 | | Re: Probability: (Was: Re: Chaotic Systems...)
|
|
(...) Actually, the odds that it's in the OTHER door (the one you didn't pick) are now up to 2/3, not just 1/2! I remember that this question actually generated a couple debates from a magazine and several colleges who were disputing the probability (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Probability: (Was: Re: Chaotic Systems...)
|
|
(...) I'd get rid of the 1/3 chance and take the 1/2. Regardless of the laws of probability, sods law still says I will not win! Scott A (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: I've said enough...
|
|
I'm going to jump right in here and say, that every thing you just said is the only thing that has made sence in this whole debate. and I whole hartedly agree with every word of it. my two cents worth. Gary Bill Farkas <wolfe65@msn.com> wrote in (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Which was Created first man or animals?
|
|
I think animals were created and then man evolved from them. My$0.02 worth Gary Guy Albertelli <albertel@msu.edu> wrote in message news:G7pFrq.MoL@lugnet.com... (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Credibility... (Was: Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"))
|
|
(...) So if DAVE says it, it's Self-aggrandizement, but if a Creationist says it about their credit hours in science, it's not, it's proof they know what they are talking about? Elaborate, please. -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) Sounds like the Bible to me. Pot - kettle - black. (...) In the US? Damned straight I would - Separation of Church and State, remember? Now, if it were a PRIVATE school, more power to you. But if a public school that gets MY tax money, that (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: I've said enough...
|
|
(...) Ditto to this and all that followed. I've been chomping at the bit all week, just dying to jump in, but didn't for much the same reasons. At this point I would like to share a few observations, but only because I'm preparing to take my monthly (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Since Jon is manifestly unable to answer a question when asked of him, can someone else (preferably a critical thinker) among us point to the post in which Jon allegedly provided the answer? Or any answer, really? Dave! (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Concerning Evolution vs. Creation
|
|
(...) I totally agree (I'd put myself in the (b) category). (...) Which means that you can't use Creation "Science" without accepting a literal interpretation of the Bible. (...) This model is: (1) Subject to change, criticism, improvement and total (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) I can't. That's the whole point. Because the Genesis creation story can be twisted to explain everything in the world, and because it is irrefutable as God's word, it can't be subjected to the same analysis as a scientific theory. (...) Here's (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
