 | | Re: Big ugly trolls (was Re: New stuff on my webpage ...)
|
|
(...) Hah! I judge people by their cars. With some heavy ground effects, some nice rims... no, nevermind, not gonna happen. Let the head-stepping commence. C'mon people, think before you post. <<KM>> <I know, I didn't think before this post> (24 years ago, 29-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Big ugly trolls (was Re: New stuff on my webpage ...)
|
|
(...) Richard, a post with this level of brainlessness deserves some serious head- stepping. It's true that a mental image of someone can be very different from the reality. It's amazing that anyone could think that their poorly educated and (...) (24 years ago, 29-Jan-01, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: I've said enough...
|
|
(...) Me either :^) (...) I think a lot of time is wasted disputing points (eg fossils) rather than more general arguments (eg whether scientific observation of Evolution is based on faith or theory). The misleading distortions of the Creationists (...) (24 years ago, 29-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
|
|
(...) One of these days I really must read this play, since it is significant to me on many fronts. The play is definitely a commentary on the US, but is also an interesting window into my own faith of Unitarian Universalist as both Thoreau and (...) (24 years ago, 28-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
|
|
Hey guys, I'm enclosing something I wrote for my English class, just a little food for thought. It was to be based on a play, "The Night Thoreau Spent in Jail", which I actually really liked (which, unfortunately, is a rarity for class reading (...) (24 years ago, 28-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | URLs without trailing slashes
|
|
(...) counterintuitive relative to most sites is precisely because of the above. (...) "Wrong"? LOL. (...) It's just a different way of naming pages. --Todd (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
Sorry, your choices are the counterintuitive ones. 1) I don't know what universe you live in, but in MINE, the bulk of sites on the web translate (URL) to (URL) Member pages are the obvious problem here - you designed them wrong from the start, and (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) I don't think it's about being "right" or "wrong." The reason that it's "counterintuitive" relative to the rest of the Internet is that 99.999999% of websites don't let you create non-index webpages that don't use filename extensions. (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) But as Larry has argued before, whether YOU think you are in the right or not, you are going counterintuitive to the vast majority of the Internet. There ARE times where you should just get off the high horse and do something for the (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) But why? Is there a load on the server which makes trailing slashless URLs incredibly inefficient? I find that what is in place to stop those slashless URLs from being forwarded is quite a significant irritation (and others have told me that (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) I've been thinking along those lines too due to this thread, and recalled a "Raft" by Stephen Baxter in which gravity is much stronger than in our universe. If I remember correctly it was quite a good read, although I'm not a good enough (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) You mean there are webservers that don't automatically forward trailing- slashless URLs to trailing-slashed URLs by default, and have a configurable error page? (...) I thought basically all webservers did that automatically. That's why I had (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) The Creationist movement is primarily U.S. Protestant driven. Not exclusively, of course. Perhaps it's part of the insular nature of the U.S., especially the interior of the country. Europe has been through this all before. Bruce (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) You're right. *Now* I know what I dislike about all of them! Thanks! I have the overweening pride to prefer eternal damnation to groveling to a god that is not worthy of me. (...) It's indeed irrefutable for an all powerful/creator of the (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Point taken but to continue splitting this particular hair, I agree with "everything" but not "creation" except inasmuch as the explanation is "god created (the starting point of) the universe", which is fine, since it's no better or worse an (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Credibility... (Was: Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"))
|
|
(...) BS ECSE '85, Meng ECSE '89. Looks like we just missed... FUT: lugnet.people Frank (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.people)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Well, there you have it, straight from the great Lar's keyboard. And remember, Lar never makes misteaks... Frank (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: I've said enough...
|
|
(...) It's often very helpful to watch a debate before joining in, just to get a feel for the dynamics of the group, if not just the subject matter. And sometimes it's amazing how much it changes when you actually are the one who's in the limelight. (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 'Will ship to United States only - Oi!
|
|
(...) Ugh! Those forms!!! So many times (when I *was* selling internationally), I'd be asked to put "gift" and value of $20 on $60 order. I did it, but hated it, and generally felt pretty icky about doing it. I ditto the points Dan, Maggie and Mark (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general, lugnet.market.theory, lugnet.market.shipping)
|
| |
| | Re: 'Will ship to United States only - Oi!
