
        > LA> Nothing of the sort. That is playing fact and loose
        > with words. It is called the "bait and switch" fallacy and
        > is only needed by those who have NO case at al or
        > those who are doing a "snake-oil" deception.
        >
        >
        > Laurie.
        >
        > From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed
        > to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate
        > creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed.
        > (Chandra Wickramasinghe, 1981)
        >
        REPLY:

        Ah Laurie, only you are allowed to use this tactic? Sucks when Karma rears it ugly head.

        Orval
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.