Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: AC <mightymartianca@yahoo.ca>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.uncle-davey
Subject: Re: No More "Dr." Gastrich Until 2005
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 04:33:42 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: The Tao of Cow
Lines: 81
Sender: root@darwin.ediacara.org
Approved: robomod@ediacara.org
Message-ID: <slrnc3j18k.m8.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem>
References: <c0skuh$l07$0@pita.alt.net> <1g9bm90.14owp6z948jb4N%john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au> <c0t8oe$aj7$0@pita.alt.net> <wilkins-AE3DB9.10054818022004@news.fu-berlin.de> <c0v6vr$a4v$0@pita.alt.net> <40336877$1_4@corp.newsgroups.com> <c11ndc$f0i$1@pita.alt.net> <1g9fnp3.dp73mj12lpsucN%see.sig@for.addy> <c150cd$vuo$0@pita.alt.net> <1g9g6ej.vp33qh1x9ymufN%see.sig@for.addy> <c15bcr$j34$0@pita.alt.net> <qffc30lqnfrlh03qdipd5kvnghufiefknn@4ax.com> <c1b3u4$6fk$0@pita.alt.net> <eu6i301dqlm3lhc38tf65pr9gbqtoppokj@4ax.com> <c1bequ$qdj$0@pita.alt.net>
Reply-To: mightymartianca@yahoo.ca
NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1077597222 50194 128.100.83.246 (24 Feb 2004 04:33:42 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@darwin.ediacara.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 04:33:42 +0000 (UTC)
X-Orig-NNTP-Posting-Host: tandem.alberni.net (64.141.6.11)
X-Orig-X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1077511444 50646145 I 64.141.6.11 ([211612])
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.0 (CYGWIN_NT-5.0)
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.uncle-davey:2693
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 23:40:55 +0000 (UTC),
Uncle Davey <noway@jose.com> wrote:
>
> news:eu6i301dqlm3lhc38tf65pr9gbqtoppokj@4ax.com...
>> In talk.origins, "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in
>> <c1b3u4$6fk$0@pita.alt.net>:
>> >
>> >news:qffc30lqnfrlh03qdipd5kvnghufiefknn@4ax.com...
>> >> In talk.origins, "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in
>> >> <c15bcr$j34$0@pita.alt.net>:
>> >> >
>> >> >news:1g9g6ej.vp33qh1x9ymufN%see.sig@for.addy...
>> >> >> Uncle Davey <noway@jose.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > news:1g9fnp3.dp73mj12lpsucN%see.sig@for.addy...
>> >> >> > > Uncle Davey <noway@jose.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > > In my opinion, a Biblical kind is
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > What do you mean "in your opinion"? Shouldn't this sentence
> start
>> >"It
>> >> >is
>> >> >> > > one of the basic results of creation science that a biblical
> kind
>> >is
>> >> >> > > .." ?
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > I mean, this question has come up before, why don't you guys
> have a
>> >> >nice
>> >> >> > > consensus answer by now?
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > V.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Vic, for all I know there is one, and I just don't know about it.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I'm a freethinker, anyway, so consensus answers don't interest me
>> >much.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Uncle Davey
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You're not concerned with science, in other words.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> V.
>> >> >
>> >> >Not overly, no.
>> >> >
>> >> >I'm more concerned with faith.
>> >> >
>> >> >Uncle Davey
>> >>
>> >> How do proponents of faith justify the use of lies to attack the
>> >> discoveries of science? Do these lies enhance faith?
>> >>
>> >
>> >i don't attack what science has discovered, i attack what science
>> >extrapolates from it.
>>
>> The discoveries of science include the age of the universe, the age of
>> the earth, the length of time that life has existed on earth, and the
>> overwhelming evidence for common descent. I take it that you accept all
>> of these.
>>
>
> They are all extrapolations.
By all means come up with other theories that explain the evidence that
conform to scientific rigour.
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 |
|