 | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Ah, but you do... can you PROVE that any of your senses will always be consistant? I don't think so, at least. But you develop a trust-- a faith-- in your physical senses. You come to believe them, because they've been consistant in the past. (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: FA – Babies
|
|
(...) But how did the mother know it was a "better family"? (...) Time will tell if everyone is a "winner". Even if they are - who is to say that the babies could not have gotten a better familiy if the system was better regulated? (...) Yes. (...) (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: How much LEGO time is TOO much LEGO time?
|
|
I did meen that statement as a joke,I do have LOTS of responsibility. One more statement I need to make is that there 9 monthes of winter here and about 6-7 hours of sunlight every day,I'm a lot more active in the summer. I currently have what you (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: How much LEGO time is TOO much LEGO time?
|
|
(...) Too many people these days think freedom without responsibility is a *good* thing. Nothing wrong with taking a bit of responsibility, Gary. ROSCO FUT: lugnet.off-topic.debate (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Perceptions and Reality (was Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism)
|
|
(...) The inherent difference in the two ('science' vs. 'religion') is that for you, me, and I would argue, most, if not all humans, 'science' proves itself more worthy of faith. I.E. to argue against true 'science' is to look absurd, but to argue (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
Bruce, you have a valid point in the larger context. I just think it's OK to quote fictional characters if there's merit in the thoughts of the author behind them. That's all. And I think it's OK to quote voices in your head too, but I digress. (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Wrong. This makes the presumption that I don't have religious faith (note I have not lined up with the atheists). As to the other point, it may not apply to you personally, just the approach you are arguing. (...) Yes, that's my point. Faith (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) <snip a lot> (...) Whoa... where do you draw the conclusion that #2 applies to me? I *really* think you're coming at this with a fairly large prejudice against "faith" in any form. Words can have different meanings in different contexts, and I (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) You have to realize the train of thought he is trying to establish. If he can prove evolution impossible, therefore, creationism, however improbable, must be the answer. He may deny that is the point he is trying to make, but note that there (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) We've been over the scientific process already. (...) I already said don't accept what your senses tell you on faith. We've been over this before. Time is a logical construct that we use, but in fact may be simply an illusion to our limited (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Ironic it may be... but what is fundamentally wrong with the statement? ... "After you eliminate the impossible whatever you are left with, however improbable, must be the answer." seems like a reasonable statement, whatever the source, (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) That IS exactly what you are trying to say. You are welcome to correct me, but then explain what you are trying to do, since your initial point was that science is based on faith (at some point) and religion is based on faith, so they aren't (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) If it's way off topicn then why do you bring it up? You suppose incorrectly. I was pointing out that you were using a fictional character to attempt to make a scientific point - a character written by the man who may (or maybe not, lotsa (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Ding ding! We have a winner! (although I'd qualify that 'logical proof' as 'proof', not 'logical proof') (...) Logical proof? First off, what's logical proof? And second, prove logically that all perceptions of physical events are more valid (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) I'm gonna go ahead and agree with James-- If that's the definition of faith you're using, then I agree with you. But honestly? I think dictionaries are wrong. I have more faith in my comprehension of certain words than faith in the (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) #2 applies to yourself, and you are stretching #1 to apply to me and then are making the erroneus conclusion that they are equivalent. You further listing below does not support your assertation, and the further one I provided also doesn't. (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Aha! EXACTLY the point. "Proof enough for YOU" != "Proof". Right? Becuase if I say God exists because I've had "Proof enough for ME", you'd argue that I was wrong, I assume. But back to Brazil-- You'd probably concede (I hope) that if there (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) I missed this point the first time. I dispute that this extraordinarily broad definition is "common usage". Common usage covers only points 3 and 4, below. It would be helpful if creationists were clear about what they feel is in dispute. (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Since it's pretty commonly accepted by most real scientists (not just the mass media, disdain for which I happen to share with you, but I digress), I'll let *you* discredit that fossils represent the remains of animals, that there are various (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Yes - I haven't looked too far, but can't find anyone who doesn't. (...) Actually I think that the fossile record shows no support for evolution at all and I rather surprised that you would hang your hat on such a discredited bit of evidence. (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
