It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

creationism, where is the evidence???!!! i see none

page: 9
5
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Here's a website as example:
www.ocii.com...

I do not endorse this site in any way and find it almost as funny as an Austin Powers movie but no where near as entertaining.


Scary!
Total fruitcake.


But we know that dinosaurs lived for 160 million years and died out approx. 65 million years ago.


Hm... actually we don't really know. There is much evidence to the contrary and geologists are constantly adjusting the age of the geological strata and fossil layers.


This is of course just an opinion based on interpretation.


I encourage you to dig around for this. I remain skeptical about the chalk cave drawings (that look more like dogs to me) but there is other very intricate and detailed depictions of these creatures that look uncannily similar to triceratops, pterodactyls, etc. There is an example in the first link I'm posting below.



There is quite a bit of evidence that disagree with this statement. Do you have any evidence to support your statement?


Here's a few:

The Age of Dinosaurs
Continental Drift and Plate Tectonics
Fossil Layers and Prehistoric creatures
Surprising Dinosaurs

Just some food for thought.

[edit on 1/5/2008 by AshleyD]




posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


The age of rocks and fossils can be determined one of two ways
1. Distribution of fossil through the sequence of sedimentary rocks.
2. radiometric age dating.

From my understanding, there have been changes in dates of sedimentary rock layers but never from millions of years to thousands of years.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 12:47 PM
link   
I also like the idea that because science is ready to reassess evidence as it is uncovered, that this is some sort of negative. I guess religiously motivated people are just too stuck in having an unmoving dogma.

Anyway, lets see. We have the scientific community that includes scientists from geologists to physicists to paleontologists using all sorts of techniques to date and assess the geolgical strata, and we have people like Do-While Jones:


In 1971, Do-While Jones received the degree of Bachelor of Science (with distinction) in Electrical Engineering, from a midwestern university better known for its football team than its engineering school. Since graduation he has been employed in the defense industry of a well-known free-world nation. During the course of that employment he was granted a patent for a radar signal processing algorithm.


A retired electrical engineer who worked on radar systems.

Heh, I think I know whose insight on this issue might just be more reliable. This is only consolidated when I read this sort of stuff:


Upon reading a published report that someone at Montana State Northern University found evidence of dried blood on dinosaur bones (which certainly could not have survived millions of years), I actually went to Montana to check out that report myself. Not only did I confirm it, but I went on a MSUN dinosaur dig, and found evidence that the bones in that area seem to have been buried after the formation of the coulees in that area (which are believed by geologists to have been formed thousands, not millions, of years ago). We published the details of my trip in the We Dug Dinos article in the September, 1999, newsletter.

Last summer, when I investigated the undisputed dinosaur tracks in the Paluxy River (near Glen Rose, Texas) I found that the tracks followed the (geologically young) course of the river. Is it reasonable to believe that the Paluxy River cut through 20 feet of recent rock and just happened to follow the tracks of dinosaurs made millions of years earlier? or do those tracks follow the river because the river was there first?


The infamous paluxy tracks and dried blood, heh. Neither are true. The 'dried blood' isn't blood, but possibly actual break-down products of blood, the products within the bone have even been dated to confirm their multi-million year age.

Some people will believe anything, 'itz on teh internetz, must be troo'.

[edit on 5-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Did you check out the article that stated sedimentary layers might not take as long to form as we previously thought? The eruption of a single volcano or a localized flood can create several feet of stratum layers in a few days or weeks. And again, not all creationists believe the earth is only 6,000 years old. That was only a hypothesis started by a man who assumed the genealogies were closed, that there was no time gap between Genesis 1:1-2, and that creation was six literal days.

Something I just thought of: Why did God create Eve from Adam after causing a sleep to come upon him? Why didn't he just make Eve "appear" as well? Could this be a veiled reference to evolutionary cellular mitosis? Could He have also used evolutionary cellular mitosis to go from vegetation, to living animals, to humans? This is a tenet of Theistic evolution (something I personally do not agree with) but, hey, why not?

