 | | Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)
|
|
(...) I would modify this as follows: Facts Exist Man form hypotheses and theories which he tests via the scientific method Evolutionists find that their hypotheses do not always fit the facts, so they re-evaluate and re-formulate those hypotheses (...) (24 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Science and beliefs
|
|
(...) That would be a long list. Just for starters: King James Version New King James Version Aramaic Bible Revised Standard Version The Book of the Law of the Lord, 1856 Edition The Douay-Rheims Bible New International Version New American Standard (...) (24 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)
|
|
(...) Science can't prove whether it is a "young earth" or an "old earth," so everyone has to *believe* that one of them is true. So it is a "belief" thing for everyone. (...) I understand where you're coming from and what this means, so I take no (...) (24 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)
|
|
Bruce Schlickbernd: (...) hand, (...) to (...) Evidence I gave did not *prove* creation, nor did I say that it did. But the evidence can *support* creationism. Here's a few premises: Facts exist Man discovers facts using the scientific method (...) (24 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)
|
|
(...) In terms of reliability, I believe that the basic kerygma (the proclamation of religious truth, if you will) of the Judeo-Christian faith has been passed down through the centuries "in a reliable manner" such that we may have reasonable trust (...) (24 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Language Barrier
|
|
(...) No fair claiming "non-native speaker" status--your English is better than some of my coworkers, and at least as good as most of us here. I'm always taken aback when someone from outside the US reveals that he or she isn't a native speaker, (...) (24 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic
|
|
(...) You're equivocating. James has done a good job of fielding your foul balls while I've been away, but I'd like to point out a few additional flaws in your logic. (...) In fact, it is nothing at all like that. It is like this: "If all of The (...) (24 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races))
|
|
(...) You are hedging the issue. He asked you a simple question, "Which is correct?" (I would add an "and why" to it, though) and you avoid it by saying "One of them." This is not answering his question. As well answer the math teacher's question of (...) (24 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)
|
|
(...) I think my phrase was quite open, although I'm not a native english speaker and screw up saying the exact words quite frequently. Actually, you seem to be understand since you already answered the question...:-) What I want to learn is, this (...) (24 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races))
|
|
Disregard my last post, I mistyped a few of my sentences (got all my true and false mixed up), I also bothered to run spellcheck this time. (...) Okay let's really break this down first. You have two things, A and B. A is true, but only when B is (...) (24 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races))
|
|
(...) Okay let's really break this down first. You have two things, A and B. A is true, but only when B is false B is true, but only when A is false A is true, and so is B, therefore the premises are false. Okay, that's some standard logic right (...) (24 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Essential nature of mankind
|
|
(...) Is this the black armband view of history or what! I think it's telling that the present govenrment refuses to apologise for a policy that was so explicitly racist. Apparently Aboriginal settlements were the inspiration for South African (...) (24 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.loc.au)
|
| |
| | Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)
|
|
(...) Most believers of other faiths have a holy language in which the sacred text is written: Hebrew for Jews, Arabic for Muslims, Sanskrit for Hindus. Here I'm particularly interested in how translation affects this communication between the text (...) (24 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Geology from Outer Space
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ryan Farrington writes: <much snippage> (...) I'm not going to take on the geological arguments, but I'll have a go at the biology if you like. I'm delighted to see references to scientific journals, which is as far as I (...) (24 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Carl Sagan's "Cosmos"
|
|
This is my final post regarding Carl Sagan and the "billions and billions" stuff. By the way, in "Cosmos" Sagan does say "billions upon billions." Anyway, this quote comes from Chapter 1 of Sagan's book "Billions and Billions": I never said it. (...) (24 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Carl Sagan's "Cosmos"
|
|
Well, my dear friend, all I can say is watch and enjoy the "Cosmos" series and tell me if he said "billions and billions." I can only repeat that Sagan said he was misquoted for using that phrase in the "Cosmos" series, that he wouldn't use such a (...) (24 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races))
|
|
(...) <many other people wrote, but the attributions have been snipped> (...) Oops, silly me. c/question/argument (...) Go ahead, amaze me. Statement: the Bible is all literal truth. Statement: part of the bible is not literal truth. I'm fascinated (...) (24 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Essential nature of mankind
|
|
(...) Plymouth MA, which is the church congregation directly descending from the Pilgrim's settlement, is now a Unitarian Universalist congregation. This also reminds me of an interesting story I read in the Travel section of the Raleigh (NC) News (...) (24 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)
|
|
(...) Uh...what question? Are you getting something I'm not or did I miss another meeting? (...) A yup. (...) Not entirely true, it could all be literally true whilst parts could still be incorrect. You might ask why, but then I'd have to start (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)
|
|
(...) How is that relevant to Dave's question? Ryan stated his belief that the bible (not portions, or "except the bits to test our faith") is literal truth. If one holds the entirety as literal truth, then any example of non-literal truth (...) (24 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
