 | | 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