Again, even Darwin believed in the adaptations and changes of species (something already mentioned in the Bible and in one of my previous comments) but didn't know how organic life originated or the conscious. Maybe we've gotten it all wrong. Perhaps evolution and creationism aren't mutually exclusive like we believe. Who's to say God didn't set up the system this way? It would certainly explain the holes in the theory of evolution and compliment the changing species taught in the Bible.

[edit on 1/5/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   
But also, just like I have my doubts the earth is only 6,000 years old (due to the original Hebrew of the Bible) I also don't believe our universe is billions of years old either. The laws of physics state our universe is entropic. We already know the sun's energy is decreasing, the speed of light has deteriorated in the 150 years we have been measuring it, etc.

At the sun's rate of entropy, it would be a lot smaller than it is now if it was billions of years old as evolution asserts. At this rate of entropy, the sun should either have burned our ancestors to a crisp or have shrunken in size by our time to not be capable of supporting life on earth. And if the speed of light is decreasing as has been proven, it didn't take quite as long for the light from a distant star to reach us as previously believed. This is the laws of physics we're talking about- not spiritual mumbo jumbo.

[edit on 1/5/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
And if the speed of light is decreasing as has been proven, it didn't take quite as long for the light from a distant star to reach us as previously believed. This is the laws of physics we're talking about- not spiritual mumbo jumbo.


It hasn't been proven at all. There are YECers like Setterfield who spread this sort of BS. There are some physicists who posit a change in c in the very early periods of the universe (before Planck time - 10^-43secs), but there is no evidence of this.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
There are YECers like Setterfield who spread this sort of BS. There are some physicists who posit a change in c in the very early periods of the universe (before Planck time - 10^-43secs), but there is no evidence of this.


Maybe, maybe not. We could use the argument that the measurements of the speed of light were not accurate in the past and instead reveal an artificial slow-down that never even occurred.

But here is a secular article on CBS. It by no means seems to endorse the "Young Earth Creationist BS" as it refers to our universe being billions of years old. Yet, they still admit there is a contradiction and that something has to give. They propose this is the speed of light which would compliment the second law of thermodynamics and the law of entropy. See: HERE.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Here's a graphic representation about the difference between science and faith





posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Again, who can say God didn't use cellular mitosis to create Eve out of Adam's rib? Why on earth would He use a part of Adam to create Eve instead of making her appear? Why is the creation of plants -> animals -> humans in the Bible consistent with the evolutionary theory of plants -> animals -> humans? Intelligently programmed coding?

We are told God "breathed the breath of life" into animals and humans. Did He develop one from the cells of another then give it life? We're we intelligently encoded this way?

This would mesh with Darwin's theistic beliefs and answer the question that puzzles evolutionists: how did inorganic matter convert to organic matter? How did the consciousness of life come to be?

This would explain why God used Adam to make Eve. This would explain the order of creation and its similarity between evolution. The Bible already refers to genetic mutations in terms of degeneration that can be verified in a lab. It would also answer some of the complexity and order questions. Maybe its not an issue of either or but both!

It certainly seems the Bible endorses some concepts of evolution. Could this be more advanced scientific knowledge in the Bible? Don't dismiss it right away. Reading between the lines, this seems this is exactly what is going on.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by jfj123
 


Did you check out the article that stated sedimentary layers might not take as long to form as we previously thought? The eruption of a single volcano or a localized flood can create several feet of stratum layers in a few days or weeks.

There are several different ways of dating volcanic rock such as Magnetostratigraphy, that would help to eliminate this problem.


And again, not all creationists believe the earth is only 6,000 years old. That was only a hypothesis started by a man who assumed the genealogies were closed, that there was no time gap between Genesis 1:1-2, and that creation was six literal days.

