 | | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
Larry Pieniazek <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:G7MqB3.L0y@lugnet.com... (...) Hmmm. I'm not sure I understand your point here Larry. Surely the page displayed is not the result of a technology decision? I would guess it's more of a (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message news:G7Mo2I.EqK@lugnet.com... (...) What do you use for the database(s)? [snip] (...) bias. (...) too. (...) I think I was probably refering more to your "anti-MS" posts than your technology (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Here you've spelled out very nicely why science is not a religion, and religion is not a science. Thank you. (...) Is that Odin? Brahma? Zoroaster? Allah? Yahweh? Who? And why? This question has been asked countless times, and no one here (or (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Exactly. And maybe I erred semantically-- your assumption (I think) is that when what science tells us disagrees from what the Bible tells us, obviously science's conclusion has erred somehow-- either due to lack of data, incorrect data, or (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | By Request: The Bible--Literal or not?
|
|
(...) and, from another thread: (...) True, but that's not *all* that the literal interpretation states. In addition, you're allowing the possibility for debate about the literal interpretation, which implies if not relativism at least a potential (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
