what is a scientific theory of creation

There's nothing wrong with The True.Origin Archive, but posting bare links with no accompanying discussion is discouraged by rule 5 of the Forum Guidelines. No one can tell what message you're replying to, or what particular point you're trying to make.A link to The True.Origin Archive is already included in this site's Reference Library under Creationist Websites. If there are other Creationist sites you'd like to see included in the library then please send email to admin@.Welcome aboard!--Percy
   EvC Forum Administrator

quote:

---

Originally posted by Strawman:
I'm sure most evolutionists just hate this site, but here goes:
http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp

---

No, I don't "just hate" the site, although it is rather silly.I have it bookmarked, actually.

>but posting bare links with no accompanying discussion is >discouraged by rule 5 of the Forum Guidelines. No one can tell what >message you're replying to, or what particular point you're trying >to make.I was posting according to the subject*hmmmm*...would you rather me just copy/paste what's there?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Strawman:
>but posting bare links with no accompanying discussion is >discouraged by rule 5 of the Forum Guidelines. No one can tell what >message you're replying to, or what particular point you're trying >to make.

​

I was posting according to the subject*hmmmm*...would you rather me just copy/paste what's there?

---

So the scientific theory of creation according to your website is........Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Strawman:
>but posting bare links with no accompanying discussion is >discouraged by rule 5 of the Forum Guidelines. No one can tell what >message you're replying to, or what particular point you're trying >to make.

​

I was posting according to the subject*hmmmm*...would you rather me just copy/paste what's there?

---

why not pick one issue and explain in your own words, and preferably with supporting data, why you think it disproves old earth or evolution. Anyone can copy a website, but it doesn't show that you grasp the issues.cheersjoe meert

>Anyone can copy a website, but it doesn't show that you grasp the >issues.Everybody learns from somebody or something, and you also pick up and say what that somebody teaches you.
Why should I copy/paste what the site already says, when I can just post the site...others have done it here without complaints. Why pick on strawman. Is it the name?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Strawman:
>Anyone can copy a website, but it doesn't show that you grasp the >issues.

​

Everybody learns from somebody or something, and you also pick up and say what that somebody teaches you.
Why should I copy/paste what the site already says, when I can just post the site...others have done it here without complaints. Why pick on strawman. Is it the name?

---

I'm sure you hate this site, but here goes, http://www.talkorigins.org/Discuss.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Strawman:
>Anyone can copy a website, but it doesn't show that you grasp the >issues.

​

Everybody learns from somebody or something, and you also pick up and say what that somebody teaches you.
Why should I copy/paste what the site already says, when I can just post the site...others have done it here without complaints. Why pick on strawman. Is it the name?

---

JM: Read what I said. I did not say you could not learn from that or any other site. What I am asking is to pick one issue and explain what it is you have learned. Since you claimed to have learned from that site, explain what points were particularly important in your stance and why (after critically examining the issues) you think the case is strong. All good learners also move from simple absorption to critical thought and finally novel ideas. If you are at the first stage fine, just say so. If you've moved on, why not choose a topic and discuss it. Most of the links provided here are used as reference material for an argument rather than a pointless link that provides little in the way of discussion. You might just have well posted http://THEWHOLEINTERNET.comdiscussCheersJoe Meert

It is in the link...is it that hard to understand. Why should I waste time copy/pasting, when I have already copy/pasted the link, which is what I have learned.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Strawman:
It is in the link...is it that hard to understand. Why should I waste time copy/pasting, when I have already copy/pasted the link, which is what I have learned.

---

JM: In other words, you don't really have anything. You are simply spamming. What's so hard about choosing one of the issues on that site and discussing it in more depth? It is only difficult if you are unable to comprehend the issues. So, how about it? If not, why not just find a forum where people simply post alternating links. Do you want some help? How about if we discuss Plaisted's false assertions about radiometric dating? http://www.trueorigins.org/dating.aspYou can start by summarizing what you think are his strongest points and why. I will be happy to discuss those issues with you. You have alluded to the fact that you believe (after careful study) that everything on that site is correct. So, let's pick this issue and discuss it? Are you game?CheersJoe Meert

*gasp*
you gave a link*tsk*tsk*

quote:

---

Originally posted by Strawman:
*gasp*
you gave a link*tsk*tsk*

---

JM: Yes, I did. Did you read my posts at all? I said there is nothing wrong with posting a link providing you are using it as a reference within a more specific discussion. Not only that, but I repeated the link you provided! So, how's about it? Shall we discuss the details of that particular issue on True Origins? I'll let you go first by explaining why the essay contained on that page is correct. You have time to look up original references and supply a more expanded analysis. I'll keep checking for your post.CheersJoe Meert

Do you mean that an image is exchanged between the fore ground and the back gound DURING COMMUNICATION. I think the point is that one could try to do this with letters to facilliate informed understanding but there is some science of the negative side of a positve image that is electronically controlled being perhaps a bit idolic that even my own perversion of the symmetry would be seen as the color and not the curve. Hope I'm not too far off thread.