 | | Re: Bxoing as a 'Youth' Sport.?
|
|
(...) "aggression" is common to many sports. The problem with pugilism is that its aim is to give the opponent, at least, short term brain damage. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Bxoing as a 'Youth' Sport.?
|
|
Does anyone have an opnion on this? Personally I feel that openly violent sports (such as boxing) should not be encouraged in schools. The problem with Boxing being that it normally invloves driect phyiscal agression against the two opponents.. This (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) What Larry meant was because Creationism explains everything, it really explains nothing. "Tigers look like lions" -- God's plan; "Dinosaurs don't graze on grassy plains all over the world any more" -- God's plan; "Plant chlorophyll has DNA (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - Impossible!
|
|
(...) IANAP (I am not a paleontologist), but I'm not sure that the fossil record shows either of these things. It shows the spatial and historical pattern of life on earth (what lived where, when), but we can only infer the evolutionary process from (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) Schoolbooks due suffer from a variety of errors. This however is not because Darwinian Evolution is wrong, but rather because the people writing the books are more interested in selling them then getting their facts right. (...) For the same (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Which was Created first man or animals?
|
|
This whole creation debate gives me a place to ask something that has always bothered me. How do Creationists reconcile the two stories of creation. G1.1-2.3 and G2.4- Notable diferences -order in which man / animal plants get created -"day" in (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) Since he bases his entire argument on his belief in God, he does have a base for this... (...) No, this isn't a meaningless question. I guess I have to reword what I'm saying: What I am trying to say is that those who claim that the (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) I still think you are seeing patterns you find interesting. When I buy a lottery ticket I always get "1 2 3 4 5 6" The U.S. coast line appearing _exactly_ the same somewhere else is "as" unlikely as the 200 mile one you posit. (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) Please forgive me if this is how you took my writings. I assure you that I intended no trolling at any point (I'll try to use less punctuation :) (...) So that I am clear on exactly what you are saying, could you please define for me (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A whole new debate.
|
|
(...) It links to Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ (URL) Hominid The Evidence for Human Evolution ttp://www.talkorigin...faqs/homs/ And a discussion of Punctuated Equilibria (URL) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) Not quite true... (...) NES/iWS do this automagically. -- | Tom Stangl, iPlanet Web Server Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | iPlanet Support - (URL) A division of AOL Time Warner | Please do not associate my personal views with (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Hey, no fair, I was gonna ask that one. Did already, actually. :-) (URL) towards the bottom... :-) ++Lar (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Who created the creator? -- | Tom Stangl, iPlanet Web Server Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | iPlanet Support - (URL) A division of AOL Time Warner | Please do not associate my personal views with my employer (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Concerning Evolution vs. Creation
|
|
IMHO: Trying to convince anyone that Creation is the truth rather than Evolution is futile given that: (a) The Evolutionist does not believe in God in the first place OR (b) The Evolutionist does not believe in a literal interpretation of the (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
Looks like Tims' running strongly - I may just need to sit back and watch. -Jon (...) that (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) If you want to create a Christianity vs other religions discussion we could do that. Not sufficient time for me. Here too - I'm merely stating the literal biblical interpretation. I'm not comparing / contrasting it with other religions, I'll (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) 2 things in particular come to mind. 1) personal relationship with God - difficult to explain. Outwardly could appear to be similar to your beliefs. Although there's more historical basis for mine... I also have the evidence of my life and (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Probably. That's not to say that, being humans, we can't mis-interpret the Bible. But philosophically, the literal interpretation says that the Bible is relatively easy to understand - at face value. Not everything, certainly, but most (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Biblically - no human has any rights. Just like the laptop that doesn't work (sin), God's righteousness (no sin) demands that we pay for our sin. The only sufficient payment is death. Where that "leaves us" - is destined for eternal separation (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
This is a small subtopic and it is to be hoped that this will be my last post on it. (...) Parser overload, too many negations! :-) (I parsed it by hand but it did throw an exception) (...) I think I believe it. I sincerely believe I've provided one (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - Impossible!
