Quote:
Originally Posted by coadie
The Eugenie Scott Darwinist wants to placate religious believers by assuring them that they can be good followers of their faith as well as good Darwinists.
...
|
Before we move on to Eugenie Scott, how about if you utilize your "Ivy League" "education" in genetics and respond to:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pelathais
...
I ask AGAIN! Why wasn't this notion of "Ussher's Chronology" advanced in the previous 1,618 years of Christian Theology?
Why did this novelty arise at this period of time? Why do some still cling to it as though it were some how some "ancient" doctrine? It's a comparative novelty.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by pelathais
...
With regard to the Miller-Urey experiment - it was hardly a failure. It was never intended to "create life." Rather, it was intended to find ways that complex organic molecules (the "building blocks of life") might arise naturally.
In this regard it was a complete success.
...
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by pelathais
...
1) Answer the "creation of horses, donkeys and mules" question. This must fit within a framework of the rigid "interpretation" of "after their kind" in Genesis 1.
2) Answer the "three/four chambered heart" conundrum that you brought up yourself. Respond to the information concerning vertebrate heart evolution that I provided.
... |
Quote:
Originally Posted by coadie
Neo darwinism is survival of the fittest. The hedonists dream.
|
No, that is not what "Neo Darwinism" ever says. And, just how could a life long battle and struggle be "the hedonists dream?" I thought "hedonists" like Hefner just wanted to take it easy and "par-tay."
Threaded Mode
