 | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Ah-- so (once again I'll try) your logic goes something like this: 1. There were predictions made 2. These predictions prove true in the Bible 3. No human is likely to have been able to accurately make these predictions 4. Therefore something (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
|
|
(...) Well, obviously you won't take too keenly to the theory to begin with, BUT, since you asked :) Let's look at our society. Take theft for example. Suppose there was someone who didn't believe in the right to own physical property. He couldn't (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) Further, there is no one "literal" interpretation of the Bible, since every conscious reader will by necessity arrive at a different interpretation, just as with any text. Dave! (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) As Bruce and I have pointed out countless times previously, *EVERY* organism that ever lived is a transitional form, fossil or otherwise. Further, my "ad infinitum" comment is a straightforward rhetorical consequence of demanding a (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) Even more interesting to me is the question of why creationists feel compelled to "prove" their mythology using the very science that their mythology invalidates by definition. Dave! (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Can God actually be limited to our subjective experience? Assuming that our path is unique in the near infinity of possible universes, all of which God understands totally, is it actually possible for God to comprehend how linear this (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Franks writes: Some more thoughts: (...) Here's another "convenient" explanation. Life consists of the most successful organisms as constrained by environment and history. Obviously some organisms are very (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) And the improvements often come in big jumps -- or lots of little jumps. It happens when a gene successfully strays away from the local maxima that it's been stuck on and climbs to a new local maxima. In n-dimensional space, there are very few (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) I just do not see it that way, except to the level of having faith in the basic evidence of one's senses, in the chain of verifiabillty (I am reasonably certain that Brazil exists based on verifiability), and in the prowess of logic. No theory (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) Well, this is an interesting take! Do expound, sounds like fertile ground for discussion, unlike creationism. I would think that property and rights are inventions before I'd think they were myths. ++Lar (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
Hi, (...) If you think of the number of animals that have existed over the previous X million years, and the small fraction of these whose remains have survived to exist as fossils, and the smaller fraction of these which actually have been found (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Big ugly trolls (was Re: New stuff on my webpage ...)
|
|
(...) (Comments addressed to Richard, but obviously people can jump in if they think there is something relevant to add. Since I gratuitously posted my initial response to the newsgroup I think it's fair that I should post my more rational apology (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) Democracy, individual human rights and the concept of "property" are all myths too, and myths with much shorter history in human culture than the idea of a divine creator. They're also less rational than belief in God. If we accept a literal (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) I have seen no such claims in any scientific source. (...) I listed those for human evolution from hominids to current man. That's the family/genus/species record. (...) A cat didn't evolve into a dog or vica versa. (...) It's hard to see with (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
|
|
(...) Go ahead and do so... (...) I am having a lot of trouble with this notion. It smacks of might makes right. <snip> (...) Yes, it so much more convenient to already have "lost", don't you think? ++Lar (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
Snippety Snip. (...) Faked, faked... always with this faked. You sound like a broken record. Everything that you can't explain away must be faked, right? I found this quote from one of the creationist resources rather interesting((URL) By basing our (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) Ad infinitum? No I won't. The only links I've heard of have been faked. The recent reptile/bird fake that made the cover? of National Geographic being a great example. If cats really evolved from dogs (my example - feel free to adjust it to (...) (24 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Oh? So Nostradamus was God? His prophecies have been as accurate or more accurate. It's all in the interpretation. The more vague the prophecy, the easier it is to link to actual events. Nostr even predicted Bush becoming president ;-) (...) (...) (24 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) A large part of the Bible is fulfilled prophecy. Only God can prophecy because he isn't bounded by time like we are. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt AFAIK. (...) Can we try being just a BIT more objective? 8-) As you said, my main objection (...) (24 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution - Impossible!
|
|
(...) Coupled with the evidence I heard that mamalian amino acids appeared to have come from space as well (I.E. specifically mamalian amino acids didn't develop here on Earth), it makes even more sense. Also with the fact that both here and on (...) (24 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