I don't want to generalize it's just I have heard this quite a bit from different sources.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


So, now we're all for embracing hypotheses, but only when they support your position? There is no evidence that the speed of light has changed, people have hypothesised such a thing, but there is no evidence it has happened, and Davies et al's claims have been strongly disputed and are not really accepted to any great extent.

Carlip & Vaidaya (2003)

Duff (2004)

I think it's all a bit like pick-an-mix for you really, and I think jfj has your approach pegged above...

It's called confirmation bias.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


In regards to your illustration: But are we really ignoring contradicting evidence? Read my comment above this one. It seems like evolution and creationism compliment each other more than they conflict. Is the Bible teaching evolution? Is this more evidence to advanced scientific knowledge in the Bible?

Stay with me.

1) Evolution and Creationism both teach:
Plants -> Animals -> Humans.

2) The Bible seems to allude to cellular mitosis by using the rib of Adam to create Eve.

3) The creation of different species in the Bible (thorns and thistles when there previously were none) after creation was already complete compared to the different species formation evolution states.

4) The Bible states that humans and many animals converted from herbivores to carnivores. The evolutionary theory believes some creatures switched from herbivores to carnivores (and vice versa).

5) The Bible refers to genetic degeneration and this can be verified through the scientific method. Evolution proposes, via extinction, that some species degenerate until they die out.

Again, I'm not sure and this seems to be getting into Theistic evolution. But maybe they are the ones who were right and we are the stubborn ones who want to stay at opposite sides of the pendulum. Even Darwin was a theist. Who knows?

What I'm trying to do is to get us all to think outside the box of our presupposed beliefs.


There are several different ways of dating volcanic rock such as Magnetostratigraphy, that would help to eliminate this problem.


Once again, this does not contradict what I am stating. I do not personally believe the earth is only 6,000 years old. Secondly, after modern volcanic eruptions, we can witness the multi-layered strata being formed. Dating methods have also been proven false before.


I don't want to generalize it's just I have heard this quite a bit from different sources.


Oh, I know, Hon! I wasn't implying you were pulling this out of nowhere!
Many, many creationists claim the earth is 6,000 years old because they go by the absolute literal English interpretation of the Bible. I'm not criticizing them but it does seem to contradict the evidence. If I wanted to find a happy medium, I would say there is a time gap in the original Hebrew of Genesis 1:1-2 while the genealogies are closed and only man is 6,000 years old. But, I wasn't there so we'll wait and see.

[edit on 1/5/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
So, now we're all for embracing hypotheses


We're not embracing anything. We are speculating.


There is no evidence that the speed of light has changed


I respectfully disagree. There is evidence but then some say that evidence itself is flawed.


I think it's all a bit like pick-an-mix for you really, and I think jfj has your approach pegged above...


No, this is a discussion and I proposed a hypothesis and even stated I do not necessarily believe in Theistic evolution personally. But don't be close minded. Maybe our beliefs are not mutually exclusive.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
I respectfully disagree. There is evidence but then some say that evidence itself is flawed.


Heh, no they posit it. It's not the same thing. Davies even says it could be that thermodynamics is wrong. He makes a personal judgment as to which should alter. That's even taking his speculation as having worth.


No, this is a discussion and I proposed a hypothesis and even stated I do not necessarily believe in Theistic evolution personally. But don't be close minded. Maybe our beliefs are not mutually exclusive.


I'm not really. I think scientific hypotheses are great. They are the driving force of scientific investigation. We need as many as possible, but then we use an evolution type mechanism and filter out the weak and falsified. Like YEC.

I agree that our positions are not mutually exclusive in some ways. But that would require you taking an old-earth theistic evolutionist position. That is the scientific position as host, with a faith-based parasite.

I can even tell you your best line of argument, it is the fine-tuning issue. Based on the physical constants. You have no real credibility arguing about the validity of evolutionary biology and the age of the earth, both are well-established science.

[edit on 5-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
My favorite is the one where they say,
"after all, evolution is just a theory. Even scientists call it a theory".
By saying that, they are actually agreeing that evolution is a theory. So they are agreeing evolution is correct.

