 | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —David Koudys
|
| | | (...) Now this is refreshing--'The theory of Evolution' and saying that it has nothing to do with the plausibility of God. For the record, I believe the world to be millions of years old. I believe the universe to be even older. I believe that there (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —David Koudys
|
| | | | | (...) To clear up after reading my post and realizing that I didn't complete this thought--I was thanking James for his well worded response. It was shown to me thusly (trashing God) in parts of this debate and I appreciate his efforts to clear it (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | (...) But no one said that about evolution. I don't even thing that anyone asserted that about science. I happen to not believe in any kind god-stuff, but that has nothing to do with the topic. Even if I did, it would still be clear that evolution (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —James Brown
|
| | | | | | (...) Ya know, I think that's the most succinctly phrased understatement I've heard in a long time. thanks James (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Well, people have been saying that all along!!!! What took you so long? Science in general has nothing to say about faith based beliefs other than "they are outside the purview of science". You can't use science to prove or disprove them. But (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —John Neal
|
| | | | (...) That may be true, but I wonder: When evolution is taught in schools, is it preceded by the topic "origin of the universe"? That seems logical to me, and I'd be willing to bet that Big Bang garners all of the press (to the exclusion of (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) A creator is not a theory. It fails the falsifyability test. You seem not to understand this... (...) The evidence indicates support for the Big Bang (I think that's a misnomer in modern terminology, but OK...) and as Dave! is relating quite (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —John Neal
|
| | | | (...) Would you say that it is possible to talk about events prior to the big bang without referring to religion? -John (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) It is not possible to meaningfully talk about events prior to the big bang (1) at this time. Period. With or without religion. (except in the negative sense of saying that we can't talk about them as we have no frame of reference and no way to (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) Am I *that* transparent? :-) So regarding events prior to the Big Bang, all we have are opinions which may or may not be based upon religion. To say that a Creator started it all or to say that it all just happened are equally neutral. Would (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | (...) A "fairer" assessment would be that, regarding issues which we cannot verify even in principle, science makes no statement. Similarly, some people (myself included) might say that, since we have no basis for making a determination, it is (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | | (...) No, not actually. Scenario 1: a creator and the kernel of the universe (2 elements) Scenario 2: the kernel of the universe itself (1 element) All things being otherwise equal, I would tend to choose the scenario with the fewest assertions. The (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | | (...) No, scenario 1 has 1 element: the Creator. The Creator is alone until the creator creates something from literary nothing. The creator and the kernal are the same thing-- the beginning point. -John (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | (...) I'd say you're accurate-- both statements are (AFIAK) equally valid. Which is precicely why "science" says neither of them, but instead says "I dunno, I won't commit to either option" DaveE (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | (...) Absolutely. If the universe is cyclic, then simply everything collapsed back into as small of a point as possible until the big bang was triggered. An interesting question would be if the physical laws of the universe change from one (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
