 | | Re: Evolution - Impossible!
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jon Kozan writes: you can't). (...) I gave you essentially two options and I'd respond to either: point out where any parts of the article were published in a reputable scientific journal and I'd respond to those, or tell (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Dave - you get waaaaay beyond yourself when you assume what I mean and then build upon that assumption repeatedly. It might be far easier to simply make an assumption show it's conclusion and wait for a response... (IMHO) As to the topic: No, (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Do you in fact interpret the Bible literally? All of it? So we *are* mustard seeds in fact and not in metaphor? What about the contradictions; do you interpret those literally, too? Dave! (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) If I interpret the Bible literally, evolution does not mesh with it. Correct. -Jon (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) later this evening or tomorrow, because I have to consult a text at home. Dave! (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution - Impossible!
|
|
(...) The article has evidence enough, shall I quote it? (rhetorical) (...) I toyed with posting the article in it's entirety :-) But I'll simply say this: I'll be happy to defend anything in it. -Jon (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Yes: (URL) revised again in: (URL) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Ok, so the reason: "it misses the scientific evidence for creation that is indeed consistant with the Biblical account - a literal 7-day creation." is a philosophical rebuttal because it doesn't specify WHAT evidence? I disagree because it's (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Yes, I admit I changed the wording of that sentence after re-reading it, and I must point out that this is important. If the Bible says "day", do we necessarily know the definition of the word "day"? After all, the Jewish day is measured from (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Cool! That's all I wanted, since that's what you said that's explicitly what you were after in this thread. (...) EXACTLY! And let me just say you did an excellent job of discussing the matter. It's all interpretive. The point of course being (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Scientific argument isn't simply about presenting evidence; it also entails analyzing that evidence in accordance with the scientific method. This is a failure of that article you cited (in addition to its idiosyncratic spelling and grammar). (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution - Impossible!
|
|
(...) No - I just want you to provide some evidence for your claims, which you refuse to do. I'm afraid we are fast approaching the, "A non-answer IS an answer" stage (i.e. you don't answer because you can't). (...) Didn't say you were. (...) What (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Scientific argument isn't simply about presenting evidence; it also entails analyzing that evidence in accordance with the scientific method. This is a failure of that article you cited (in addition it its idiosyncratic spelling and grammar). (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
I see from the below that we have a difference on debate styles and definitions Ok. I believe that when I present scientific evidence I'm arguing scientifically. If I don't, then I'm not. That simple. Anything else is philosphical. (by my (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) ? Lemme rephrase what I think Dave! was saying: 1. Given that evolution appears to have happened 2. Given that we cannot disprove creationism may have happened Can we say that both may be true, hence avoiding the need for further dispute? And (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