The reality is, they have no idea what a Scientific Theory is. Wouldn't you think that creationists would at least know the most basic information behind science if they were going to debunk it?????

Here's the definition of a scientific theory that apparently no creationists no about.


In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.


So needless to say, every time I hear a creationist say that, I point and laugh


Nice straw man,, read your own logic and show me where they are agreeing it is correct. They are agreeing it is just a theory, nothing more. Where you impose their "real" grasp of the word then destroy them with their ignorance makes a clever mind reading parlor trick but it doesn't impress me.

To have someone tell me they know what some christian mean in the same sentence they attempt to prove they don't know what they are talking about is very funny indeed,, especially when it is YOU who is giving me a good laugh right now.

As your own definition offers no words to convey anything absolute, nothing to convey "bonafide fact" nothing to say it is "unequivocally proven" According to your own dichotomy of logic you are saying that because we say a "Truther" has a 911 theory we are admitting it is correct when it is "just" a theory. Unless you add another qualifier to make the verbal distinction that they agree to it's "correctness" , they are merely reminding you what it is.

You suggesting their is even room for such attempts to debunk it tells me your genuine interpretation for the intended message the Christian placed on the original phrase "it's just a theory" proves, that you not only knew what they were trying to convey but that you intentionally convoluted it to use in some sophomoric attempt to cast them as less intelligent. Are they that much a threat to your own intelligence that you have to force false intrepretations on them as presumptuous conclusions they know less about science then you?

Evolution has been debunked by people whose accomplishments and intelligence makes Dawkins look rather like an imbecile.

I read Dawkins "explanations" to "support" his theories and see that he is handicapped by his own atheism and will not test or go near ANYTHING that starts looking like a mind was behind it. He simply won't go there and Mel wants to say Creationism is dogmatic? Creationism can go either way but Evolution is proving to be more and more a dead and archaic draconian research into a cosmic crap shoot. A science where the only reason to defend it is because the alternative suggests he is accountable to something greater then himself. Creationism isn't owned by Christians, it just makes more sense in light of all the new discoveries that substantiate a mind behind it.

When a puzzle is purposefully created, it involves intention of design. While I can see one very intelligent individual sitting down and coming up with a design and then going on to manufacture the pieces of the puzzle, I can't see a dozen individuals, working independently of each other, managing to come up with puzzle pieces that fit to form a design of which they weren't even aware.

Any time my opponent admits that the only way to live successfully as an atheist is to be willfully or blissfully ignorant of atheism's logical ramifications, evolutions obvious limitations, I recognize the futile purpose for their involvement in such discussions as pathetic antagonism of religion having nothing to do with science whatsoever. So quit the masquerade for what motivates such a person isn't your love of science. It's your hatred for religion behind the guise of deep seeded hatred of a God they allege doesn't even exist.

Believing in evolutions theory's so far out of the realm of possibility that it makes the belief in GOD easier to believe when comparing the two.

The atheists disdain of a science where prejudice is so clearly rejected the moment it is deemed creationism, isn't one of bad science, it is one of intolerance for what it might prove, not to mention what it has already debunked as Biobabble.

I'd be very surprised if evolution is still even taught ten years from now.

It's a joke

- Con






[edit on 5-1-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Heh, no they posit it. It's not the same thing. Davies even says it could be that thermodynamics is wrong. He makes a personal judgment as to which should alter. That's even taking his speculation as having worth.


But he didn't pull this conclusion out of nowhere. He compared the laws of science to scientific theory. But I definitely see what you mean and how it can go both ways.


I'm not really. I think scientific hypotheses are great. They are the driving force of scientific investigation. We need as many as possible, but then we use an evolution type mechanism and filter out the weak and falsified. Like YEC.

I agree that our positions are not mutually exclusive in some ways. But that would require you taking an old-earth theistic evolutionist position. That is the scientific position as host, with a faith-based parasite.