|
|
On the subject of Macro evolution: I present the following excerpt (again from (URL) understand, when I talk about evolution I am not referring to simple variations that occur in any species. Dogs produce a variety of puppies, but never will dogs (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) Well, guess what. You suspect wrong. By the time my handler realizes that the page doesn't exist, it has already output the HTTP header. Thus, it can't easily go back and redirect the page at that point with a 'Location:' header. I'll figure (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) You're so far off track, it's not even funny. --Todd (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) Again I apologize if I'm re-hashing what has already been discussed due to my not following these discussions from the beginning but I assume by saying that (and I do agree with that statement) I can also state with the same implications that (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) I didn't try hard enough not to be non-unemotional. Let me try again... (...) Obviously I disagree with that opinion. In fact, I don't even know if you seriously believe it yourself. I think what you perceive as an anti-MS "bias" is actually (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) I think Suzanne hates MS more than I do. She's had only bad user-experiences with Windows, whereas I've have mostly good user-experiences in Windows. On the other hand, I've also had many years of bad programming experiences in Windows NT (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) My head's just fine, thanks... no bigger than normal. (...) (URL) that I have a different interpretation. (...) who use older versions of MS browsers OR (...) That'd be nice. ++Lar (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) No difference there except semantically, at least not the way I was using technology in this context, rather broadly. MS got this part of the standard wrong in that the MS web browser saves bookmarks to pages without the trailing slash, and (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) Larry, my dear old man, please have your poor head examined. What you've cited above doesn't have anything to do with the choice of server technologies, much less with the choice or non-choice of MS. That page comes up because I specifically (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) Perl. (...) Those have actually been toned down quite a bit compared to 2 years ago. :-) --Todd (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) If you want a debate on Biblical meanings and literal interpretations, perhaps another thread would be appropriate. Here I'm working from the question of Genesis, evolution and origins. Sorry, but I don't have more time than that. -Jon (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) I don't reject science. Actually I find that science supports the Bible. Many would reject science when it does that, but that's their own problem. (...) No. Actually, it's not so much due to error as it is to a lack of understanding. Science (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Actually, I find that more difficult, but that's just the way I think. I find it easier to think it out to greater extremes when I'm responding, or else I might forget what track I was on, etc. Dunno... that's just me. But anyway, I DO try and (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - Impossible!
|
|
(...) I still have a quibble, to wit, with the use of "progression" and/or the use of "simple to more complicated". That's the way that it seems to have come out in this case, but that's not necessarily an implication. If conditions change radically (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) I suppose we stop the debate, since I will say - that is what I'm saying - sorta. The literal interpretation says that God is the creator. Does the computer understand why it is programmed the way it is? Even if the software writer told it, (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution - Impossible!
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jon Kozan writes: you can't). (...) I gave you essentially two options and I'd respond to either: point out where any parts of the article were published in a reputable scientific journal and I'd respond to those, or tell (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Dave - you get waaaaay beyond yourself when you assume what I mean and then build upon that assumption repeatedly. It might be far easier to simply make an assumption show it's conclusion and wait for a response... (IMHO) As to the topic: No, (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Do you in fact interpret the Bible literally? All of it? So we *are* mustard seeds in fact and not in metaphor? What about the contradictions; do you interpret those literally, too? Dave! (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) If I interpret the Bible literally, evolution does not mesh with it. Correct. -Jon (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) later this evening or tomorrow, because I have to consult a text at home. Dave! (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution - Impossible!
|
|
(...) The article has evidence enough, shall I quote it? (rhetorical) (...) I toyed with posting the article in it's entirety :-) But I'll simply say this: I'll be happy to defend anything in it. -Jon (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Yes: (URL) revised again in: (URL) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Ok, so the reason: "it misses the scientific evidence for creation that is indeed consistant with the Biblical account - a literal 7-day creation." is a philosophical rebuttal because it doesn't specify WHAT evidence? I disagree because it's (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Yes, I admit I changed the wording of that sentence after re-reading it, and I must point out that this is important. If the Bible says "day", do we necessarily know the definition of the word "day"? After all, the Jewish day is measured from (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Cool! That's all I wanted, since that's what you said that's explicitly what you were after in this thread. (...) EXACTLY! And let me just say you did an excellent job of discussing the matter. It's all interpretive. The point of course being (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Scientific argument isn't simply about presenting evidence; it also entails analyzing that evidence in accordance with the scientific method. This is a failure of that article you cited (in addition to its idiosyncratic spelling and grammar). (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution - Impossible!
|
|
(...) No - I just want you to provide some evidence for your claims, which you refuse to do. I'm afraid we are fast approaching the, "A non-answer IS an answer" stage (i.e. you don't answer because you can't). (...) Didn't say you were. (...) What (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Scientific argument isn't simply about presenting evidence; it also entails analyzing that evidence in accordance with the scientific method. This is a failure of that article you cited (in addition it its idiosyncratic spelling and grammar). (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
I see from the below that we have a difference on debate styles and definitions Ok. I believe that when I present scientific evidence I'm arguing scientifically. If I don't, then I'm not. That simple. Anything else is philosphical. (by my (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) ? Lemme rephrase what I think Dave! was saying: 1. Given that evolution appears to have happened 2. Given that we cannot disprove creationism may have happened Can we say that both may be true, hence avoiding the need for further dispute? And (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Fine - now we're on a philospohical discussion... The question of whether the Bible's version of creationism is compatible with evolutionary theory is fundamentally a question of interpretation. There are 2 fundamental, particularly relevant, (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) In addition, your phrasing answers the very question you pose: "seems to say" explicitly points out the interpretability of the text. Who determines what the book "seems to say"? The natural world "seems to say" that evolution took place, but (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) (URL)(note the lack of trailing slash in the original as typed) (...) ++Lar (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) Well, I'm not sure how you're measuring 'Lugnet' here-- either as the group using it, the admins personally, or the 'Lugnet-as-a-company's view on the issue. Certainly to say such of the users is rather laughable, at best. To say so of the (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) I'd suggest you continue to ignore it, since if you don't, it leads to statements like this one (...) not exactly unemotional... by the way, were you commenting in an official capacity? (...) Fortunately that's not what I said. (...) And why (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
