To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / *9021 (-20)
  Re: A whole new debate.
 
(...) We pointed out that you don't seem to understand that theories are part of science. Your response is to change the subject. How can you tell us that evolution isn't science if you don't understand what science involves? How's this for another (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Evolution - Impossible!
 
(...) Sorry for the delay in replying to this -- I've just spent a few very relaxing days by the beach! *Donahue's introduction Two glaring flaws. He links abiogenesis to species-becomes-species evolution, and says that if he can disprove the former (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
 
(...) It is interesting still further that he doesn't specify the subject in which he received his degrees. For instance, numerous fly-by-night organizations offer two-week doctorates in "divinity," so until and unless he specifies, I'm no more (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
 
Ok Tim, you are surely trolling me here, but I'll reply anyway, magnanimous individual that I am ;-) (...) It is correct to say that Big Bang theories do tend to mention that time, space and matter come from nothing (or more strictly speaking from a (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
 
(...) God always keeps his promises. Are we agreeing again? :-) (...) You said you wanted me to correct your assumptions; Here's a biggie - perhaps your most fundamental. The Bible was penned by men, but the author is God. Your assumption to the (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  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)


Next Page:  5 more | 10 more | 20 more

Redisplay Messages:  All | Compact

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR