Debate : 8298


Off-Topic / Debate / 8298

Re: Problems with Christianity —David Eaton

(...) I think I tend to do that-- but don't we all in these sorts of debates? :) (...) Ok, back to the issue at hand then, how exactly would one prove God's existence in a court? (...) Precicely true. However, you did bring up that you held that (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity —Frank Filz

David Eaton wrote: <...snip interesting set of propositions...> (...) This is closest to the general Unitarian Universalist Christian theology (I say "general" because UU theology doesn't require a single answer). However there are some possible (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity —Larry Pieniazek

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes: <snip> (...) Note the distinction Frank is making... he is asserting that the *debate* is worthless. Not that christianity, in and of itself, is worthless, per se. If something cannot be proven or (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity —Steve Chapple

(...) As far as I'm concerned, my "conclusions" (our definitions on what exactly those conclusions are would undoubtedly differ) are supported by "debate and critical thinking". If you refuse to accept anything Biblical however, then yes, the debate (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity —Dave Schuler

(...) It's not simply a matter of refusing The Bible; what Tom is (and others are) asking is that The Bible not be taken as proof of God, since The Bible is only valid as such proof if one accepts it as the Word of God, which is circular. What if I (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Thought we cleared this up??? Elvis is alive and well and living in Las Vegas. ++Lar (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity —Dave Schuler

(...) Exactly! And this typed message in my hand is the proof! Dave! (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Problems with Christianity —Steve Chapple

(...) _Somewhat_ circular, yes, but the Bible isn't the sole "proof of God". The most obvious evidence of the Creator being His creation. SRC (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity —Dave Schuler

(...) It is *entirely* circular to say that The Bible is proof of God at all. Now we're just sound-byting each other, but asserting that "creation" at large is proof of Christianity's God is circular again and hardly conclusive. I am willing to (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity —David Eaton

(...) Correct me if I'm wrong Steve, but I think the argument goes something like: 'God will show Himself to you if you are faithful/willing to listen. You, posessing free will may not be open to His presentation of Himself, and even if you are (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity) —John Neal

David Eaton wrote: <snip> (...) <snip> Hey Dave, Dave! et al. You are absolutely correct. And while I find these discussions interesting (when I am able to squeeze in the time), they are a bit unsatisfying, because we usually talking apples and (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Fair question. I can speak for no one else but myself, an agnostic who's pretty convinced but not 100% certain there is no god. For myself, I would require objective verifiable evidence. Alleged miracles, things that cannot currently be (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity) —John Neal

(...) Remember though, that that kind of evidence is by definition not possible, so it's true that there would be no way to convince you. (...) I was just thinking that, if I were God, how *would* I convince you that I existed? (and how much LEGO I (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Since I point that out in the next paragraph but one, you can be sure I was aware of it. A danger of starting to respond before you read the whole thing... :-) as Paul B pointed out. In fact, "unconvincability" is kind of the whole point of (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity) —David Eaton

(...) Don't know what made me think of this just now, but when I first saw the thread entitled "LP point 1", etc, I had interpreted the LP as "Larry Pieniazek" rather than "Libertarian Party". :) DaveE (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Is that from something? Chris (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) No, I made it up as an example of the sort of "miracle" one sometimes hears proffered, but exaggerated in the mundane direction for effect. ++Lar (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity) —David Eaton

(...) Sadly, I fear the answer is just about yes, going by what I think you define as God. But really what we've got to do is define 'God' first, because I may be wrong. In fact, depending on what you define as 'God', I may in fact already believe (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity) —John Neal

(...) I would simply define God as a single Entity which created the universe. We all instinctively long to be united with that Entity. I would then go on to state that that Entity entered time and space in the human form of Jesus Christ, in order (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I personally would certainly not include "we all instinctively long to be united with that Entity" in the definition, as that seems an (unproven and highly dubious) attribute of *us*, not of God. Why muddy the definition up with that other (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity) —David Eaton

(...) Rather as I expected-- an entity, seperate to ourselves-- having created what we know of as this universe, including ourselves, and capable of enacting or creating anything therin or similar to, and quite possibly, anything at all. (...) How (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity) —Tom Stangl

(...) Do we? What makes you think this? (...) Skepticism is GOOD. However, I don't think cynicism is good ;-) -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | Please do not associate my personal views with my employer (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity) —Scott Arthur

(...) I think science/society seeks to understand "creation". I don't think being united with creation is really a global aim. That said, could it not be argued that we are part of creation? Scott A (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) There's merit in that argument. Certainly we are "part of the universe" since we reside in it, observe it, are affected by it, and effect things within it. The problem is that "creation" carries a connotation of it being an act of volition. (...) (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Nitpick, for things in general, that's only sufficient to show that they are "likely" to be true. We used to think that indivisible atoms were likely to be true. They gave good predictions and were a good tool. Now we know they're not, but we (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity —David Eaton

