by ninjaturtle 19 Replies latest jw friends
Why retype it?
Because your readers may want to check your sources. If you had even the slightest bit of experience in scientific work, you'd do it as a matter of course.
LOL!!Thanks for proving my above assessment. Obviously, your mental capabilities are exhausted with pressing the keys Ctrl, C and V. How about an answer, possibly including an actual argument or two, preferably not another cut'n'paste job?
f.
I have always posted references and authors. Can you prove otherwise?
“”Thanks for proving my above assessment.”“
LOL!! Try rereading my post, the third time will be a charm...lol
Your avoidance in debating this thread shows your hand. Comments were going fine until you opened your mouth with your petty insults......lol
But the issue can be addressed from a purely scientific standpoint.
Again, how can you talk about creationism (to decide the simple question "was this thing created?") without a model of a creator? You can critique evolution from a "purely scientific standpoint", yes, definitely.
But those are different tasks. It's just that I don't really buy it when you talk about "scientific standpoints"...
f.
p.s.: "LOL" is not an argument, at least where I come from.
""How about an answer, possibly including an actual argument or two, preferably not another cut'n'paste job?""
I did not start this thread, I have made no claims. I think you need to take Comprehension 101, or some vitamins or something????
lol
""But those are different tasks"" Hey I think you are starting to get it!!
InjaT stated :
"What you fail to realize is that I offer no alternate hypothesis, I'm simply exposing the serious flaws in darwinistic theory.
One alternate hypothesis, however, is panspermia, but there are many more. I do not rigidly adhere to any one belief system as you guys do. I consider many different possibilities, unlike the narrow-minded priests of darwinism.""
PLease, talk to him........this is NijaT's subject, get it?? Holy S**t!
Thi Chi:
I reread the original post, but I still think the debate question raised is: "do complex systems require an intelligent designer?"
"Does scientific evidence support creation or evolution" seems to me to be a different issue than that raised here.
We agree that they are different issues though.
Expatbrit
p.s. will check back on this interesting thread later. Real-life intrudes.
""Thanks for proving my above assessment. Obviously, your mental capabilities are exhausted with pressing the keys Ctrl, C and V""
Like your petty insults, as an opener to your great door of wisdom? Your unfounded accusations demonstrate your level of debating and Credibility .
expatbrit: I see your point. I could have done better word wise. However, we can agree that we can debate Darwinism without debating religion? Like NijaT seems to want to do?
"Let’s just agree to stick to the scientific evidence on both sides of the issue. The issue has religious implications for everyone—even those who claim to hold no religious views. But the issue can be addressed from a purely scientific standpoint.""
True???
I did not start this thread, I have made no claims. I think you need to take Comprehension 101, or some vitamins or something????
Leaving my metabolism aside, maybe I misunderstand your somewhat peculiar use of multiple quotation marks? You wrote:
""The debate question is: Does the scientific evidence favor creation or evolution?""I criticised what you (or whoever you were quoting - no sources cited again!) called the debate question and the debate rules ("religious ideas and beliefs...will not be allowed"). Fair enough, huh?How about:
""debate will consist of only scientific evidence and the logical inferences from that evidence. Religious ideas and beliefs, while possibly correct, will not be allowed."""
f.
