To: shibumi
A careful reading of "Origin" shows a Darwin who would have been dismayed at the underwhelming lack of evidence for his theory. DingDingDing
We have a winner. Try telling this to the Darwin freaks who refuse to believe there may be holes in their theory.
Again, I'm not a Creationist, I'm more agnostic, but it is funny to see scientific types accept Darwinist Evolutionary theory as it relates to "Origin" on their own faith.
20 posted on
11/23/2004 10:39:45 PM PST by
Carling
(What happened to Sandy Burglar's Docs?)
To: Carling
Is there a difference between a "Creationist" and a creationist?
21 posted on
11/23/2004 10:49:25 PM PST by
jwalsh07
To: Carling
Again, I'm not a Creationist, I'm more agnostic, but it is funny to see scientific types accept Darwinist Evolutionary theory as it relates to "Origin" on their own faith. I think it's funny (tragic really) to see Creationists try to tell God how He should have done things.
42 posted on
11/24/2004 2:56:26 AM PST by
Moonman62
(Federal Creed: If it moves tax it. If it keeps moving regulate it. If it stops moving subsidize it.)
To: Carling
We have a winner. Try telling this to the Darwin freaks who refuse to believe there may be holes in their theory. He just tried it. The fraud was obvious.
56 posted on
11/24/2004 6:58:19 AM PST by
VadeRetro
(Nothing means anything when you go to Hell for knowing what things mean.)
To: Carling
Again, I'm not a Creationist... You also protest too much about what you're not, while rejecting vast categories of evidence offhand.
57 posted on
11/24/2004 7:01:27 AM PST by
VadeRetro
(Nothing means anything when you go to Hell for knowing what things mean.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson