Re: Science Disproves Evolution

On Apr 25, 12:28=A0pm, Sean McHugh <se...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "s...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" wrote:
>
> > Cosmologists Can't Agree and are Still in Doubt (Technical)
>
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1559

> Your writing "(Technical)" means you don't understand its content. If
> you don't understand what it is trying to say, then you wouldn't have
> a clue if it deals with the point I was rebutting from the other
> Creationist. Well, no surprise, it doesn't deal with it at all.
> However, I'm quite sure that that wouldn't bother someone whose main
> role here is - as I have said many times - a Creationist link spammer.
>
You are right. I did not understand much of the technical language in
the article.
The point made in the above website is that there are disagreements
within the 'Long-ages for the Universe' camp.
>
However, if you contend that 'Evolution did happen', then  long ages
are needed for the changing of an organism of one kind into an
organism of another kind, up the tree of life or even along cladistic
branches.

Astronomy and Astrophysics  Questions and Answers
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3051

for those who wish to follow other Creationist articles on aspects of
this issue.

This topic is very pertinent to the inerrancy of the Biblical record;
it is therefore pertinent to aus.religion.christian.

Gladys Swager