Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,636
edits
Changes
Talk:Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists (view source)
Revision as of 17:13, January 13, 2012
, 17:13, January 13, 2012→Open question to readers of this page
Obviously it doesn't take ''Shermer, PZ Myers, and Dawkins'' to address the 15 questions satisfactorily. So why bother them? Just because you want to get their attention for your ''campaign''? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:59, 13 January 2012 (EST)
Obviously it doesn't take ''Shermer, PZ Myers, and Dawkins'' to address the 15 questions satisfactorily. So why bother them? Just because you want to get their attention for your ''campaign''? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:59, 13 January 2012 (EST)
:On the subject of creationist/evolutionist debates, I do find the idea quite amusing since they inevitably involve and attract people who are so firmly entrenched in their position that to acknowledge the other side may have made a good point, however small, would be impossible for them. I do wonder whether there has ever been a debate on this subject that has actually been anything other than a waste of time. Whether the questions here can ever be satisfactorily addressed is a similar issue. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 12:08, 13 January 2012 (EST)
:On the subject of creationist/evolutionist debates, I do find the idea quite amusing since they inevitably involve and attract people who are so firmly entrenched in their position that to acknowledge the other side may have made a good point, however small, would be impossible for them. I do wonder whether there has ever been a debate on this subject that has actually been anything other than a waste of time. Whether the questions here can ever be satisfactorily addressed is a similar issue. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 12:08, 13 January 2012 (EST)
::::::AugustO, Darwinists are struggling to gain wide acceptance in the USA even though Darwinism has been around for 150 years plus anti-Darwinist conservative Christianity is exploding in the world. The situation is not good for Darwinism and the cloud of being disingenuous hangs over Darwinism. For example, Stephen Gould talked about the dearth of supposed transitional fossils being a "trade secret". Does real science have "trade secrets"? I realize that you don't like me pointing out the licentious and fraudulent behavior of Darwinists, but Jesus said that bad fruit does not come from a good tree and it certainly right to point out egregious behavior by shysters. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:13, 13 January 2012 (EST)