 | | 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)
|
