 | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Just so Tom doesn't think I'm sticking him with the footwork for my argument, I should admit that Bruce's statement above is a correct paraphrasing of my own post, which was in turn a suggestion based on Tom's argument. Dave! (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) I agree with that. But I've never said God doesn't exist. (...) He should have stated that there is no verifiable known way to physically visit God. Tom probably doesn't want to modify his statement, but that's the way I'd put it. Bruce (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Actually, you are trying to say everything is equally valid because everything comes down to faith. I disagree. (...) Maybe. Test it against knowns and see if consistent results are obtained. (...) No, you are assuming that I am assuming such. (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
Wow, this thread is fast becoming hard to track! :) (...) Maybe you changed the point, Dave, but just to backtrack: James: (...) Tom: (...) James: (...) Tom: (...) DaveE: (...) Basically, the point was, what makes proving Brazil different from (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Because the necessary level of proof for your claim is considerably smaller than the necessary proof for Tom's claim and mine. Again, if you can provide even one example of a way to visit God physically, you'll singlehandedly eliminate any and (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) What scientific study are you quoting on those odds? (...) Not that I'm aware of. Sources? Bruce (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) So-- you're basically saying that experiments quoted in Scientific American are very likely to be accurate, yes? Ok, to me, that's faith. You have faith in the fact that Scientific American's experiments are usually valid. Why do I call it (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) So, did you snip my arguments to pick a nit because you agree with them, because you can't refute them, or because you're ignoring them? James 1: Or rather on "somone", before that nit gets picked. (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Aha! I see it now. Thanks for the heads-up; I'll check it out. Dave! (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) I started a new thread to address this! -Jon (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Darn. And I thought I was winning. Oh well. :) (...) Ah, but God's existence can be verified by experiment. The only problem is that the method of experimentation is too vague to be sure that you're doing it 'right'. Were I Joe the Christian (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Well, lighten up, because both of the above were hypothetical assertions under which one might be able to say conclusively that God cannot be physically visited. I was *not* categorically stating that God does not exist. You're missing the (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) AAAAARRRGGGGGHHHHHH! (I had to get that off my chest.) You're missing the point. You cannot catagorically state something as true OR false when there is no evidence to support or deny it. Lacking evidence either way, saying "God does not (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Okay, but it seems to me that life must evolve into existence before it can be considered likely to communicate with us, so I still think the Drake equation gives a useful model. Especially since the number of intelligent species must by (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Evolution - Impossible!
|
|
How about another point of view? msnhomepages.talkcit...ssible.htm -Jon (I was being conservative with 10^50) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) We're fairly obviously working with different defintions of faith & evidence. What David (I think) & I are basically saying is that we take *everything* on faith. To function as individuals & as groups, we make certain assumptions, the two (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) You're quibbling. In that case, Tom might begin, for instance, by asserting either that God does not exist, or that God does exist, but he exists in a place physically inaccessible to us. In either case we cannot physically travel to God. Now, (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) I very much appreciate having someone attempt disproof - Thanks! Actually, the Drake Equation has nothing to do with the chance of life evolving. It only has to do with the chance of communication with it (another life) given that one assumes (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Okay, but recognize outright that I was being light-hearted. (...) Which scientists? In this and our previous exhanges you often cite "respected scientists" without naming names. I'd be interested to hear who you're referring to. You likewise (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) No. He's not asking Tom to prove that something can't be done. He's asking Tom to support his assertion that something can't be done. HUGE difference. James (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) (It's Friday, so I have time to do this :-)) Evolution is not a force - it's: a) a theory, involving b) random chance Random chance cannot product life. the odds are just too far much. Indeed today's leading edge evolution scientists have (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) You likewise seem fairly well-intentioned, and I agree that 10^50 is more stars than I can hold in my hand at once. However, the Drake equation (I remembered its name at last!) addresses the likelihood of life, and it often (depending on the (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) I think you're well-intentioned - but on the mathematics game -- you're sorely mis-informed. I'll take your billions and even trillions of stars against my 10^50 any day. You see, you're talking 10^12 vs 10^50 -it's soooo far off it's (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) See above: I don't always agree with a scientist's findings. So, no, I didn't take it on faith. And there were a fair number of creditable scientists that confirmed the cold fusion experiment (the problem not being the results, but the test (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Not in the least. You're taking people's word for it. "That's a picture of the earth from a satellite. Here's Brazil." Proof? Only if you *believe* the person. And that's faith-- at least in my book. Faith in that person's credibility, and (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Just so we're on the same page here, you're asking Tom to prove that you can't do something, which in this case is impossible for him to do because there will always be a case of "yeah, but what if..." It is far more reasonable for a skeptic (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Exactly! And evolution is that force! More precisely, where are you getting those figures? It differs markedly from the estimations for number of inhabitable planets in the galaxy, much less the universe. Dave! (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Even if the odds WERE 1:10^50, the sheer # of stars in the universe give it an EXTREMELY good chance of happening elsewhere. MANY elsewhere's, actually. And thinking that God created a universe of BILLIONS (Trillions, quadrillions, etc) of (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
