Sooooo. Instead of making the CLAIMS of inaccuracy, why not expose it?
If you call "exposing" posting a link to talkorigens, I could just as well link to the full Bible and be just as credible as you think you are.
Get it?
Carbon Dating
by Wolfgirl 86 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
rem
I did expose your innacuracy. Instead of accepting that your claim was innacurate you whined about the source of information.
Remember? You said that almost all naturalists were atheists. I said that that was innacurate and showed you leading naturalists who were not only believers, but also creationists. Most naturalists were believers and a good many of them still are. Your statement was wrong. I exposed it. I backed up my statements with evidence that can be verified.
rem
-
pomegranate
Limp proof by what I see from your last post. But hey, if that's all the proof you need, all the power to you.
-
rem
Pom,
Hey, you made the positive claim that most naturalists were atheists. You didn't provide any evidence for your claim. It is normal courtesy to do so. I provided a counter claim with evidence.
So, so far, we have a baseless claim by you, and a counter claim with evidence by me. Which side sounds limp?
Note that, like I said before, Talk Origins is just a convenient site to link information that you can read in science texts. I have read many science texts... not just Talk Origins and they are in agreement. I can provide additional references, but it is not as convenient to do so and I've already taken up too much of my time in forensics with you.
rem
-
hooberus
rem said: "creationism was proven false"
So rem, when was creation falsified?
-
hooberus
Speaking of being "proven false"
The concept of an evolutionary "origin of life" has for all practical purposes been shown to be impossible and hense scientifically falsified!
Since the first "link in the evolutionary chain" is absolutely broken your evolutionary scientists should (if they were really unbiased and dispassionate as you pretend) have changed their viewpoint, like when the earth was shown to be round. But instead like the "flat-earthers" they continue to hold onto a false-view despite the evidence.
The statement that an evolutionary origin of life has for all practical purposes been falsified is WAY more scientific and substianted than your statement that "creationism was proven false"
Edited by - hooberus on 27 October 2002 20:40:32
-
hooberus
rem said:
"Creationists, on the other hand, would never change their position no matter what the evidence. By definition they can not even consider evidence that goes against the Bible. That, my friend, is bias."
rem shortly later said:
" I believe things that are backed with evidence. I'm not always right. In fact, I used to be a Creationist too until I took a good look at the facts. It took a lot of research and intellectual honesty to finally come to the conclusion that Creationism is wishful thinking."
Note the contradiction!
Edited by - hooberus on 27 October 2002 20:54:14
Edited by - hooberus on 27 October 2002 20:57:39