But let me ask you this. And this is a hypothetical argument that I am not endorsing. We're just thinking outside of the box of both of our beliefs. For argument's sake, let's say the Bible is actually referring to theistic evolution in the Biblical examples I supplied above. I myself am not sure of this but again, it's for argument's sake.

If Genesis (a book thousands of years old) refers to an evolutionary process before Darwin's hypothesis in the 19th century, how can theism be a parasite to science? It would seem to me the first one to mention such a theory (the Bible, hypothetically) would be "the winner" of the race while the second comer (secular science) would be the parasite.

The Bible does mention many examples of scientific and medical foreknowledge so I wonder if this is something that has been missed all this time. Again, remember Darwin was a theist. He never claimed evolution was an atheistic principle- just the opposite in fact when you read his studies. Of course, he did not believe in the Judeo-Christian god but instead a supreme being not consistently and continuously involved in earth's affairs.


I can even tell you your best line of argument, it is the fine-tuning issue. Based on the physical constants. You have no real credibility arguing about the validity of evolutionary biology and the age of the earth, both are well-established science.


Once again, I do not believe in a 6,000 year old earth. I also don't believe in a universe that is billions of years old. As I told another participant in this discussion, the 6,000 year old earth hypothesis is actually fairly recent and doesn't take the original Hebrew of the Bible into consideration. So, I think both dogmas are wrong. Due to the fact date/age calculations constantly flux in secular science in light of new information (and taking the laws of entropy into consideration), I don't think our universe is billions of years old either. Neither dates of origin are without their scientific contradictions.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Evolution has been debunked by people whose accomplishments and intelligence makes Dawkins look rather like an imbecile. I read Dawkins "explanations" to "support" his theories and see that he is handicapped by his own atheism and will not test or go near ANYTHING that starts looking like a mind was behind it. He simply won't go there and Mel wants to say Creationism is dogmatic?


I don't think it is dogmatic, just wrong. I can easily view YEc as a falsified hypothesis. Creationism comes in many forms, it has recently took on a cheap tuxedo and become 'intelligent design', for instance. It does attempt to change. YEC is more dogmatic, as you are stuck with a falsified hypothesis, to hold to this you need to ignore a multitude of evidence.

We're still waiting for the ID test, how can Dawkins test the untestable? Tell me the scientific hypothesis for intelligent design or creationism? I'm waiting in suspenders for that.

Nice to get a mention in the same paragraph as Dawkins, cheers!

Make Dawkins look like an imbecile? That's rather funny. Like who? Dr Dr Dembski?



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread323802/pg9#pid3861702]post by Conspiriology[/url



As your own definition offers no words to convey anything absolute, nothing to convey "bonafide fact" nothing to say it is "unequivocally proven"

Might I bring your attention to the following portion of the definition:
"It's as close to proven as anything in science can be."
I agree with this statement. The same theories allow us to understand the sciences that allow us the society we have today.


According to your own dichotomy of logic you are saying that because we say a "Truther" has a 911 theory we are admitting it is correct when it is "just" a theory.

No that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that people are misusing the word and it can be sometimes ironically amusing
A more appropriate word would be hypothesis or idea.


Unless you add another qualifier to make the verbal distinction that they agree to it's "correctness" , they are merely reminding you what it is.

A scientific theory is a scientific theory. Misusing the phrase doesn't change it's definition.


You suggesting their is even room for such attempts to debunk it tells me your genuine interpretation for the intended message the Christian placed on the original phrase "it's just a theory" proves that you not only knew what they were trying to convey but that you intentionally convoluted it to use in some sophomoric attempt to cast them as less intelligent.

My point is that if people can't understand what their argument comprises, how can they understand whether it's valid or not?


Evolution has been debunked by people whose accomplishments and intelligence makes Dawkins look rather like an imbecile.

This is a false statement.


