 | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) The deeper quotes that I left (...) your 2. ++Lar (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"
|
|
(...) I thought that the fossil record does not show any evidence of survival of the fittest. It is my understanding that the fossil record does show ample evidence of evolution per se, but gives no reason why. "Survival of the fittest" is a catch (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Er... oops. Meant to say: "I kinda wonder whether I'd call mathematics as being explored by the scientific method..." (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Ok, phew! (...) Ah. Maybe this is the semantic that we've been missing. I'm dealing with religion in the theoretical sense. In my mind, I'm referring to what religion COULD be, not necessarily what it IS. My implication is that IF one judged (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"
|
|
(...) Yes, it does support a progression of life through time. You are welcome to present a different hypothesis. (...) Yes. (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
