539
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 997:
Line 997: + +
Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth (view source)
Revision as of 02:24, August 27, 2011
, 02:24, August 27, 2011→Freshwater and Saltwater Fish
::Most Old Earth believers deny the existence of the [[Flood]] also, so your argument does not apply to them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
::Most Old Earth believers deny the existence of the [[Flood]] also, so your argument does not apply to them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
::::No, it doesn't. Therefore it's not worth using, is it? I do understand your point, but what's the use of using arguments that the opposition can legitimately (according to their frame of reference) simply reject? Do we want to make a real effort to persuade them or are we content to ask "Warum können einen Hund ihren eigenen Eier ablecken?" I would state that pro-creationism arguments that only make sense to creationists are worthless. It's THEM we're trying to persuade, not US! --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 22:24, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Good point, Mr. Schlafly, but this counterexample is still based on evolution of fish (or lack thereof). Can it be restated so that it does not assume evolution is true? --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 22:16, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Good point, Mr. Schlafly, but this counterexample is still based on evolution of fish (or lack thereof). Can it be restated so that it does not assume evolution is true? --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 22:16, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
::::Please improve how this counterexample is stated!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:18, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
::::Please improve how this counterexample is stated!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:18, 26 August 2011 (EDT)