Aaargh! I typed lengthy responses to two respective posts by you and by David, and both times my workplace suffered a blink in power, rebooting my computer. Thus we are all denied the glory of my wisdom, and thus we must all take on faith that I (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: FA – Babies
|
|
Scott, thanks for pointing this story out. (...) Well, it's rude to back out of the deal I suppose, but at the same time, if you can get a little cash out of it and send the kid to a better family, then why not? (...) Why would a government stop (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) You are confusing an overwhelming body of evidence that reduces the probablity of inaccuracy to virtually nothing with "faith". You are also confusing reproducable results through a set experiment with no reproducable results that have no set (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes: (snip) (...) Sorry Bruce, but I must differ - you must be speaking as a layman there. While planets seem to exists in ever-increasing numbers - that we can see evidence of, there is no evidence (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
<aside>Tom, are you being deliberately obtuse, being a troll, or just missing the point? You appear to be reacting with a degree of hostility whenever the subject of God comes up. (...) I'm not trying to convince you. Why are you not getting that? I (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) No no, you changed it around. You said "You can't visit God physically". Back that up. With replicatable evidence. James wasn't suggesting that you CAN, he was asking why he should believe you that you CAN'T. (...) <james' devil's advocate> I (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Prove you can. Supposedly you only see God when you die - that's not a physical visit. Maybe you want to say you can visit him METAphysically, but don't try to convince me that you can visit him physically. (...) Too cheap to buy a plane (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) The issue that I'm bringing up elsewhere is in faith of perception. Not in the scientific method, per se, but with the data it examines being based on faith-- as for a SPECIFIC post... I dunno... if you've read them all (and the new ones since (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) But have you, personally, conducted these various experiments to prove the existance of Brazil, or are you accepting the testimonial evidence of those that have? If you have not actually verified for yourself that Brazil exists, you take it on (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Depends on how you want to phrase it: I find given the scale of the universe, it seems mathematically likely that there is extra-terrestrial life. Evidence is suggesting that planets are fairly common. The right mix of time, elements, (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) No no, the point is that it IS taken on faith. Maybe not by YOU, but by some. Let's say something more obscure (someplace you HAVEN'T visited, seen pictures of, etc). I dunno, say Sri Lanka. Really you'd be best to suggest such a place, but (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) No. It *is* taken on faith. (Why are you capitalizing it?) Until and unless I buy a plane ticket, and go there and do the experiment (visiting Brazil), I am taking it on faith that other people's experiences of Brazil, however well or poorly (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Science is not a religion, and religion is not a science.
|
|
(...) Exactly! The question arising forthwith, though, is whether we should go about saying what reality is. Should we say 'God does not exist.'? No. We should say 'God does not exist in MY reality.' The distinction should be made. And as I imply (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
I forgot a sentence in here... (...) However, I don't believe in UFOs in the classic sense. I don't think a species advanced enough to have intersystem travel would even waste their time with us, unless it was a paleontological study(on the level of (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) This is taken on Faith. I believe in extra-terrestrial life. Believing that we are on the only life-bearing planet in the entire universe is pretty arrogant, I think. (...) Ah, but this is NOT taken on Faith - this can be easily proved - (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) If he runs on about evolution being bankrupt without addressing the other points, I think we have an answer through a non-answer. If he simply drops the subject, we probably have an answer, but can't be sure of it. Anyway, a non-answer can be (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) I think they're more-or-less the same. It doesn't matter if you can verify something through the scientific method if you don't actually verify it. You are assuming that it is so - in other words, taking it on faith. Hundreds of thousands of (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) I'm not sure exactly if you're asking this as an either/or question or not... Really the answer is yes to both. If someone tells you the door is locked, what's the first thing you do? Try to open the door. You don't take it on faith. But if (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Science is not a religion, and religion is not a science.
|
|
(...) This, too, is Postmodernism, and it depends on a solipsistic "me first" sort of reality. Certainly the caveman is dead, and that should be enough for him, but the agent of his death is separate from his perception of it. It is a handgun (or (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) But do you really experience life in this fashion? Either doubting everything that you haven't perceived personally, or equating the acceptance of another's testimony with the kind of Faith necessary to believe in a supreme being? The flaw in (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Science is not a religion, and religion is not a science.
