 | | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) The "sect" comment may be a bit divisive, but it's a reasonable question. I happen to be a member of a religion which is a "sect" of Christianity, but I doubt you would accept our interpretation of the bible (especially since we honor Darwin (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Is that any kind of answer to the question at hand? Namely, why pick Christianity over any other faith? Dave! (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) If you had read Tim's post, rather than leaping to disagree with mine, you'd have noticed that Tim asked me to consult the page in question before questioning Dr. Dino's credibility. I examined the page, as Tim asked, and, having found found (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) No claims on perfection here. Although the 'sect' comment was a bit divisive. -Jon (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) Far more important than your perception of his credentials is his facts. Are they correct? Get past the rhetoric and personal attack - his methods are probably as distatesful as others on the other side - but that's not the point. Are the (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) and science", which means that he didn't get a degree. "He then transferred to Midwestern Baptist College to double major in Bible and education." Therefore he abandoned, for whatever reason, his pursuit of a science or math degree in favor of (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
Tim Culberson wrote: <snipped> (...) ??? I sure hope your mistaken about the relationship between science and theory. You see, I teach two intro science labs today where I plan to discuss the scientific method, including how hypothesis testing leads (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "having a go" at corperate Ammerica (Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...)
|
|
(...) "Ammerica" ? ~Mark "Muffin Head" Sandlin (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Ok, just to be persnickity, I'll jump in quickly and say religion MAY be science, but has not shown itself to be in the past. (...) I'll second that question-- why pick the Bible? Why pick Jesus? Why pick your (Jon's) particular sect of (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) And really, here's where we get to the problem as I personally regard it. Why? Because for me, in order for me to have faith in a universalist religious system, things like morality (sins, etc) must be dealt with fairly. For me. I think I went (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) I'm rather not of that mind. And actually, to be perfectly frank, in my mind there is no such thing as a beginning and an end-- those concepts are more just human interpretations based on our experience of causality. (...) I completely agree (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) ah ha, but it is funny. This whole thing is, especially to some neophyte philistine (sp?) like me. Sillyness like this is the reason Roger Waters left Pink Floyd. Think of all of lego you people could've been building instead of squabling like (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) I wouldn't. Basically, what it boils down to is predictable fractal behavior. Although still random-looking, the system follows very consistant patterns. For example, imagine fractal-generated landscapes. Or basically just imagine 'possible' (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) I have always been curious how "literal" readers of the bible reconcile the 2 different stories of creation in Genesis? (...) That is right. I would suggest you take a look a fractal mathematics, and celluar automata theory to see how very (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) Gee, Larry, what's you're problem. Todd's statement parsed perfectly for me... But then I have the advantage of having grown up breathing double negativism and worse. Todd is clearly adapting well to life in Massachusetts... (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) OK. So in the system you accept as a true, revealed system, your god exists forever and created the universe, but himself doesn't need a creator. In the one I accept as likely based on the evidence and observations so far (note the difference, (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) Do you understand what a theory is? Do you understand that gravity is a theory? Do you understand that science deals in theories all the time? (...) Man's best friend (dogs). Tested, observed, and demonstrable. Perhaps you may wish to be more (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) You'll have to clarify here: your personal relationship has a historical basis, and is based on the evidence of your life and others'? Actually, I'll correct myself by saying I think you're adressing two topics-- both the personal connection, (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution - Impossible!
|
|
(...) Here's what you said: How about another point of view? msnhomepages.talkcit...ssible.htm -Jon (I was being conservative with 10^50) Don't see any conditions, I don't see any call for refutation. Again, you have been challenged by several (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Here we come to what is seemingly an impossible thing to answer: HOWEVER: If you are already in a position where you say you believe the Bible the answer is simple - the Bible clearly states that God always was, is, and always will be (sorry, (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
