 | | Re: Science is not a religion, and religion is not a science.
|
|
(...) Nevertheless, it IS what I was aiming at-- we do have faith when we see a coke can that it exists. The question is whether that existence is (as Ponty might say) an existence in itself or an existence as we see it. Basically, defining that (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Science is not a religion, and religion is not a science.
|
|
(...) I still don't agree; the true beauty of science is that even the scientific method itself isn't immutable. If a better, more complete system comes along, science as a discipline will embrace it. If one says "I have faith in the scientific (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Microsoft and LEGO Company Announce a Shared Dream
|
|
(...) Depends on the nature of the discussion. (...) I would migrate ranting and bashing to .off-topic.debate and technical concerns/discussions to .off-topic.geek. Examples of technical stuff suited to .geek, IMHO: (URL) (24 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Science is not a religion, and religion is not a science.
|
|
(...) Did you mean to say that we DO accept it outright AS an absolute? I'll most definitely agree with that with the addendum that such a thing is STILL technically faith, but seeing as nobody has been capable of living WITHOUT such assumptions (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Microsoft and LEGO Company Announce a Shared Dream
|
|
(...) Isn't MS bashing (and by extension, bashing of other corporations) really more fodder for .debate than .geek? I fail to see any technical content in ranting about the evil empire in Redmond. But then I may be missing something. ++Lar (FUT (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Science is not a religion, and religion is not a science.
|
|
(...) That's because we don't put 'faith' in the scientific method; that is, we don't accept it outright and pretend it's an absolute. It is the system currently best able to help us arrive at conclusions and explanations for observed phenomena. (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Just to make sure to clarify that; while no answer may in fact BE an answer, it ISN'T an answer as it relates to creationism vs. evolutionism, which may be what you're implying. The only answer it gives is that Steve doesn't WANT to debate the (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) There were a fair number of responses, that may be daunting in their scope or time involved. But yes, it was more than a comment in passing and he invited debate on the subject of evolution. If he doesn't want to pursue it further, I don't (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) You're right, of course; in retrospect his original post was *not* "Why My Morality Rejects Evolution," and if his intent is to continue his discussion of morality instead, that's his option. It's unfortunate that he threw down the gauntlet, (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) But wait there's more!! Not only did Steve unearth those buzzwords, he attempted to base his arguments on his Creationist philosophy, a philosophy that is 100% incompatible with evolutionary biology (sort of like Lego and Knex, only more (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
