Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,907 Year: 4,164/9,624 Month: 1,035/974 Week: 362/286 Day: 5/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   March, 2005, Posts of the Month
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6052 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 23 of 36 (193135)
03-21-2005 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by nator
03-21-2005 8:49 AM


schraf defends science
Name: schrafinator
Forum: Is it science?
Thread: Is Evolutionist Disparagement of Creationism Justified?
Post #: #105
I particular enjoyed this defense of science against the cry of prejudice; I hope Faith takes time to understand (and trust) the content.
{Changed the "thread" info. The original had been the subtitle of the message. - Adminnemooseus}
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-21-2005 07:47 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by nator, posted 03-21-2005 8:49 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by nator, posted 03-22-2005 10:26 AM pink sasquatch has not replied
 Message 26 by paisano, posted 03-22-2005 5:21 PM pink sasquatch has replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6052 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 27 of 36 (193495)
03-22-2005 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by paisano
03-22-2005 5:21 PM


pink defends schraf defends science
Wow. Your first post in a month and a half and it disputes a POTM?
I guess you're not bitter or anything...
Perhaps the choice of "wacko" was not the best, yet it was a great defense against the argument that only creos get labeled as such and piled upon, while evos slap each other on the backs while ignoring each other's wacko arguments. In other words, the "disparaging" comments you found personally offensive directly countered the point at hand, that the evo side is specifically prejudiced against creos.
It was also an aside in a rather lengthy post, the latter half of which I found exceptional.
Apologies to admins and other members for discussion in the POTM forum; I simply wanted to make a quick defense of schraf's post and my choice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by paisano, posted 03-22-2005 5:21 PM paisano has not replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6052 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 35 of 36 (195736)
03-31-2005 12:52 PM


mike the whiz shocks and astounds
Name: mike the whiz
Forum:Is it Science?
Thread: Faith no more (at least not in scientific knowledge?)
Message: #5
After many recent frustrating arguments over the scientific nature of ID, it is refreshing to see an IDist honestly admit that ID is more in the realm of philosophy and faith than that of science:
BUT, Intelligent design for me, I'm going to say is not science. Maybe I'm just honest but I just don't think it is. ID deals with science, which is an entirely different thing.

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by mike the wiz, posted 03-31-2005 1:37 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024