|
|
Ronan & All, (...) Well, I am fed up with many things as well, it is understandable, but there are reasons for this. (...) This is on the borderline of good taste, and I think if you want people to consider shipping to other places than just the (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general, lugnet.market.theory, lugnet.market.shipping)
|
| |
| | Re: Credibility... (Was: Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"))
|
|
(...) You went to RPI? When? -Erik ECSE '94 (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Something else I find interesting is that literal creationism also seems to be almost solely the preserve of inhabitants of the US, at least from where I'm standing. The only person I've ever come across in person in the UK who professed a (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) (just picking a nit) I disagree... in my experience most christians only hold that God is fundamentally unexplainable. Creation and everything are currently unexplained, and may well be unexplainable, but that's not going to stop us from (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) I have to admit, I find this a rather curious point. I know of no religion where there god must prove its/his/her self worthy of the worship of the individual. Further, I believe that if an entity, whatever it is, were able to create the whole (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Why? So you could avoid this point? "If you fault my system for not explaining the origin of the universe, why then, I fault yours for not explaining the origin of your god. No better no worse, explanation wise. A draw." I'd rather see you (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Thanks for summarizing, Dave!. I find Jon and Tim's references hard slogging for the most part, since they're obviously written for uncritical thinkers. They tend to be a tough read for anyone else. Of course, I personally have to disagree (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: I've said enough...
|
|
(Note: I'm not debating in this post) (...) Well you're sort of right and sort of not. My problem with this particular debate is my lack of debate experience coupled with my lack of scientific training. To be truthful, however, I have studied the (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Hubris
|
|
(...) I'm extremely proud of my hubris. Dave! (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) :-) I think we are - however, having read many ancient myths, I am ever cautious of hubris ;-) Jennifer Clark (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) Ah, but it does. You're a Bricksmith, and Technic fans everywhere are saving their pennies and salivating in anticipation of the release of your first kit. And if *that* isn't an significant effect on the universe, maybe we're not in the same (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) I was only answering the "willingness to admit that I MAY be wrong." Not the other - although I can provide one to that too. -Jon (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Which Bible, exactly? You're aware, I expect, the so-called original texts have been translated and copied and edited and excerpted and altered and reinterpreted and re-translated and re-copied over and over and over again?What makes you think (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) No, I certainly might be wrong. I refuse to admit that the Bible might be wrong. (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Its Own Worst Enemy (was Re: Support for Creationism )
|
|
(...) snipped from (URL) Questions for Evolutionists for the purposes of review and discussion. No challenge to the copyright status of this work is implied or should be inferred. (...) It does not evolve into a butterfly; the organism has the same (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) Hmmm....I wish I had seen this earlier. Did you happen to follow the link to "Answers to commonly asked questions about the $250, 000 Offer" ((URL) addresses every point that you mentioned in your previous post so rather than me try and defend (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) Carbon dating. Speed of light. (More specifically, observed doppler shift as pertains to stars (and other astronomical bodies), indicating direction, speed of travel & distance.) Two well established scientific processes, both of which (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) And I have repeatedly asked you to provide an example showing their unlikeliness and telling me at least one or two available observations that don't support it. (Notice that I left out "Unverifiable" since the claims of Evolution are also (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A whole new debate.
|
|
(...) What sort of "cross" are you looking for? Do you require a fish with legs or an ape with gills? As Bruce points out correctly, *everything* is a transitional stage. I myself am a transitional point between my father and my son. The fact that (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) So, in other words, you refuse to admit that you might be wrong. James (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) I argue first and foremost that the Creation we see all around us is evidence of God's existence (as is mentioned in the Bible). I also argue that scientific evidence supports the Creation theory. Of course there's no proof, then there would (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Before you assume that I am going to answer a question by simply stating "God's Plan" (which I agree is a cop-out if used as a response to every question), why don't you ask one. I will say, however, that you may insert "God's Plan" in front (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - Impossible!
