 | | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) I'd hold creationism as plausible, as I do now anyway. I just don't happen to think it *likely*. As for the rest of the Bible, that goes beyond science, as it's been my philosophical preferences that have led me astray from it. (...) Then I'd (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
Taking points one at a time? Indeed another difference between us mayap :) (...) Because I trust my judgement, and I don't trust the Bible's. The two don't mesh. For me. And as a result, I'm forced to choose. And I'll choose my judgement. Go check (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Philosphically - what would your logic say if it were shown that science does not contradict the Bible - not prove it necessarily, but supported a literal interpretation of it? What if science supported that the earth is young and not billions (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - Impossible!
|
|
(...) Ok - REVISED AGAIN: 1) Do strata (layers of sediment) support a progressive, over millennia, approach which reveals the progression (simple forms leading to more complicated forms, or vice versa: one type changing into another type) of life (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution - Impossible!
|
|
(...) You're missing the point again. I started the thread - and I asked for refutation - it is you who have provided none. Nor have you cited any published articles which refute it. My condition stands. You are the target of your own words. Somehow (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
