 | | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
(...) Hear, hear. Creationism isn't science, it's a tool for making converts to Christianity. Similarly, posting the Ten Commandments in schools proclaims that authority comes from god ("thou shalt have no other gods before me"). I just want to make (...) (25 years ago, 2-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
(...) It's not pretty much do what you want. There is even nothing like that since good behavior is a good behavior and I can distinguish it without the help of any book written centuries before and looks very stupid today. Even if it would be as (...) (25 years ago, 2-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
(...) Creationism is actually very scientific. Many secular scientists have become christians precisely because their findings lead them to the conclusion that everything is too complex to be accidental. I have a few books I could mail to you that (...) (25 years ago, 2-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
(...) Major snippage fore and aft. Which is not to say the other things you had to say weren't interesting, or whether I agree with them or not, it's just that this is the only one I wanted to comment on. The Roman Empire started with high ideals - (...) (25 years ago, 2-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Morality again...(was Re: Mormon bashing again)
|
|
(...) <major, almost indiscriminate snippage> (...) That is as distorted and inaccurate a phrase as saying the christian code of behaviour is "do what the priest says". (...) If morality is not objective, then it is subjective, and only as (...) (25 years ago, 2-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
(I hope this formats OK when I submit it) Toto, I think we're in Kansas... (...) I've read most of the supposedly "scientific" Creationist literature, and nowhere is the necessary connection between belief in a director or architect ("theistic (...) (25 years ago, 2-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
(...) I disagree, creationism can stand quite aptly on it's own two feet. It doesn't get it's validation from disproving evolution. There is quite a lot of geological and biological evidence to support the bible. The fossil record is not as the (...) (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes: nor the theory I just came up with now that a giant pink bunny made (...) That's the stuff that makes my brain hurt. I guess that's why I liked the movie Dark City so much. For those who (...) (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
(...) Like? (...) Anti-logic. Evolution and biblical Special Creation aren't the only two choices. And evolution does not "like" or "dislike" the fossil record (although we all can dream of having every creature that ever lived preserved somehow, (...) (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
(...) AcK! I wasn't going to get into timestream cotemporality. But I see that apparently tomorrow night I will...;) Have we just changed history by having this conversation? I wanted to see that, but it went in and out of theatres so (...) (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
(...) lacks. (...) before (...) and (...) the (...) And they have in fact found intermediary forms that predate Archaeopteryx recently in China (or was it Mongolia, sorry, I forget). A more definite mix of dinosaur and bird. There are plenty of (...) (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
Ah, after hearing the classic creation vs. evolution debate, I'd like to make a few points, both scientific and religious: Evolution, in the purest sense, does occur. Life adapts to its surroundings all the time. I remember the example of a white (...) (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
(...) Many scientists have no problem with God achieving his goals through evolution. My mother was a physical anthropologist and firmly believed in God. However, others feel it is necessary to prove God exists, and evolution neither confirms or (...) (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
(...) reproduce (...) the (...) before (...) These were also admitted to be a hoax shortly after being released. Bill (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
(...) - (...) to (...) See what I mean? If you mean the proto-birds, that's not true (your source, please). If you mean something else, you'll have to clue me in since I mention no other specific example and neither do you. Bruce (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
(...) Actually, back on the farm, we had a couple of roosters who wanted to kill each other. Not for the purpose of eating each other, but for control, I think. They would fight to the death if we'd let them. (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
(...) I heard it on the radio news - AP or USA - they were going to exhibit them and then it was announced that they were fake. Best I can do. Bill (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
(...) See July 98 National Geographic, "Dinosaurs Take Wing". I have seen no report of them being fake in any scientific journal, newspaper, or on-line source. Bruce (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
(...) I just had a thought on that "God doesn't play dice" phrase. If we truely have free will, then you bet that God plays dice (we'd be a living example). So...yeah...just thought I'd throw that one out there. (25 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | evolution (was Re: Mormon bashing again)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Aaron Hines writes: I remember the example of a white moth that lives on beech (...) I thought that was as a result of a coal-burning power plant opening in the area. And soot deposited on the trees. And for the record, (...) (25 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: evolution (was Re: Mormon bashing again)
|
|
(...) Right. But that's not the whole story. IIRC, the moth population had 5% dark moths, who were eaten quickly because of the white beech tree (ie, they had no camouflage). The black color, was, I think, a mutation (or perhaps a recessive gene? I (...) (25 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: evolution (was Re: Mormon bashing again)
|
|
(...) <snipped a bunch> Shiri's description is very good, I'll elaborate on a few points. The moth in question is the Peppered Moth(_Biston betularia_). Before the industrial revolution, the predominant form seen in the woods of England was white (...) (25 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Why do we know all of this? (was Re: evolution)
|
|
(...) Ok everyone, raise your hand if these guys are making you feel dumb too. It amazes me that you all knew which moths were being talked about. Man, some people are just too smart. :) Ben Roller (25 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why do we know all of this? (was Re: evolution)
|
|
(...) *blinks* I was almost about to post about the difference between Lamarkian and Darwinian evolution until it was cleared up by the later poster. But, for the fun of it, the example of Lamarkian evolution would be that the giraffe's neck grew (...) (25 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why do we know all of this? (was Re: evolution)
|
|
(...) sorry :) I was an evolutionary ecology major in college, this stuff was drilled into my head. my wife says I talk about in my sleep. :) (...) Finches in the Galapagos. For a good pop science book on this, read "The Beak of the Finch." -Chris (25 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why do we know all of this? (was Re: evolution)
|
|
(...) We did, but it didn't necessarily help--the Lysenko variant of Lamarckian genetics was eagerly taken up by Stalin and his totalitarian regime--"New Socialist Man" ring any bells? It was something that appealed to him because it implied that (...) (25 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why do we know all of this? (was Re: evolution)
|
|
(...) This moth story is the standard subject under evolution chapter of high school biology books here. I don't think too much people remembers it though..:-) Selçuk (25 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why do we know all of this? (was Re: evolution)
|
|
(...) I disagree with the term "Survival of the Fittest," shouldn't it be something more like "Reproduction of the Fittest(1)?" Darwin and some of his contemporaries did create the theory of evolution through natural selection, one of the first (...) (25 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why do we know all of this? (was Re: evolution)
|
|
(...) Well, the fittest *individuals* don't survive forever, obviously. What really survives, past one lifetime, are the fittest *genotypes*. -- John J. Ladasky Jr., Ph.D. Department of Structural Biology Stanford University Medical Center Stanford, (...) (25 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why do we know all of this? (was Re: evolution)
|
|
(...) Ack! >_<;; I took "The evolution of human nature" (aka intro to sociobiology) which the first third of the class focused on "real" evolution. Then in my "history of anthropology" (aka anthro theory) class, we started out with some of the (...) (25 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why do we know all of this? (was Re: evolution)
|
|
(...) And, I must jump in, cause, well, I do, but if I remember my History of Anthropology course (if only I could find my notes!) it was actually Herbert Spencer (a wild and wacky social darwinist) coined that term. (25 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
