d95-bli.no at spam.nada.kth.se
Fri Jun 21 01:40:50 PDT 2002
Steve Bougerolle wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-06-20 at 23:53, BjÃ¶rn Lindberg wrote:
> > Here is a good link refuting the common creationist arguments. Based on
> > your comments I would think that you will find items 7, 8 & 11
> > interesting:
> > http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&catID=2
> BjÃ¶rn, I find this really insulting. If you're planning to go farther
> than a Master's degree, I recommend you do your homework better than
> this and don't try to pacify people with flat statements aimed at
I found the article interesting and refreshing. Maybe because we don't
have much creationists in Sweden, so I've never had to "defend"
evolution theory before.
My impression was that you made some arguments in this thread that
seemed to be of a creationist nature. That article contains all the
science that is needed to refute creationism. Maybe I am totally wrong
though, and I am just misunderstanding you. In that case I am truly
sorry. Are you disagreeing with any one of the points discussed in that
I am not a close-minded evolution theory supporter BTW, but a competing
theory would have to be based in /science/, and it would have to explain
all the known evidence and facts equally well -- or preferably better --
than the currently accepted theory does.
> children and know-nothings. If I were on your Ph.D committee or
> reviewing your thesis you'd be in a fathom of hot water now...
I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean? Even if that article is
directed towards the layman, it is still factually correct.
I may be completely wrong here (it has happened before :-), and in that
case I apologize. I would like to know though; do you disagree with any
of the points in the article?
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-chat' in the subject header of the message
More information about the lfs-chat