I read Dawkins "explanations" to "support" his theories and see that he is handicapped by his own atheism and will not test or go near ANYTHING that starts looking like a mind was behind it. He simply won't go there and Mel wants to say Creationism is dogmatic? Creationism can go either way but Evolution is proving to be more and more a dead and archaic draconian research into a cosmic crap shoot. A science where the only reason to defend it is because the alternative suggests he is accountable to something greater then himself.

Please understand, scientists don't defend evolution. They simply look at evidence and create a theory. There is tremendous amounts of evidence to support evolution.


Any time my opponent admits that the only way to live successfully as an atheist is to be willfully or blissfully ignorant of atheism's logical ramifications,

Well I think most people would agree that someone can live as a non-atheist.


I recognize the futile purpose for their involvement in such discussions as pathetic antagonism behind the guise of deep seeded hatred of a God

You're making way too much out of this. Atheists don't hate god, they simply don't believe in the entity.


The atheists disdain of a science where prejudice is so clearly rejected the moment it is deemed creationism, isn't one of bad science, it is one of intolerance for what it might prove, not to mention what it has already debunked as Biobabble. I'd be very surprised if evolution is still even taught ten years from now.

Again, evolution has not been debunked. You may need to believe this but it doesn't make it any more true.
Evolution may not be taught if we fall back into the dark ages where people are pursecuted for believing that our planet revolves around the sun and is not the center of the universe.

To be honest, I don't care what anyone believes as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. Denying the truth of evolution hurts others.

The elimination of knowledge has happened throughout history and should not be tolerated now for any reason.



[edit on 5-1-2008 by jfj123]

[edit on 5-1-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
If Genesis (a book thousands of years old) refers to an evolutionary process before Darwin's hypothesis in the 19th century, how can theism be a parasite to science? It would seem to me the first one to mention such a theory (the Bible, hypothetically) would be "the winner" of the race while the second comer (secular science) would be the parasite.


If it did, then great. But it didn't. You are using the bible like a rorschach blot.

We went over this in t'other thread, genesis is wrong in many ways.


Again, remember Darwin was a theist. He never claimed evolution was an atheistic principle- just the opposite in fact when you read his studies. Of course, he did not believe in the Judeo-Christian god but instead a supreme being not consistently and continuously involved in earth's affairs.


But I have never said that evolution = atheism. I'm glad you understand that, it is a canard that some like conspirology like to often use. There is no reason why someone can't be a theist and accept evolution. Some of the best defenders of science from creationists are theists (e.g., Ken Miller and Ayala).


I don't think our universe is billions of years old either. Neither dates of origin are without their scientific contradictions.


Well, how old then? You just appear to be taking a middle ground for the fun of it. Saying YEC is wrong, but so is science. Why is it an issue? Why can't the earth be billions of years old? It is strongly supported by what we know, and it doesn't kill your golden theistic goose - you can murmur amen if you like, it want stop you.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
We're still waiting for the ID test, how can Dawkins test the untestable? Tell me the scientific hypothesis for intelligent design or creationism? I'm waiting in suspenders for that.

Nice to get a mention in the same paragraph as Dawkins, cheers!

Make Dawkins look like an imbecile? That's rather funny. Like who? Dr Dr Dembski?


Ahh mel you are very welcome my astute opponent. Sorry the slant on the last post, you understand I just get rather disgusted by posts like that.

I have to ask,, you mean you have never read anyone other then Dawkins? I mean is that your favorite because? or do you really think he is of the same calibre science as Royal Truman or Hawkings?

I can show you on Dawkins own website his refusal to discuss this very topic. When I see statements like "religion" is a parasite on science,, I just don't see the point. Would you?

I usually respond in kind and when mutual respect is given I will stay for the debate. O by the way,, I read your thread you made linked to your sig. You got a pretty clever wit when responding to some of them, had me cracking up.

I don't know who "Dembski" is and I have no idea what you mean saying what is falsefiable. I think I have a very good grasp of falsefiability and I am not aware of tests where your post has a referance?

Always good to hear from you mel whether we agree or not

- Con



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join