 | | Re: Credibility... (Was: Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"))
|
|
(...) I guess I'm just stuck saying 'ick'... My instincts just tell me to measure courses by evaluated content, not time... But I spose if you wanted to measure it that way, I guess I can't say there isn't a logical reason behind it. Oh well... Oh, (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Clarification on Islam (and this is just my understanding, please correct me if any of the following is wrong): Islam acknowledges that the bible is a "good book" and does contain revelation from God (Allah), but holds that it is not the full (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Credibility... (Was: Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"))
|
|
(...) Well, "credit hours" made a certain amount of sense at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute where I attended. A 3 credit hour class (which was an "average" class) had 3 hours of lecture per week (courses with labs didn't reflect the lab time in (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: I've said enough...
|
|
(...) This is an important point, and worth elaborating. While anti-evolutionist are fond of saying that there hasn't been enough time for viable amino sequences to form, given the huge range of possible chemical combinations, they're overlooking (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) copyright, but I'll try to summarize as best possible. Statement: Christianity is unique Rebuttal: No quarrel yet. It is unique. But so is Buddhism. Uniqueness does not imply correctness. S: Its claim of necessity is grounded on strong (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: I've said enough...
|
|
(...) Evolution. All "macro-evolution" is is a great accumulation of changes over a great deal of time. That's it! The process isn't any different. Since you acknowledge the process happens, all that needs to be established is geologic time (and (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) rhetoric (ie: propaganda), this page states in essence that Christianity (the religion that worships Christ) is the greatest religion because it worships Christ. Dave! (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) I still don't really see it as any more divisive than had I said "branch" or something... I was simply going down the narrower path. The Bible is common to Judaism (at least the Old Testament), Christianity, and I think also Islam, even though (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Probability: (Was: Re: Chaotic Systems...)
|
|
(...) Yea, one place it was a big deal in was Ask Marylyn (sp?) in Parade. There's several ways to analyze it and get to the 2/3 chance. The one I realized yesterday is the simplest (but perhaps not most intuitive) is to realize that by switching, (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Credibility... (Was: Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"))
|
|
(...) Not really... I was thinking about applying the same logic in reverse-- I.E. that if I studied philosophy whether I'd somehow earn your respect in my arguments. But you'll notice I didn't do that. I just thought about it for a minute. But if (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
