 | | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Fine - now we're on a philospohical discussion... The question of whether the Bible's version of creationism is compatible with evolutionary theory is fundamentally a question of interpretation. There are 2 fundamental, particularly relevant, (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) In addition, your phrasing answers the very question you pose: "seems to say" explicitly points out the interpretability of the text. Who determines what the book "seems to say"? The natural world "seems to say" that evolution took place, but (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) (URL)(note the lack of trailing slash in the original as typed) (...) ++Lar (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) Well, I'm not sure how you're measuring 'Lugnet' here-- either as the group using it, the admins personally, or the 'Lugnet-as-a-company's view on the issue. Certainly to say such of the users is rather laughable, at best. To say so of the (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) I'd suggest you continue to ignore it, since if you don't, it leads to statements like this one (...) not exactly unemotional... by the way, were you commenting in an official capacity? (...) Fortunately that's not what I said. (...) And why (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
