Is this the tactic you use to avoid accepting that your argument has been summarily dispatched?Originally Posted by Rat Faced
Is this the tactic you use to avoid accepting that your argument has been summarily dispatched?Originally Posted by Rat Faced
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
Crap.
As ive said before, we are badly designed.
A design this bad can only come from starting from an orginal and then adding on other things for which the orginal design was not suited in the 1st place..
ie: Either evolved this way, or God was a totally lazy bastard that you wouldnt give a job to.
An It Harm None, Do What You Will
Sorry, didnt realise that "summarily dispatched" meant the same as "Havent really got an answer to that"..Originally Posted by j2k4
An It Harm None, Do What You Will
Answers require questions before them.Originally Posted by Rat Faced
Have you a plain question, or just more rhetorical ones?
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
I have no questions... just pointing out that you have put "Good" and "Bad" in the article, not Reuters.
They have merely reported exactly the same way as they do for everything else.
An It Harm None, Do What You Will
In this case, "the same way as they do for everything else..." is predjudicial, Rat, and that was my point.Originally Posted by Rat Faced
If you, as a consumer of Reuters' output, have been conditioned to believe "Christian" and/or "Conservative" to have a negative connotation, then, hey...double-trouble.
I'm not aware of any media outlet characterizing teachers or scientists as inherently negative, are you?
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
Worthy News and just about every other Right Christian Agency?
However, im gobsmacked by your admission that the News is biased Re: Islamic Terrorism in the Middle East and elswhere.
An It Harm None, Do What You Will
@ J2.
Who is it then that is pushing for I.D. in schools?. Who was it pushing for creationism in schools (seeing as they are obviously two completely different things )
@ topic
By all means put it in an elective religious studies class but keep it out of science classes. It's not science and doesn't belong there.
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
Originally Posted by vidcc
A common misconception nowadays. Truth is scholarly intelligent design supporters can quite effectively debate using pure scientific evidence.
You don't have to look hard to see such, but it is now common practice for evolutionists to turn a blind eye to this arguement.
Maybe this lawsuit will come to an actual debate about the validity of such things.
Last edited by spinningfreemanny; 09-24-2005 at 10:17 PM.
Do you know everything? do you know 3% of everything? Could it be that what you don't believe in is in the other 97%?
Bookmarks