Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
A modern day transitional form has been found between a "creationist" book and an "intelligent design" book: here is the original "creationist document"
and here is the transitional form:
containing the new "design proponents" but just enough of the old word "creationists" to make it clear what has been substituted.
what do the "cdesign proponentsists" ´have to say I wonder?
__________________ MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
A modern day transitional form has been found between a "creationist" book and an "intelligent design" book: here is the original "creationist document"
and here is the transitional form:
containing the new "design proponents" but just enough of the old word "creationists" to make it clear what has been substituted.
what do the "cdesign proponentsists" ´have to say I wonder?
stupid realy not like evolutionist never get things wrong and change there ideas. it just natural to make a point you think is true when the evidence suggest it to be, then later when new evidence comes up you change it. evolutionist dont do this. i believe they have.
stupid realy not like evolutionist never get things wrong and change there ideas. it just natural to make a point you think is true when the evidence suggest it to be, then later when new evidence comes up you change it. evolutionist dont do this. i believe they have.
By not changing your entire argument, but just replacing one word? Your stretching credulity here to a breaking point Schroeder.
__________________
Tom
'What luck for rulers, that men do not think.'
-Ascribed to Adolf Hitler-
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glas by Lewis Caroll-
Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.
stupid realy not like evolutionist never get things wrong and change there ideas. it just natural to make a point you think is true when the evidence suggest it to be, then later when new evidence comes up you change it. evolutionist dont do this. i believe they have.
Sweet Jebus. The point of the OP is entering Jupiter's orbit, it went so far over your head.
__________________
"Ray, if someone asks you if you're a god you say yes!" ~ Winston Zeddemore
Ah, yes, and we have solid evidence of vestigial characters in use here, as seen where the extra "c" and "ists" still remain in the document even though they no longer serve any mechanical purpose. I am sure that, in time, these vestigial characters will be phased out, but for now they remain, a testament to a document that was.
Originally Posted by Schroeder
stupid realy not like evolutionist never get things wrong and change there ideas. it just natural to make a point you think is true when the evidence suggest it to be, then later when new evidence comes up you change it. evolutionist dont do this. i believe they have.
Sorry, I couldn't read or make sense of this. There is a spellchecker built in. You should probably consider using it next time.
stupid realy not like evolutionist never get things wrong and change there ideas. it just natural to make a point you think is true when the evidence suggest it to be, then later when new evidence comes up you change it. evolutionist dont do this. i believe they have.
It was changed so that it would look less like creationism and more like science. It had nothing to do with new data. It has everything to do with getting creationism into public schools by disguising it.
__________________ "Since YAC [Young-Age Creation] epistemology accepts Biblical claims over physical evidence and human reason, logical or evidential arguments for evolution and/or against YAC are likely to be ineffective in converting most YACists."--Kurt Wise
Linear Mode
