theevolutiondeceit at Yahoo! Groups

WE CHALLENGE DAWKINS TO A DISCUSSION BEFORE THE PUBLIC

let.vertigo — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:05:27 GMT

This article is taken from Harun Yahya web site; www.harunyahya.com WE CHALLENGE DAWKINS TO A DISCUSSION BEFORE THE PUBLIC Richard

Todd Greene vs Jerry McDonald

tinroad6g — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 09:53:06 GMT

The creationist Jerry McDonald challenged the evolutionist Todd Greene to a debate as to the age of the Earth here in the Debunkingevolutionism group. So far,

Re: My view of intelligent design

Dave Oldridge — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 09:51:23 GMT

... One has to wonder what sort of theology and Christianity would accept Keith as a member in good standing. Here's a person has spent decades ranting and

My view of intelligent design

Silk — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 09:48:02 GMT

All well & good but who is Dave? And where is your view of iD? Keith Eaton wrote: One has to wonder what sort of theology and

Re: Science teaching in Church

tinroad6g — Tue, 27 May 2008 19:22:46 GMT

Evolution isn't science so it should not be in the education system. SCIENCE *TAKES THE EVIDENCE *STUSIES AND MAKES CLAIMS FOR THE EVIDENCE *OFFERS SUPPORTING

Re: My view of intelligent design

Keith Eaton — Tue, 27 May 2008 19:20:12 GMT

One has to wonder what sort of theology and Christianity would accept Dave as a priest. Here is a person who has spent decades ranting and railing against

animated 3-D character speaking about evolution

let.vertigo — Tue, 27 May 2008 19:04:20 GMT

EVOLUTION IS NOT SCIENCE:Evolution Forgeries (Human Evolution) animated 3-D speaking, very well done

Re: My view of intelligent design

izzetbertan — Tue, 20 May 2008 11:26:58 GMT

The theory of evolution is actually incorrect. If it were true, then it wouldn't contradict with religions. However, when we dig underground everywhere in the

Re: My view of intelligent design

Dave Oldridge — Tue, 20 May 2008 10:07:24 GMT

... I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "a felt contrivance." The problem I have with so-called intelligent design theory is that it is not a theory.

About the Soul&Materialism

izzetbertan — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:43:35 GMT

Matter is not constant and eternal as what the materialists imagine. Matter has changed its nature according to quantum physics, in a way that materialists

My view of intelligent design

hucklebird@... — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:36:51 GMT

Hi Folks When I point to something showing an intelligent design I am only pointing to a felt contrivance. A contrivance is an artifact left behind by life, or

Re: Soul could not be explained by Darwinism

Walt Owen — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:47:10 GMT

You said "If they admit the soul, so they admit the continuity, so this will than (sic) open another door, 'the purpose of life'." I will admit ANYTHING.

Re: Soul could not be explained by Darwinism

Walt Owen — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:46:35 GMT

You are right, science has not fully understood how consciousness occurs. In fact, we are just barely getting started. However, we will achieve an answer

There is no matter-Re: Soul could not be explained by Darwinism

actung_0000 — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 21:28:44 GMT

Everything around contain physical laws. If each of us have choices this openly shows that there is soul. Materialists can never explain; how could be the

Re: Soul could not be explained by Darwinism

actung_0000 — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 21:26:34 GMT

This is a classical materialistic point of view. Materialists could of course not explain. Because soul is not a matter. Materialists do not believe that all