Re: A89: Re: OT: darwin

To: <assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org>
Subject: Re: A89: Re: OT: darwin
From: "Eric Greening" <littlbit@txcyber.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 18:42:44 -0800
Reply-To: assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org

based on evolution

Eric Greening
-----Original Message-----
From: Serial <Serial@earthlink.net>
To: assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org <assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org>
Date: Saturday, December 11, 1999 2:37 PM
Subject: Re: A89: Re: OT: darwin


>
>humans are a little over 35 thousand years old.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Eric Greening <littlbit@txcyber.com>
>To: <assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org>
>Sent: Saturday, December 11, 1999 4:18 PM
>Subject: Re: A89: Re: OT: darwin
>
>
>>
>> Evolution supports that the world is over billions of years old but, what
>if
>> it were only say 5000 years old?  Then there is no way evolution could
>have
>> happened in that short amount of time.  Now, I'm going to completely drop
>> this subject, seeing that this is an assembly-89 list. Not a religion
>list.
>> Sorry for the off-topic posts.
>>
>> Eric Greening
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David Martin <davediego@geocities.com>
>> To: assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org <assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org>
>> Date: Saturday, December 11, 1999 1:41 PM
>> Subject: Re: A89: Re: OT: darwin
>>
>>
>> >
>> >turbosoft, i remember u asking what "caused" something to grow an eye,
>well
>> if
>> >the little microorganism kept swimmnig into the superheated water cause
>it
>> >couldnt tell wtf it was doing or going, dont u think that something that
>> could
>> >even remotely tell what it was doing would live longer? i sure as hell
>do,
>> and
>> >all these little advancements built up over BILLIONS of years, ur
>> forgetting
>> >just how long the earth has been around, thats how evolution is sound
>> >
>> >TurboSoft@aol.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> In a message dated 12/10/99 10:56:53 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>> >> AzNgUy66@aol.com writes:
>> >>
>> >> > and i was just wondering.....
>> >> >
>> >> >  when has evolution been disproven?
>> >>
>> >> what l mean is how the parts of "evidence" "supporting" evolution has
>> been
>> >> disproven.  Neither creation or evolution fit into the scientific
>method,
>> >> anyway.  But even still, you must look at evidence supporting either
>one.
>> >> Neanderthal man, Giraffes stretching their necks, etc. are still
taught
>> as
>> >> fact in some textbooks, and even a few random museums probably.  As
>many
>> >> things, such as ape-man skulls and stuff are disproven (ususally turn
>out
>> to
>> >> be an ape jaw attached to a human skull or whatever), there is an
>> increasing
>> >> amount of evidence for creation coming out in more recent years.
>> >>
>> >> --TurboSoft
>> >>
>> >> Visit the TURBOSOFT HOMEPAGE:  The most current Basic and C programs
>> created
>> >> by TurboSoft for the 89, and the most 89 web links.
>> >> <A
HREF="http://turbosoft.ticalc.org/">http://turbosoft.ticalc.org/</A>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Follow-Ups:
Re: A89: Re: OT: darwin
From: "Serial" <Serial@earthlink.net>