Bertvan:
>I believe Steven (or Darwinists, including you) read whatever they say
>they've read. I am delighted to see the Darwinist "arguments" sinking to
>such depths.
Stephen has never claimed to have read all those books. He would be quite a
bit better at this debate if he had. No, Stephen has trusted fellow
creationists to be truthful and they have betrayed his trust.
I have been debating creationists and reading evolutionary material for
many years. I have yet to see a creationist quoted out of context in such a
way as to make them seem to support evolutionary theory. Why is that? If
you or any lurker reading this has come across such a thing, *please* post
it to this list.
That brings me back to the subject of this thread: Why lie? why quote
evolutionists out of context and give the false impression that there are
problems with evolutionary theory that don't actually exist? If
"intelligent design" or "creation theory" have so much going for them, why
bother to *ever* quote an evolutionist? If there are such glaring errors in
evolution why bother to edit the quotes so they change the original meaning?
If you have a million dollars in the bank, why bounce a check?
Susan
----------
For if there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing
of life as in hoping for another and in eluding the implacable grandeur of
this one.
--Albert Camus
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/