 | | 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)
|