|
|
(...) I think that while I agree with that, I'll point out the clarification I'd make (more Ponty, actually, IIRC). Reality is, in *whole* or in *part*, that which is unignorable-- I.E. that which doesn't go away without you believing in it, as you (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Exactly. It MAY mean he can't back up his claims. But he might also be able to. Can't say one way or the other... As science would be so keen to point out, lack of evidence does not prove a theory :) (...) Check out the other sub-thread on (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Ummm, actually looking back on the string, Steve was making the assumption that "Darwinists" are atheists by definition. They aren't - evolution doesn't address God. Now, a Darwinist can be an atheist, but they also may not be, which is what (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) I think that was HIS point too - reread what he typed ;-) -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | Please do not associate my personal views with my employer (24 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) This is one of the other basic problems I see with Christianity. The Bible was written by MEN. Poorly written in many cases. No one can adequately explain to me WHY God seemed to be so chatty with his people 2K years ago, then promptly zipped (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Science is not a religion, and religion is not a science.
|
|
(...) I'll see your Ponty and raise you some PK Dick; reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. Okay, that's not a conclusive answer, but it entertains me. Once again I think the essence in our difference lies in how we (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) No answer can be an answer when one side finds itself overmatched - slinking away quietly is an answer (I'm not saying that this is necessarily the case here). (...) It may mean he can't back up his claims. That doesn't mean others might not (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Just to jump in for Steve on this one, I think the present course was somewhat diverted from Steve's original intent. I think (correct me if I'm wrong Steve) that Steve's intent has been to dispute the moral theory I presented. In so doing, he (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Before I say 'Aha!' I'll say you can take this back and rephrase it if you wish to... Can God condemn either Bob or Joe to a different fate than the other? And your answer is no? Then aren't you arguing my point that God MUST be fair on this (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
Steve: You seem to be set on directing your posts only toward a single recipient rather than answering questions and rebuttals from the readership at large. If this is the case, I urge you to pursue your discussion via email, or at the very least to (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) No - God always keeps his promises. According to your example, both Bob and Joe repented of their sins and accepted Christ as their Savior. (...) Interesting - It seems to ME every time I try and correct one of your false assumptions, you (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What would happen if ... TLC bought Lugnet ?
|
|
(...) Well, *good*! (...) ROFL!! And, it sure would!! -Shiri (24 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.market.theory, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What would happen if ... TLC bought Lugnet ?
|
|
(...) BWAHAHAAA...AAA!!!...!!! That made me laugh out loud at work... Thanks a lot Kerry, people are looking now! Matt (24 years ago, 17-Jan-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.market.theory, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What would happen if ... TLC bought Lugnet ?
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) <snip> To get off track here slightly but... I'm just curious, because I've seen the Mania mag reference for collecting the specially marked packets of Q-O to get the LOM set, but I haven't seen the Q-O boxes yet that have TLC (...) (24 years ago, 17-Jan-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.market.theory, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | FA – Babies
|
|
FA – Babies(?) I caught a 20 minute news item last night concerning a UK couple how have adopted twins from the US. They did this as: 1) There is over demand for babies in the UK – this means that prospective adoptive parents find it hard to get (...) (24 years ago, 17-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What would happen if ... TLC bought Lugnet ?
|
|
(...) I know what it would be like, because I've visted www.lego.com. I would have to use a WWW interface only (no NNTP etc) and to select a particular newgroup, I would have to click a large image representing that group. The download of these (...) (24 years ago, 17-Jan-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.market.theory, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Foam Airplane Design?
