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.
See this is people who laugh at the other side but don't understand the issues themselves come in.
This is under the category "Arguments to support evolution." What the bloody blue blazes does that have to do with anything?
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.
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
1189 Views
Take a deep breath, close your eyes and go to your happy place.
- 13/09/2009 07:43:15 PM
719 Views
Re: Take a deep breath, close your eyes and go to your happy place.
- 13/09/2009 10:28:42 PM
806 Views
That is one amazingly stupid article...
- 13/09/2009 08:04:47 PM
752 Views
The author used the phrase "proven theories." Ergo, their argument is invalid. *NM*
- 14/09/2009 01:11:51 AM
393 Views
seriously. there's no such thing as a truly proven theory
- 14/09/2009 01:52:30 AM
713 Views
Re: definition of "theory"
- 14/09/2009 04:49:13 AM
794 Views
I can't really tell
- 14/09/2009 08:14:14 PM
759 Views
I think you are getting workedup over nothing
- 14/09/2009 09:57:22 PM
913 Views
That's... not exactly it.
- 14/09/2009 10:33:02 PM
670 Views
not that is exactly it
- 14/09/2009 11:10:52 PM
924 Views
No, Craig is quite right.
- 14/09/2009 11:21:11 PM
718 Views
No you just happen to wrong with him
- 15/09/2009 01:14:16 AM
728 Views
Well, maybe this has to do with your low opinion of the British press...
- 15/09/2009 10:51:46 AM
915 Views
- 15/09/2009 10:51:46 AM
915 Views
Re: Well, maybe this has to do with your low opinion of the British press...
- 15/09/2009 05:32:51 PM
882 Views
- 15/09/2009 05:32:51 PM
882 Views
'Fraid not.
- 14/09/2009 11:24:00 PM
730 Views
It's not, it's supposed to be relatively decent - mainstream conservative newspaper. *NM*
- 14/09/2009 11:28:44 PM
340 Views
Re: 'Fraid not.
- 15/09/2009 01:21:14 AM
715 Views
- 15/09/2009 02:14:37 AM
810 Views
- 15/09/2009 02:14:37 AM
810 Views
completely aside from this argument you guys have here...
- 15/09/2009 05:02:21 AM
777 Views
Interrupter!
- 15/09/2009 06:11:40 AM
705 Views
Re: Interrupter!
- 15/09/2009 06:54:56 AM
811 Views
One brain C4, coming up...
- 15/09/2009 12:00:26 PM
783 Views
The age of the universe is an important point in the creationist argument
- 15/09/2009 05:53:41 PM
786 Views
Exactly. So it was in the wrong column.
- 15/09/2009 07:58:15 PM
746 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
805 Views
Um.
- 14/09/2009 11:28:28 PM
856 Views
LOL
- 15/09/2009 09:29:16 PM
794 Views
Really? Because this was a rather atypical debate, honestly.
- 15/09/2009 09:43:13 PM
715 Views
Well, I can pretend if you want me to
- 15/09/2009 10:07:59 PM
1255 Views
- 15/09/2009 10:07:59 PM
1255 Views
I happen to find it all extremely interesting
- 15/09/2009 10:23:19 PM
731 Views
There are some places you can go that discuss the creationist ideas
- 15/09/2009 10:58:25 PM
876 Views

*NM*