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.
So this is 18 pages in now, and I skipped a few, admittedly. I'm wondering if you've declared who you're going to be debating in this moderated 1v1 cage match.
If yoou're still looking for someone, I would love to participate. The sooner we begin the better. It's summer break and I'm not taking summer courses this year, so I've about two months free that I can hammer this out with you.
Do you think it would be possible to have two moderators? One Christian, one Non-Christian. I'm not implying that any intentional bias is inevitable, but I am implying that the likelihood of unintentional bias is very high and could easily be remedied.
If it's a serious offer, you might want to look at how he treated his last debate opponent before you commit yourself to a debate with this guy. Essentially he stropped when his opponent wouldn't concede points that hadn't been proved, then hounded him across the entire forum claiming he'd won.
If you can handle that sort of behaviour, then go for it. I think most of the regulars want no such thing though
__________________
The usual Kent Hovind based signature has been suspended for a good cause.
Search for cfpaddler in google to see how a friend of mine wants to paddle round the UK to raise funds for the Cystic Fibrosis Trust. Any support, spiritual or otherwise, would be greatly appreciated by him.
If it's a serious offer, you might want to look at how he treated his last debate opponent before you commit yourself to a debate with this guy. Essentially he stropped when his opponent wouldn't concede points that hadn't been proved, then hounded him across the entire forum claiming he'd won.
If you can handle that sort of behaviour, then go for it. I think most of the regulars want no such thing though
i think you need to read again.,..
you seem to be misunderstanding... i asked him to concede the point that the theoy he offered, is not by scientific definition, a proper 'theory'
...easy enough since it isnt
especially in light of the fact he conceded this very same point in another discussoin
If you actually read the rest of the preface, instead of cherry picking quotes from it, you would realise that although the manuscript was peer-reviewed, two out of the 6 reviewers gave negative reviews. As a result it wasn't actually published through the peer-review process.
this means 4 out of 6 however, found it to have merit... 2 disagreed. There are those who disagree when anything new is presented
this means 4 out of 6 however, found it to have merit... 2 disagreed. There are those who disagree when anything new is presented
In a scientific peer review process, 2 out of 6 disagreeing with the findings of the paper would be enough to stop its publication.
__________________ The Bellman himself they all praised to the skies--
Such a carriage, such ease and such grace!
Such solemnity, too! One could see he was wise,
The moment one looked in his face!
In a scientific peer review process, 2 out of 6 disagreeing with the findings of the paper would be enough to stop its publication.
Originally Posted by WolfBitnGodSmittn
but it doesnt mean it is wrong... if 4 of 6 agree and find merit, dont you agree 2 of 6 could be bias in the thought of lending it credit?
No, it doesn't mean it's wrong. It merely means it wasn't 'peer reviewed' as the term is used in relation to science.
Certainly, 2 of 6 could be biased in the thought of lending it credit...and 4 of 6 could be biased the other way.
__________________ The Bellman himself they all praised to the skies--
Such a carriage, such ease and such grace!
Such solemnity, too! One could see he was wise,
The moment one looked in his face!
WILL SOMEONE ANSWER ME I AM TIRED OF BEING IN THE DARK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
P.S I'm sorry. I am very angry currently and I want some answers other than "In the bible it tells us ...." .Becuase lets face it the written word is a man made product and cannot be the direct word of god. I am agnostic and believe that god does not want us to waste time worrying over matters like this. He would want us to to enjoy the world he created.
Wow. That site is shocking - any organisation that counts an interracial relationship really don't deserve to exist.
The jury is still out on this one. Apparently it's a hoax, but the evidence is inconclusive.
__________________ "Myles, one can tell you're a liberal just by observing how many words it takes you to say nothing. Your non-American spelling of "honor" is also a giveaway."
- Andy Schlafly, conservapedia.com To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Linear Mode
