 | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) My brain hurts just reading that! :-) I was agreeing with you. (...) Both seek to explain the world around us, but approach it at different levels. Ultimately, one is taken as a matter of faith, the other isn't. (...) That is correct. Well, (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Actually no - you presume incorrectly :-) I realize, by now, that I can't convince you of much, but, here and now, my only point is that you should not hang your hat on "evolution" (in it's many definitions) except so-called 'micro-evolution'. (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Ah - thanks for the clarification. Now I understand. I was quoting "Sherlock" only because Sir ACD via Sherlock made an appropriate statement and I gave him credit. That's all. -Jon (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Now, I'm a bit confused - you've replied to my post without quoting any of my new material - what are you referring to ?? Is this "question" you're referring to in the above paragraph the question of abiogenesis (my 2.) or what??? (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) all (...) evidence. (...) Done - Jon (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Macro-Evolution - Impossible!
|
|
"Remember, the evidence the fossil record gives us is not about *how* macroevolution happens, merely that it does." ++Lar The fossil record as an evidence for macro-evolution has two aspects which must be considered: 1) Do strata (layers of soil) (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Wait, just got confused for a sec-- yes what? Yes you can prove both A & B? (I assume no) Yes you can prove that metaphysical senses AREN'T being consistant, AND that metaphysical senses are inconsistent in ways you can't see? Or yes you can (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: FA – Babies
|
|
(...) or you? (...) Me neither. Some religious values are *good* though. (...) Should one have the right to buy and sell humans - is that not akin to slavery? (...) If one does not want a baby, once born, why should they be able to choose where it (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: FA – Babies
|
|
(...) you (...) Well, I think it's better that it be up to the people involved, rather than some strange bystander (you), to determine what a "better" family is. Some people think that a religious family would be an important ingrediant in "good" or (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Heck no! My right eye is slightly red shifted and my left eye sees slightly green shifted (relative to each other). Further, the effect is more pronounced when I wake up sometimes. (...) Clearly I can't. :-) (...) Or inconsistent in a way I (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
