 | | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) Here you go: Click on this: (URL) the lack of trailing slash in the original as typed) QED (...) Yes. I was clarifying that your choice of webserver, development tools etc., per se, has no user impact, and is not evidence of any anti-MS bias. (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) That's stating an assumption- "what the Bible says doesn't mesh with science" I dispute that - and I will present evidence in the other threads that support that claim. -Jon (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Either, actually, depending on how you read it, I suppose. I'm not arguing the "evolution-isn't-scientific" point here... AND I'm not really debunking combining the 2 either really - although I _did_ do that to a certain degree. My point #1 - (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) I challenge you to defend that with examples. Good luck. (...) Is there something you're really trying to say? --Todd (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution - Impossible!
|
|
(...) Nice - you want me to defend him. I'm not attacking him. (!) Why don't you try and dispute any of it? I won't be so foolish to claim that it's perfect, only that I probably agree with most of it. Defer to Dave if you will. -Jon (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) I can see how you might take it that way... but I do have a rather brash style, long term readers know when I'm being actually emphatic. :-) However communication wasn't did, and the fault lies not with the reader. (...) I don't think we're (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: How much LEGO time is TOO much LEGO time?
|
|
Ross Crawford <rcrawford@csi.com> wrote in message news:G7LMos.7no@lugnet.com... (...) What does 8?) meen? Gary (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: How much LEGO time is TOO much LEGO time?
|
|
blessing <blessing@icefog.net> wrote in message news:G7JyBw.3IJ@lugnet.com... (...) and (...) Just trying to relieve the boredom a bit Gary. 8?) (...) ROSCO (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"
|
|
(...) Just following *your* lead. (...) You've been challenged on your extravagant claims of support or lack of support for either side many times by many people and have never offered any shred of proof. You'll continue to dodge the question. (...) (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
Larry Pieniazek <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:G7LH2p.It4@lugnet.com... (...) a (...) but (...) Then perhaps you should have worded it "Todd should think about making the line between ....". It just sounded to me like you were (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) I'm not dictating. Not now, not ever. That (not dictating) is a longstanding and consistent position I've held, you can check back as far as you like... back to the very start of LUGNet(tm), and farther. Note that I distinguish between things (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
I'm stepping out onto shaky ground here as I have to admit that I've only been sparatically(sp?) following the whole "Christianity/Darwin.../Religion" debate except I have been reading the "Macro Evolution" thread thoroughly- but I will now step in (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
Larry Pieniazek <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:G7KAE9.MFt@lugnet.com... (...) I didn't (and don't) dispute your rights. (...) a (...) his (...) I don't accept that at all. Anyone who wants to express their opinion in a public forum (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - Impossible!
|
|
Jon and Bruce are exasperating each other without getting very far, so I thought I'd go back to the beginning of the thread and look at Jon's original statements. I may be falling into his trap, that's OK. I've done it to him before so I guess it's (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"
|
|
(...) No Bruce - give me a break - if you can't establish the basis for a discussion there is no discussion. I'll be glad to backup my claims when I make them. For the 4th time - Do you accept my statements as descriptive of the key questions of the (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"
|
|
(...) not (...) your (...) In other words, you can't back up your claims. You only want to stick to the subject if you get the last word ("Hardly - which wasn't on topic, but I wanted to have a zinger without a rejoinder"). Don't lecture me on what (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"
|
|
(...) I don't for an instant imagine that you won't attack what I say, but that's not the point with my opening post. Nor have I attempted to cite any evidence yet one way or the other. All I'm trying to do is state the tenants of macro evolution as (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"
|
|
(...) First - I've never said "leading" scientists, since that is always open to debate. I understand your thoughts/feelings on this - however, with this thread I'm trying to establish what it is that I should be addressing regarding evolution - (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"
|
|
(...) You keep making these claims, but I have seen no evidence of such (debate within science on if evolution happens). You are welcome to submit such (gotta be accredited scientists in scientific journals - spare me the religious crackpots). You, (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"
|
|
(...) Jon: You've repeatedly mentioned leading scientists and overwhelming numbers to defend your case against evolution without giving actual names or numbers. For the umpteenth time, can you provide any actual names or numbers, other than those (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"
|
|
(...) Hardly - but that shows you just how easliy you've bought into the theory. If my statement isn't sufficient for you, please write one, and I'll address it. Please be concise. -Jon (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Ok -Jon (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"
|
|