|
|
My small vehicles tech(SVT) teacher told us about our new project today. He's not an exellent teacher so not even I know all the details but anyway; We've(my partner and I) got to design and build a airplane using a PROVIDED old Lego 9V sized (...) (24 years ago, 17-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Problems" with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) The more we learn about biology, the more sophisticated our understanding becomes. Why don't Creationists say "the more we know about cosmology, the more absurd Newton's physics appears"? (...) Dave! and Bruce have given most of the answers I (...) (24 years ago, 17-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Theory vs. practice (was Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) What are your thoughts on this? Are you willing to set aside your snide remarks? (...) Larry, It goes without saying that there many questions which on which I’d like to hear you opinions. Such as: (URL) I re-stated again the question to you (...) (24 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Theory vs. practice (was Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) After Scott beat me up for not answering it. Not just once or twice, either. Make up your mind, Scott, did you want it answered or not? ++Lar (24 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Theory vs. practice (was Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) Call it MAD (mutually assured destruction). (...) Ah Dave – very topical. Thirt years on, some of us Brits have still not went metric: Grocer trial told of 'metric threat' (URL) the US, you have your gun debate – we have this! Scott A (24 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) Simply read "Origin of Species". If Darwin had the wealth of information we have today, he'd no doubt modify his theories, but it's the best starting point. The whole point of sexual reproduction is gene mixing as an aid to rapid evolution. (...) (24 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Theory vs. practice (was Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) Is it necessary to make this a conditional promise? Can't each involved party rise to the moral high ground and ignore the other? (...) That comes from driving on the wrong side of the road and using that crazy metric system of yours. 8^) (...) (24 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Theory vs. practice (was Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) As he enjoys playing to the crowd. (...) I _feel_ the contrary. I have promised many times to leave LP alone - if he does the same with me. However, I feel he just can't resist taking a shot at me. Look at this thread – the message he just (...) (24 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Description vs. argument
|
|
(...) Things are worse than I thought in the US. "blacks" have been out of the closet here for a long time. Scott A (24 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Theory vs. practice (was Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) Wrong again. See: (URL) (...) Very interesting, but none of that answered my point: "In many ways, our rights are stronger than your own" I note that I was talking about actuality - not theory. But, again, you chose to squirm. Despite that, (...) (24 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Theory vs. practice (was Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) Balance snipped. Out of curiousity, Larry, do you think anyone other than you or Scott really cares about any of this? If it is all plowed ground, why post it all again? Is it so necessary for you to feel good about your debating technique (...) (24 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) The specifics of evolutionary theory are under constant attack, as is appropriate for any branch of science. However, evolution itself is universally accepted among the serious scientific community; it's simply the details that are in dispute. (...) (24 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Theory vs. practice (was Re: Polyamory
|
|
All of what I say below is plowed ground, stuff I and others have said before, so those that pay attention are invited to skip this entire post. They already know this stuff. Scott, though, might want to pay attention, for once. I won't hold my (...) (24 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
Snippety snip (...) If you *seriously* don't believe in survival of the fittest, I invite you to use plain old penicillin the next time you have a serious infection. We'll then see evolution in action. Two ways for the price of one! 1 - *the bugs* (...) (24 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) First things first. The basics. Humans exist now. There's no record of humans existing over X million years ago. (No, I'm not a natural historian, I don't know the dates). There are records of species that aren't alive today. Like trilobites (...) (24 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) I was being brief, generalizing and sarcastic - I'll be more specific. (...) I challenge you to show me ANY scientific evidence supporting the current theory. It would probably be best to start by attempting to answer any of the (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Description vs. argument
|
|
(...) From what I recall of history, the Zulus led by Shaka were anything but ragtag; they were an extremely well trained, organised and disciplined army consisting of men who had been taken into the army as boys and brought up in a military and (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Description vs. argument
|
|
(...) Indeed. So what is the point of your system, if your "god given" rights can be removed the government? Are they only fair weather rights? (...) I know of no UK school which has a "whites only" policy in the last century. I know of no UK (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote: <Junk Science> (...) In this neck of the woods one will more often hear a reference to "pseudoscience" or perhaps even sophistry; that is, arguments which generally appear reasonably plausable, logical or convincing at a (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Description vs. argument
|
|
(...) Oh...well if that's all it takes, then I can dispel your assertions by mentioning that there are a few blacks at the highest levels of US government too. Great. (...) them? Their rights did protect them. But bad men in the government -- the (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Description vs. argument
|
|
(...) Is that like Lar += 2? :) --Todd (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Description vs. argument
|
|
(...) I am not sure if it is what you are after, but if you scroll down to "THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN THE COURTS" at (URL) find: "Since Miller, the Supreme Court has addressed the Second Amendment twice more, upholding New Jersey’s strict gun control (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Description vs. argument
|
|
(...) Well what was a "militia" back then? Let's start here: =+= When the U.S. Constitution was adopted, each of the states had its own "militia" -- a military force comprised of ordinary citizens serving as part-time soldiers. The militia was (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Description vs. argument
|
|
(...) No. (...) Asked and answered. The very text you cite goes on to shred that argument. But you didn't cite that part, did you? This subthread is about the difference between description and argument. Either *admit* your bumpersticker snipe was (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Description vs. argument
|
|
(...) You make good points, both for the importance of meaning and the difficulty of determining intent. As I understand it, the term "militia" as it applies to the 2nd has never come before the Supreme Court, so there is no "final" definition to be (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Description vs. argument
|
|
(...) I tend to view my dictionary in the context of the English language. If you do consider it in the context of your constitution - did not some states/real real militia back then? Was a militia then not more like my dictionary describes? (...) (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