|
|
(...) IANAP either, however: (URL) -TiM NB, CA (URL) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) So how can one say that issuing a misleading textbook without pointing out the BLATANT errors isn't misleading the student? (...) There are a heck of a lot less evidences to discredit the above theories compared to Evolution. (here's 20 to (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Which was Created first man or animals?
|
|
(...) (URL) read: (URL) -TiM NB, CA (URL) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A whole new debate.
|
|
(...) And since you gave me a few huge websites to dig up the information I'll return the favor: (URL) links to: "What does the fossil record teach us about Evolution" (URL) there fossil evidence of 'missing links' between humans and apes? Did (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A whole new debate.
|
|
(...) Although indirectly it seems that you are agin debating terminology and avoiding the real question (unless you misunderstood what I (they) meant by "transitional". Why are there no fossils that demonstrate transitions between any modern (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Chaotic Systems... (was: Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism)
|
|
(...) I'm with Scott A. on this, while all patterns are equally likely (in a fair draw) to come up, if you want to maximize your expected result, choose patterns less likely to have been selected so you reduce the odds of splitting with someone (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) I've detailed this in previous posts, including the following one where I made a distinction between evolution as a process and the theory of evolution: (URL) that we are discussing material presented in schools, and so I will reiterate here (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Chaotic Systems... (was: Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism)
|
|
(...) Well, definitely such a sequence is much less likely than a more "random looking" sequence. If you 6 numbers are the digits 1-9, there are only 4 such sequences compared to a total of 9!/3! sequences (if each digit can only occur once, 9^6 (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Probability: (Was: Re: Chaotic Systems...)
|
|
(...) Most definitely, but that's only because there are more non-sequential combinations. But any PARTICULAR non-sequential combination is just as likely, obviously... (...) And again, the same applies... given that it'll be sequential, the (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Chaotic Systems... (was: Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism)
|
|
For “sequential” read “consecutive” (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Chaotic Systems... (was: Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism)
|
|
(...) Almost all the draws in the UK are live. There are “independent adjudicators” present to confirm that there is no shenanigans underway – what these people’s skills are I do not know. I doubt that you could discount a draw due to the selection (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Chaotic Systems... (was: Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism)
|
|
(...) Actually, I honestly wonder whether they'd 'let' such a combination pass... I'm willing to bet that if they got the combination 1,2,3,4,5,6, that lots of people would insist that it was rigged, even if it didn't happen.... I dunno what they'd (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Chaotic Systems... (was: Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism)
|
|
(...) If the UK lottery usage is anything to go by, I would avoid those numbers. I am sure I am right in saying it is the most common combination selected. If/when you win, you will have to share it with a lot of other players! That said, the (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Chaotic Systems... (was: Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism)
|
|
(...) And I'd argue that that's JUST as likely as any other combination of numbers, accepting that each lottery number is as equally likely to appear as the next. Hence, you're fine. (...) The difference is in the inherent behavior of the system. (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Dunno, are we? Are you actually saying that God needs to be fair? I certainly hope so-- but my personal interpretation from your side would be that God IS fair, not in a descriptive sense but in an equating sense. Part of what defines your God (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) If this is all you want, no problem. I concede that the creationist beliefs (as they relate to macroevolution) are not impossible. They are highly unlikely, unverifiable, and unsupported by the available observations, but I concede that it is (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) And that's EXACTLY my point. Let's take your argument to the next level. What if I say I worship Quazmon. Quazmon's my version of God. He delights in the suffering of his creation and abhors selflessness. He created the world to be very (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Bxoing as a 'Youth' Sport.?
|
|
There is a good overview given here: "Boxing: The health risks" (URL) A "Ed "Boxer" Jones" <edboxer@aol.com> wrote in message news:G7pvrJ.DF@lugnet.com... (...) be (...) control... (...) times (...) boxing is (...) brain (...) fights (...) more (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Bxoing as a 'Youth' Sport.?
|
|
(...) I have been boxing for decades (hence my alias - Ed Boxer). I train 3-4 times a week, I still fight white collar amateur exhibition fights. While it is true that repeated blows to the head cause brain damage, boxing is one of the safest sports (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
