|
quote:
Originally posted by PsychoSnowman
the objective of this is just dumb. It's to prove that evolution is a theology/religion simply because we can't find proof of a definitive missing link. That's what it's going to say, it's dumb. Ok...wow, we haven't found it if there is one, that doesn't make it that similar to religion. That's like saying..."well, we haven't found a fossil without a definite parent...therefore...religion must be based solely on faith." Evolution is not a religion, if it was it'd be a "following" with methods of following the particular belief when it's nothing more than a descriptor. Any trace of faith doesn't mean somethings a reliigon, it means it's a belief. With this rationality, life/existence would be a religion, among many other terrible holes this brings about.
it may be an error in dr hovind's part to protray evolution as religion (from how you define it to be anyway, not taking into account the ambiguity of language so to save unnecessary debate), but thats not his original purpose. it would be unwise to call anything 'dumb' just because of a missused word, in this postmodern/structurld world, such things happen quite frequently. above all people i thought you would have realized that.
quote:
Originally posted by requiem
If someone doesn't want to believe in either, they won't.
if youre suggesting that there are concrete and actual evidence to evolution, as your tone protray so, please tell us. we creationists are as rational and intellegent as you are. like i said, its not because of some mental inferiority of unabling to grasps scientific truths that we question evolution. so that you know, we believe in sciences as much as you do.
quote:
Originally posted by yOOnsk
I think it's impossible to find the concrete proof that is needed to win the $250,000. Even if someone found what they believed to be evidence of evolution, Dr. Hovind might not think of it as evidence and the person would not receive the money.
its a panel of educated men, not dr. hovind himself. dr. hovind is a well acclaimed creationist, so he does have such resources to hire these men. but yes, i suppose it is subjective, he may as well only hire fellow creationists in his panel of judges. but as the contrast of light to dark, any concrete evidence should be able to be recognized. please read my previous reply if you think otherwise.
quote:
Originally posted by castle outsider
proabably for people who think theyre smart..and are juss dumb
yes, im quite lost who to beleive. you, in one hand, who probably is still in highschool, or people, in the other, who have dedicated their entire lives to educate themselves to a cause. yes, please do help me out here (and by that i mean the validity of your statement).
|
04-05-2003 07:48 AM
