|
|
 | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) If you want a debate on Biblical meanings and literal interpretations, perhaps another thread would be appropriate. Here I'm working from the question of Genesis, evolution and origins. Sorry, but I don't have more time than that. -Jon (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) I don't reject science. Actually I find that science supports the Bible. Many would reject science when it does that, but that's their own problem. (...) No. Actually, it's not so much due to error as it is to a lack of understanding. Science (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) Actually, I find that more difficult, but that's just the way I think. I find it easier to think it out to greater extremes when I'm responding, or else I might forget what track I was on, etc. Dunno... that's just me. But anyway, I DO try and (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Macro-Evolution - Impossible!
|
| (...) I still have a quibble, to wit, with the use of "progression" and/or the use of "simple to more complicated". That's the way that it seems to have come out in this case, but that's not necessarily an implication. If conditions change radically (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) I suppose we stop the debate, since I will say - that is what I'm saying - sorta. The literal interpretation says that God is the creator. Does the computer understand why it is programmed the way it is? Even if the software writer told it, (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
