 | | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
Tim: Thank-you. You got ahead of me, but I suppose that's ok. I wanted to reach some agreement on the basis for the debate before I began to present research. I will continue to go down that road, but your references should give them some food for (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - Impossible!
|
|
(...) Thank you. (...) REVISED: 1) Do strata (layers of sediment) support a progressive, over millennia, approach which reveals the progression (simple forms leading to more complicated forms) of life through time? Or is there a better explanation (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) I should point out that this perspective has already been advanced many times and has been debunked and pretty much rejected. While it is intellectually stimulating, it misses the scientific evidence for creation that is indeed consistant with (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Interesting proposition, and one I hold as a possibility. I am definitely in the camp of "evolution happens" (though I accept we may not have it quite right), but I also allow for the possibility that some outside force ("god" if you wish to (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Why not Both?
|
|
Okay, since it's apparent that the overwhelming preponderance of scientific evidence will never convince the diehard Creationists of the fact of evolution, just as the utter non-existence of any pro-creation evidence will not sway critical-thinking (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution - Impossible!
|
|
(...) Really Bad Pseudo-Science designed to sway public opinion, not pass scientific inspection. Sophistry taken to a new level. Bruce (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"
|
|
(...) Okay, but you haven't named names in any thread in which you've participated. My objection isn't simply to your line of reasoning (which is a substantial objection, I grant you) but rather to your willful choice not to support your claims (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with science and metaphysics
|
|
(...) No, it's universal because any advanced (I'm speaking extra-terrestrial) society is going to come up with the exact same rules. Different languages, different morals, different outlooks, different values, but the math will be the same. Bruce (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with science and metaphysics
|
|
(...) I perfectly agree, as was my point, I think-- it's not NECESSARILY wrong, but I *think* it's wrong based on what I've seen... (...) That's kinda what I thought might be happening-- I.E. I'm taking the absolutest of theoretical arguments, (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: How much LEGO time is TOO much LEGO time?
|
|
(...) A smiley that has glasses and a large nose? (as in he's sticking his nose in and peering around??) ++Lar (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
