Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: "Uncle Davey" <jerzy.jakubowski@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.uncle-davey
Subject: Re: Varvarians, shale on you!!! (was Re: Questions for Young Earth Creationists)
Date: 8 Aug 2005 15:42:46 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 83
Sender: news@darwin.ediacara.org
Approved: robomod@ediacara.org
Message-ID: <1123540965.975613.212170@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
References: <SAbIe.104797$%K2.87026@pd7tw1no> <1123199213.535199.106120@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <dcv6md$nu9$0@pita.alt.net> <s4JIe.119960$%K2.45229@pd7tw1no> <1123246059.815681.309470@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <akJIe.120050$%K2.50321@pd7tw1no> <dd22es$of6$0@pita.alt.net> <slrndfb4bu.6hq.mightymartianca@nobody.here> <dd5sbt$l9j$0@pita.alt.net> <1123466715.172507.48520@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <dd79sp$cen$0@pita.alt.net> <1123495368.096515.228340@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin.ediacara.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1123540412 93626 128.100.83.246 (8 Aug 2005 22:33:32 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@darwin.ediacara.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 22:33:32 +0000 (UTC)
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.76.33.69
In-Reply-To: <1123495368.096515.228340@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=212.76.33.69;posting-account=gG9z7g0AAACX2COayK0fpS1EvM-MaAf9
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darwin.ediacara.org id j78MXQvd093613
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.uncle-davey:4106
Dave wrote:
> Uncle Davey wrote:
> > news:1123466715.172507.48520@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > Uncle Davey wrote:
> > >
> > > Snip
> > >
> > > > Some aspects of YEC are true and some parts of Gosse are
> > > > true, in my view.
> > >
> > > Which "aspects" are objectively, scientifically, or empirically
> > > true? Be ready to cite evidence.
> >
> > I said they were true in my view.
>
> So why are they "true" in your view?
Because they make sense to me, they hold together like a jigsaw, for
me.
>
> > In my view, things don't need to be empirically proven to be true...
>
> Or even empirically supported?
No. Not even that.
>
> > ...in fact the opposite is sometimes the case - things which appear
> > to be empirically proven are only so in the context of the giant
> > circular argument that is secular and evolutionary thinking.
>
> Give a specific example.
The way dating by carbon 14 and other dating methods corroborates other
things that corroborate it, for instance, and all just to give us a
long time so that evolution could have taken place.
>
> > > Snip
> > >
> > > > I have not however seen a convincing disproving of either
> > > > the Gosseist or the modern YEC position.
> > >
> > > What hasn't been effectively, scientifically, objectively, or
> > > scientifically disproven as much as science can do that?
> >
> > We're having a separate discussion about that, and I'm still waiting
> > for your first response.
>
> Actually, you're not. You've seen the summary, first-impression list
> of responses. It's not a separate discussion--it's very much a part of
> this discussion, and this discussion is very much a part of it.
That hasn't been here, though, has it? That has only been posted to
maleboge.org, where it isn't even on topic. You're supposed to be only
one of three mods on that, but you basically make ad hoc decisions as
you see fit.
Which of course supports the HDS=DWH hypothesis.
>
> > Take your time, we've got all the time it takes.
>
> You might use the intevening time to explain just why each of those
> items, or any of them, are "holes" for "evolutionary theory."
> Explanation some of your assumptions that you state as facts might also
> be useful.
>
> And I see you're back to adding groups.
I thought t.o. was on topic and that my vanity group could do with
something other than pure spam once in a while. after all, it does have
my name on it.
Strip them out if it bothers you so much.
Uncle Davey
www.usenetposts.com
|
|