(...) Quite so-- thanks :) Actually perhaps the correct thing to say is that by the objectivist viewpoint: "Something can ONLY *BE* true if ...." or more to the point: "If something is NOT ...., then it is NOT true." (...) Oh? Actually, I rather (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Any circularity whatever is sufficient to disqualify a particular item of evidence. (...) No one in this forum (or elsewhere) has yet demonstrated a proof to my satisfaction using this basis, although it's been tried. I feel like a taxonomy of (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I believe you'll have a hard time demonstrating that to my satisfaction. (...) I don't accept that every asserted fact in the bible is the literal truth. I don't even accept that every asserted fact in the bible is allegorically true. But I do (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity —David Eaton

(...) Exactly. Which is one thing I'm looking for. Supportable flaws in my reasoning using reasoning, not emotion. I don't care if it's from a Christian or not. My initial post served a few functions. A. To test whether or not the Christian debate (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity —Frank Filz

(...) My point is that if the X (which really can be any group - I've just been picking on Christians because they are the most visible here) say "Our way is right, and you must not question it, just accept it." (which is how I read much of what has (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity —David Eaton

(...) Agreed-- once a fundamental level of subjectivity has been reached, no further progress can be made. My only nitpick was in your saying that the debate itself was worthless, which I would argue it isn't, since exposing those fundamental (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity —Steve Chapple

(...) (URL) suspect it got lost in the Christmas/NewYear holiday rush, as there was no reply to it. It's also possibile that David no longer wishes to continue the discussion - that it's run its course. I don't mind either continuing it or dropping (...) (24 years ago, 11-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity —Larry Pieniazek

(...) You're right. When I read Frank's para, above, I did an un-shorthanding where "worthless"=="not likely to have a clean resolution, and likely to go on for a while" (not to be confused with my own use of worthless...) You've explained how you (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity —Steve Chapple

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes: <big snip> (...) No. 8-) SRC (Currently working on a more in-depth answer) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity —James Brown

<kay, I'll throw my opinion in the pot. And before I even get started, I'll (...) Can morality/truth/fairness be universal, when it is demonstrable that there is not equality between those it is appying to? On a less-meta-arugment scale, there are (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity —David Eaton

(...) I would argue no. I think the Christian argument would probably be that there IS equality in those that it is applying to insofar as it is concerned. I.E. we all start from the same standpoint insofar as morality matters. (...) I believe it is (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity —James Brown

<much indiscriminate snippage> I want to figure out what the heck we're debating. As far as I can tell, we're all over the map. :) In lugnet.off-topic.debate, you: (...) I may be making assumptions myself, here. What *is* your argument? It looks (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Too much! you gotta at least leave who you're talking with... The tree view, of course, has already overflowed and we can't see context clearly... (...) Suggest you leave that as a name rather than a personal pronoun... (...) Ditto. Hope that (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity —David Eaton

(...) That's the trouble with jumping into the middle of these kinds of things :) I'll see if I can describe it again-- see further down... (...) In this particular part of my post where I bring this up, I'm addressing the issue of fairness as I see (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity —James Brown

(...) Hmm. A lot of christians might (probably do) hold that, but it isn't central to being christian. A christian is defined, in the broadest sense, as someone who believes in Christ.(more below) There are christian sects that believe strictly (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity —Steve Chapple

(...) As I said - presenting evidence - most of it being testimony. Unscientific, non-repeatable in a lab, not-by-your-definiti...objective. (...) That's because I don't concur with your "definition" of objective as scientific-observabl...-in-a-lab. (...) (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity —David Eaton

Ok, I've been rather busy as of late, so back to the debate... :) (...) Ok. So we agree now? That our definitions of 'prove' differ? Right? (...) Aha!, would say I, are not testimonials subject to personal feelings or prejudices? Can you fully trust (...) (24 years ago, 11-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity —Jennifer Clark

(...) Would you mind if I clarified something here, as much for myself as anyone else? There frequently seems to be confusion between Evolution and the Theory of Evolution. Evolution, that is, the apparently directed or emergent change of species (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity —David Eaton

(...) In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jennifer Clark writes: (...) VERY important distinction, and one that I touched on a little, I think, but not very much... And on that note-- Steve, could you be a little (a lot, really) more specific on which you (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity —Steve Chapple

We keep branching off into areas that could each entail lengthy discussion on their own. I'll try to provide only brief answers to your main points in the hopes of us staying focused. (...) Certainly scientific evidence is preferable to testimonial (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity —David Eaton

