 | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) It is not possible to meaningfully talk about events prior to the big bang (1) at this time. Period. With or without religion. (except in the negative sense of saying that we can't talk about them as we have no frame of reference and no way to (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: slight
|
|
(...) And you in turn would be mistaken to think I had done so. I've studied the whole bible (and read a fair bit elsewhence) not just that one particular OT book. It's just that Job sums up your god quite nicely for me. Most of the rest is smoke or (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) The big problem with it has little to do with the "emotional distress" it supposedly places on people (I said nothing about this, so I'm not sure where you got it from). It has to do with the fallacious logic that the creation of this linear (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) Would you say that it is possible to talk about events prior to the big bang without referring to religion? -John (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: slight
|
|
(...) His intentions are not lost on me, but I'd rather let him be hoisted by his own petard. He can impugn his character much better than I ever could. -John (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: slight
|
|
(...) I choose the *perception* that He is a tinpot dictator of a god, which is a misperception. God is unchanging, and God's true nature was revealed by Jesus life and teachings. Since that nature is that of a loving and just God, this is how I (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) I don't think what makes a theory scientific is as hard and fast as some would like to indicate. Does it have to "helpful" to be scientific? Why would it have to? (...) Basically, Creationist Theories don't fit the known evidence. (...) (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) Of course a fish is still a fish. I mean, what else would it be? If you are trying to state (but not quite saying it) that a fish can never evolve into another species, that's easy to answer: yes it can. I think you are really trying to say it (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: slight
|
|
(...) I judge the nature of your god by the evidence presented. The ends do not justify the means, and there is no possible justification for your god's persistent torture of Job. If the bible is revealed truth, your god isn't a very good (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: slight
|
|
(...) Wrong! You miss the point. The author of Job *doesn't* know the true nature of God. I happen to appreciate the honesty of the Biblical redactors to include the book of Job. The revelation of the nature God to the Israelites was a *process*, (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