(...) Ok, so you're saying it can't be debated? You think evolution is a fact? If you don't like my #2, please restate it in the form you like better. After everyone agrees on the form of the question - I'll then address it as the unsupportable (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"
|
|
(...) I stand corrected. With the caveat that Darwin had no part in the phrase "survival of the fittest". Evolution was postulated before Darwin, he simply came up with an explanation for the mechanism behind it. His evidence was in large part from (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with science and metaphysics
|
|
(...) I agree that religion isn't necessarily wrong - though it would seem the conflicting claims of the religions, not to mention the sects within the religions would indicate that somebody *is* wrong somewhere! But then again, maybe every one of (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Cosmology is the Big Bang theory which is the starting point of evolution. The abiogenesis is evolution. Certainly we can differ on terms, and probably do, but if it helps I'll refer to abiogenesis instead of 'evolution'. -Jon (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) My new thread does not have Darwinism in it's title - It is: Evolution - Impossible! I acknowledge that it's a bit general in the use of "Evolution" -Jon (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Where? (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) For now, I'm proposing (in another thread you haven't touched yet) that abiogenisis be examined critically - there I'm proposing it is impossible - from a scientific standpoint. And, yes, there I am proposing that the evolution theory (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) This is not true, there are creationists that dispute it. SRC for example. (...) I don't think these mechanisms are at all similar, really. (although since the argument is made that we are actually colonies of cooperating organisms who happen (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) I would submit that it is *much* more likely that you don't understand science, the scientific method, and evolution in particular, physics training or no, than that evolution is flawed in the ways that you claim it is. Steve has made (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
How appropriate that you and I had nothing else to do on a Sat evening! -Jon :-O) (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Ah, now I see where you're coming from - I was only trying to let you know the Christian's perspective - I didn't think / or expect you would accept it. I do believe you can understand something, even though you don't accept it. Understanding (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) I don't think that there is anything wrong with attributing a pithy and apropos idea to a fictional character... in reality the attribution is to the author. As long as people know that, no harm, no foul. It may not be appropriate to do so for (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
Perhaps it would be helpful to break apart the different things that are ascribed to the term "evolution." Common usage of the word "evolution" is the idea that living things in our world have come into being through unguided naturalistic processes (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Way off topic here... I suppose you thought that I believed the SH was real? hardly - Piltdown wasn't either... - But we all know that too. But he was more of a pig than SH :-) -Jon (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Yup. I figured it was a definition thing after the first couple of messages back and forth. I don't like the dictionary you're using. :) I have never understood faith as "complete confidence or trust", but rather "confidence or trust". With (...) (24 years ago, 20-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lets keep politics out of Lego
|
|
(...) The way the UK system works means that a PhD means one researches a very narrow field - a doctorate in "Computer Science" just does not exist here. (...) The main difference between the UK and USA is that here we have no real taught component (...) (24 years ago, 20-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lets keep politics out of Lego
|
|
(...) So what, exactly then, is your doctorate in? Undifferentiated Civil Engineering, or some subspecialty? In the US there often (but not always) is differentiation within the degree. For instance my BS is in Computer Science with a minor in (...) (24 years ago, 20-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Oh, but that's just MY view of the observations and how they fit together. The serious creationist will easily dismiss the evidence of bacterial evolution by saying "God has changed the bugs in our lifetime to teach us the folly of thinking (...) (24 years ago, 20-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Man's best friend. (24 years ago, 20-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Sherlock is a fictional character, not a scientist (and I suppose I shouldn't mention Piltdown Man and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in the same breath). :-O Bruce (24 years ago, 20-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Major snippage of worthy discussion, but the really important part is here. Rummaging for a dictionary... faith 1. Complete confidence or trust. 2. Belief in God or the doctrines of religion. 3. A system of religious belief. 4. Loyality or (...) (24 years ago, 20-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Okay; then why is your view any more likely than the Cosmic Egg doctrine of creation, or any other cosmogony? FWIW, Tom and I are not Christian (no kidding, right?), and I for one will not accept the Christian notion of God until it can be (...) (24 years ago, 20-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution - Impossible!
|
|
(...) Me too!! Fortunately, I think most of the rebuttal can be concentrated in two or three points. (...) BSc in biology for me, and ditto on open-mindedness and time constraints. I'll get on to this next week sometime -- have a good weekend! (...) (24 years ago, 20-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
