 | | Re: I've said enough...
|
|
(...) Honestly, I don't think that at all. What do I think? I think this is a phenomenally hard topic for a lot of people. I'm used to it. So are a lot of the people here. Heck, that's why we post so much-- because we've had lots of practice at (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) This is not so. As pointed out in a very recent post, any cause and effect (and there may be none, some, or a lot) is unidirectional. Perhaps some explanation? First of all, let's get the temporal sequence correct, where "->" means "happened (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | I've said enough...
|
|
...And now that you've all read that subject line you've probably said to yourself "aha! - He's been trapped and knows it and is going to make an excuse so he doesn't have to admit he's wrong".....and you're entitled to think that if you wish, and (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) Well, we did indeed go to different schools, so at least in this case we can both be right :-) (...) What can I say? In my experience this has not been the case, and I have yet to hear any sufficient explanation of why all these things are (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Wow. You really ARE missing the point. One last chance, and that's all. You claim that the Bible is right. You admit that you may be wrong. Therefore, the Bible may be wrong. And quite frankly, I don't care if you think the Bible is right. I (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) A-ha! Your judgement tells you that such evidence supports the existence of God, yes? Mine doesn't. (...) I shall correct you by saying that scientific evidence does not contradict creationism, just as it does not contradict evolution. Neither (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A whole new debate.
|
|
(...) Since you conveniently cut the first half, let me point that you are clearly not disputing that you are in fact ignorant of what constitutes science, and what constitutes a scientist (there's nothing wrong with being ignorant, but I have a (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) Actually, he doesn't address the points I make - all he produces is more sophistry and verbal obfuscation, the main thrust of that being that anything with the word "evolution" in it is akin to Darwin's Theory of Evolution. I have provided a (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) Well, I don't have kids of a relevant age, but I can certainly state definitively that they were clearly seperate and not intertwined when I learned about them in school - In fact, when I took that kind of stuff, the Big Bang Theory was only (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A whole new debate.
|
|
(...) Essentailly, yes. Show me how a dog reproduces where its offspring contains NEW material (for example, has grown an entirely new organ) and is able to undeniably pass that organ on to all succeeding offspring. "Please understand, when I talk (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) Gee I can say wrong too! :-) "Abiogenesis" is not taught in schools as "abiogenesis" - it's called 'evolution' too. And my other comment still applies - they're all intertwined - one cannot exist without the other. If one claims that simple (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Thanks for falling into the logic trap. Given: You are not infallable Statement: You state the bible is not wrong. Conclusion: The Bible might be wrong. Pretty basic logic algorithm. James (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) have (...) level is the Big Bang theory, which has nothing to do with Darwin's theory of (...) In your experience, perhaps, but then we're all limited by our own personal experiences. Evolution and the theory of origins, and the Big Bang are (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Credibility... (Was: Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"))
|
|
(...) Self-aggrandizement. (...) Not that I know the answer for this guy, but different colleges award credit hours differently. I've attended 4 colleges and they all used different measures of "credit hours". -Jon (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) You're being silly (or - more likely - provocative) I've posted my answer. -Jon (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) I believe, given my time limits, it's far easier to adopt Tim's methodology - cite a concise preexisting answer. Why is Christianity supreme? - Why is it different? (URL) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) Easily explained away. All that is required is a god that wants to rig the game... The stars were created in 4006 BC with the appropriate compositions and velocities and things were set up so that light of the appropriate frequency was already (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Good - an easy one! "Sect" I usally take to mean a small, off-the-beaten-path branch of something greater. Although that may not have been your intention, I _did_ only say 'a bit.' My branch of Christianity is actually pretty mainstream - I (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) How do I know your interpretation of the Bible is flawed? I'd really like to answer that... What is your interpretation? Or are you just using hyperbole to imply that you and Darwin are both evolutionists? Please elaborate. -Jon (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Okay, let's hear it (or is this another one of those I-can-answer-but-won't situations?) Dave! (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
