Mandrake, the one near Hai Yuan temple has a Chinese teacher and nearly all Chinese kids. A great kindy i think but just a small class, from what I hear I'm quite sure they are full up.
I know of another one in the north east, I'll see if I get some info.
Wow, is it that bad? The online map looks like the local buses leave from way out behind the terminal. but of course online info is only an ideal, maybe it doesn't exist in real life!
Yeah, that is a different story. I guess the bus station you mean is 东部汽车站, the current end of subway line 6. From what I can tell, for buses it looks like you have 2 choices, K18 or 906, which both go past the north Walmart.
The message refers to "media reports", but the only I can find so far is from Epoch Times - not the most solid of news sources I think. Can anyone provide any more info?
I think creationists also claim some scientific proof for their position (presumably making different interpretations than evolutionists), but also relying upon more than science alone. Existence does not derive or consist of intellect alone, but also of the heart and the soul. Evolutionists usually do not comprehensively address existence in this way. Thus the theories have different purposes, so try and contrast them on a scientific basis alone (even when one cannot fully disprove the other anyway) is only looking at part of the picture. Apples and oranges.
Being tongue-in-cheek I used the emotive term propaganda. If there were ulterior motives of evolutionists, it would be to claim they have through science "disproved" an alternative explanation of origins such as creationism, proponents of which do not usually purport to rely on science alone anyway. However as you agreed, even science has not proven evolutionism. Thus to claim that it has, doesn't that seem something like propaganda?
My comment was intended to be tongue-in-cheek, following on from the discussion on the other thread recently about evolutionism. I was just saying, like Alien indicated above, that this is a theory not beyond doubt as to its validity, and open to revision and reinterpretation. Other forms of science are verified through experimentation and observation, but that does not apply to evolutionism, for which those methods are not available. Despite all of this, pronouncements by evolutionists seem to be treated unquestionedly as fact rather than speculation and interpretation.
Reviews
No reviews yet
Cookie Preferences
Please select which types of cookies you are willing to accept:
419 million year-old 'missing link' discovered in Yunnan
Posted byI think creationists also claim some scientific proof for their position (presumably making different interpretations than evolutionists), but also relying upon more than science alone. Existence does not derive or consist of intellect alone, but also of the heart and the soul. Evolutionists usually do not comprehensively address existence in this way. Thus the theories have different purposes, so try and contrast them on a scientific basis alone (even when one cannot fully disprove the other anyway) is only looking at part of the picture. Apples and oranges.
419 million year-old 'missing link' discovered in Yunnan
Posted byEvolutionism is not fully proven, yet many people still believe it. Belief without full proof is also faith! Just a thought.
419 million year-old 'missing link' discovered in Yunnan
Posted byYeah, maybe some are sincere, because they have already been brainwashed! :)
419 million year-old 'missing link' discovered in Yunnan
Posted byBeing tongue-in-cheek I used the emotive term propaganda. If there were ulterior motives of evolutionists, it would be to claim they have through science "disproved" an alternative explanation of origins such as creationism, proponents of which do not usually purport to rely on science alone anyway. However as you agreed, even science has not proven evolutionism. Thus to claim that it has, doesn't that seem something like propaganda?
419 million year-old 'missing link' discovered in Yunnan
Posted byMy comment was intended to be tongue-in-cheek, following on from the discussion on the other thread recently about evolutionism. I was just saying, like Alien indicated above, that this is a theory not beyond doubt as to its validity, and open to revision and reinterpretation. Other forms of science are verified through experimentation and observation, but that does not apply to evolutionism, for which those methods are not available. Despite all of this, pronouncements by evolutionists seem to be treated unquestionedly as fact rather than speculation and interpretation.