 | | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) Not much, but I've read enough about ASP to determine that it doesn't suit my needs (didn't in 1997-98 and still doesn't now). Always curious, however, I'll still flip through books in the bookstore every few months -- things on CFML, ASP, (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
I didn't really want to step into the evolutionary debate as it's so much plowed ground, but there's just something about speaking your mind that's just irrisistable once in a while :) (...) (I'm assuming that you mean "it" to be the scientific (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution - Impossible!
|
|
(...) Dave mentioned elsewhere that he is preparing some kind of response to this, so I am defering to him at the moment rather than duplicate effort. To cover it all would take quite a bit of effort. Tell you what, though, show me where he got any (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Dave - don't get upset - I just thought that your posting was about joining the 2 lines of thought together. That has been considered already. My point is precisely that. I'm not attempting to debunk it here... Is that what you want? I just (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution - Impossible!
|
|
(...) That's funny: I (and Bruce, I expect) have been thinking the same thing about the creationists in this debate. Dave! (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution - Impossible!
|
|
(...) I guess that's the best I can expect? Surely you can do better than name-calling - how about some specific refutation. If you won't or can't - you've closed your mind and further discussion will probably be futile. -Jon (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) Yes, thank you Tim, since you answered a question that Jon has ducked through dozens of posts in several debates and threads thereof. And thank you for providing some references, so that those of us who support evolution are at last able to (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"
|
|
(...) evolution (...) Back up to the beginning and note Larry's comments - I've responded and I think that's where we can start. Meanwhile you might read Tim's post... I wanted to establish a basis for the discussion before presenting evidence - (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"
|
|
(...) I've revised my groundwork statements in line with Larry's suggestions. If they're sufficient I will proceed. -Jon (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) All right. Once again it is apparent that your notion of scientific validity has little reference to the reality of modern scientific thinking. (...) Am I reading you right? You're saying that its fine for you to start threads and then refuse (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
