 | | A whole new debate.
|
|
No matter what Jon or I say, it seems the only thing anyone wants to argue is whether or not we understand what science is. Although we have both on more than one occasion asked for someone to cite a _specific_ example of why the Creation theory (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) What???...??? Your big bang theory must not be the same as any other big bang theory. AS far as I know the big bang theory teaches EXACTLY that time, space, and matter where brought into existence from nothing. (...) Ahem....that's why the (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) HOLD ON! Did you stop reading there or did you just deliberately skip the following sentence so as to be misleading: "While he taught math and science at Christian high schools for the next fifteen years, he earned his Masters (1988) and (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) In effect what you are doing here is inventing you're own God. Because the God of the Bible DOESN'T fit what you'd like him to be, you decide that you cannot believe in that God. From whence did you get any rights you may have? I believe in (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Thank you for eventually saying this. The topic at hand could be argued in a number of ways but it reaches a very philosophical(sp?) level. (...) Okay Larry....I must say I'm starting to see Jon's frustration. PLEASE tell us even ONE (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
Jennifer Clark writes (with snips of some excellent points): (...) A great point--I wish I'd made it. One might as readily include the Evolution of Dave Schuler! from infant to (supposed) adult as a forbidden topic. (Or, more seriously, the (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) The only thing that is credible, other than perhaps my conclusion that you have got to be winding me up about all this, is that "Dr Dino" has been kissing the blarney stone in a big way. For example, on the "win a great deal of cash" section, (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Credibility... (Was: Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"))
|
|
(...) And just because I found myself thinking about it, I earned over 190 hours credit in philosophy when in school... Wonder if I could get retroactive credit for all these Lugnet debates? Easily a term's worth of papers-- backed with the (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Excellent! No further qualms then :) (at least at this level) (...) Oh? How so? I don't see it any less divisive than any other choices I might have offered... Unless you think it my purpose to pick apart Christianity thanks to its diversity, (...) (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...)
|
|
(...) Yes, it is just north of Mmexico. :-) Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
