It's a shittily written article.
The only thing I see shitty is the shallowness of the criticism.
* Space
Objects in space, which are more than 8,000 light years away, can be seen from earth.
This is under the category "Arguments to support evolution." What the bloody blue blazes does that have to do with anything?
See this is people who laugh at the other side but don't understand the issues themselves come in.
This is an important point against the argument that the universe is only 6,000 years old. How can that be when some of the light reaching the earth took more then 8,000 years to get here?
I wouldn't put it at the top of my list but it does have something to with the issue and it is easier for the layperson to understand then most dating methods.
Maybe this is a joke newspaper in the UK - I'm not familiar with it, I just recognize the name. But this is shoddy "journalism," about something that's already a hot-button topic.
Did you believe it was meant to settle the issue instead of just give some highlights?
Now if you really want me to "refute any of the claims made by creationist outside of [my] semantics issue," I could go to town. But really I thought the whole article was stupid, but didn't feel like spending too much time on it, so I made one pithy comment and moved on. ~shrug~
yet you are still in the discussion haven't shown any knowledge of the issue as of yet.
I can do a fine job refuting creationism myself and I can do it without simply pointing and laughing at people.
I can't even believe this.
13/09/2009 07:40:02 PM
- 1043 Views
Take a deep breath, close your eyes and go to your happy place.
13/09/2009 07:43:15 PM
- 574 Views
Re: Take a deep breath, close your eyes and go to your happy place.
13/09/2009 10:28:42 PM
- 671 Views
That is one amazingly stupid article...
13/09/2009 08:04:47 PM
- 614 Views
The author used the phrase "proven theories." Ergo, their argument is invalid. *NM*
14/09/2009 01:11:51 AM
- 317 Views
seriously. there's no such thing as a truly proven theory
14/09/2009 01:52:30 AM
- 583 Views
Re: definition of "theory"
14/09/2009 04:49:13 AM
- 640 Views
I can't really tell
14/09/2009 08:14:14 PM
- 621 Views
I think you are getting workedup over nothing
14/09/2009 09:57:22 PM
- 774 Views
That's... not exactly it.
14/09/2009 10:33:02 PM
- 536 Views
not that is exactly it
14/09/2009 11:10:52 PM
- 781 Views
No, Craig is quite right.
14/09/2009 11:21:11 PM
- 586 Views
No you just happen to wrong with him
15/09/2009 01:14:16 AM
- 574 Views
Well, maybe this has to do with your low opinion of the British press...
15/09/2009 10:51:46 AM
- 779 Views
Re: Well, maybe this has to do with your low opinion of the British press...
15/09/2009 05:32:51 PM
- 730 Views
'Fraid not.
14/09/2009 11:24:00 PM
- 586 Views
It's not, it's supposed to be relatively decent - mainstream conservative newspaper. *NM*
14/09/2009 11:28:44 PM
- 277 Views
Re: 'Fraid not.
15/09/2009 01:21:14 AM
- 580 Views
Re: 'Fraid not.
15/09/2009 01:22:59 AM
- 705 Views
15/09/2009 02:14:37 AM
- 674 Views
completely aside from this argument you guys have here...
15/09/2009 05:02:21 AM
- 619 Views
Interrupter!
15/09/2009 06:11:40 AM
- 562 Views
Re: Interrupter!
15/09/2009 06:54:56 AM
- 669 Views
One brain C4, coming up...
15/09/2009 12:00:26 PM
- 615 Views
The age of the universe is an important point in the creationist argument
15/09/2009 05:53:41 PM
- 650 Views
Exactly. So it was in the wrong column.
15/09/2009 07:58:15 PM
- 600 Views
what I think has been lost in the debate is it looks like it will be a good movie
15/09/2009 08:14:04 PM
- 664 Views
Um.
14/09/2009 11:28:28 PM
- 724 Views
LOL
15/09/2009 09:29:16 PM
- 654 Views
Really? Because this was a rather atypical debate, honestly.
15/09/2009 09:43:13 PM
- 528 Views
Well, I can pretend if you want me to
15/09/2009 10:07:59 PM
- 1097 Views
I happen to find it all extremely interesting
15/09/2009 10:23:19 PM
- 580 Views
There are some places you can go that discuss the creationist ideas
15/09/2009 10:58:25 PM
- 740 Views