(...) Well-- I guess my issues here are that in order to stay focused on a topic, one must often branch out to its extremities, implications, and more importantly, it's roots, no matter how vast. And further, it is often helpful to examine areas (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity —Dave Low

(...) There is so much that is wrong in this statement I hardly know where to start. Perhaps I should say that if people feel "creationism vs evolution" is ground ploughed to desert, I'll leave my contribution at this one post. To focus the debate (...) (24 years ago, 14-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity —Larry Pieniazek

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Low writes: <snip> (...) Me too. Let's see if it can be done without "junk science". I have my doubts. (...) This isn't a viewpoint I agree with, but it's one that is a lot more to my liking than strict creationism. (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity —David Eaton

(...) Question: What's "junk science"? Probably important to define it/back it up before requesting that it's not used by Steve.... Is there another thread one might use for reference of such a definition? DaveE (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity —Larry Pieniazek

(...) First, with out defining it crisply, you do (sort of) know what I mean and agree that it's a good idea to avoid it, right? Can I take the "I know it when I see it" cop out? :-) Kidding aside, I would tend to define it along the lines of the (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity —Jennifer Clark

Larry Pieniazek wrote: <Junk Science> (...) In this neck of the woods one will more often hear a reference to "pseudoscience" or perhaps even sophistry; that is, arguments which generally appear reasonably plausable, logical or convincing at a (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Steve Chapple

(...) <snip> (...) I was being brief, generalizing and sarcastic - I'll be more specific. (...) I challenge you to show me ANY scientific evidence supporting the current theory. It would probably be best to start by attempting to answer any of the (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —David Eaton

(...) First things first. The basics. Humans exist now. There's no record of humans existing over X million years ago. (No, I'm not a natural historian, I don't know the dates). There are records of species that aren't alive today. Like trilobites (...) (24 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Larry Pieniazek

Snippety snip (...) If you *seriously* don't believe in survival of the fittest, I invite you to use plain old penicillin the next time you have a serious infection. We'll then see evolution in action. Two ways for the price of one! 1 - *the bugs* (...) (24 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Dave Schuler

(...) The specifics of evolutionary theory are under constant attack, as is appropriate for any branch of science. However, evolution itself is universally accepted among the serious scientific community; it's simply the details that are in dispute. (...) (24 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Simply read "Origin of Species". If Darwin had the wealth of information we have today, he'd no doubt modify his theories, but it's the best starting point. The whole point of sexual reproduction is gene mixing as an aid to rapid evolution. (...) (24 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "Problems" with Darwin's theory —Dave Low

(...) The more we learn about biology, the more sophisticated our understanding becomes. Why don't Creationists say "the more we know about cosmology, the more absurd Newton's physics appears"? (...) Dave! and Bruce have given most of the answers I (...) (24 years ago, 17-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Steve Chapple

(...) No - God always keeps his promises. According to your example, both Bob and Joe repented of their sins and accepted Christ as their Savior. (...) Interesting - It seems to ME every time I try and correct one of your false assumptions, you (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Dave Schuler

Steve: You seem to be set on directing your posts only toward a single recipient rather than answering questions and rebuttals from the readership at large. If this is the case, I urge you to pursue your discussion via email, or at the very least to (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —David Eaton

(...) Just to jump in for Steve on this one, I think the present course was somewhat diverted from Steve's original intent. I think (correct me if I'm wrong Steve) that Steve's intent has been to dispute the moral theory I presented. In so doing, he (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Dave Low

(...) But wait there's more!! Not only did Steve unearth those buzzwords, he attempted to base his arguments on his Creationist philosophy, a philosophy that is 100% incompatible with evolutionary biology (sort of like Lego and Knex, only more (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Dave Schuler

(...) You're right, of course; in retrospect his original post was *not* "Why My Morality Rejects Evolution," and if his intent is to continue his discussion of morality instead, that's his option. It's unfortunate that he threw down the gauntlet, (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) There were a fair number of responses, that may be daunting in their scope or time involved. But yes, it was more than a comment in passing and he invited debate on the subject of evolution. If he doesn't want to pursue it further, I don't (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —David Eaton

(...) Just to make sure to clarify that; while no answer may in fact BE an answer, it ISN'T an answer as it relates to creationism vs. evolutionism, which may be what you're implying. The only answer it gives is that Steve doesn't WANT to debate the (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Science is not a religion, and religion is not a science. —Dave Schuler

(...) That's because we don't put 'faith' in the scientific method; that is, we don't accept it outright and pretend it's an absolute. It is the system currently best able to help us arrive at conclusions and explanations for observed phenomena. (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Science is not a religion, and religion is not a science. —David Eaton

(...) Did you mean to say that we DO accept it outright AS an absolute? I'll most definitely agree with that with the addendum that such a thing is STILL technically faith, but seeing as nobody has been capable of living WITHOUT such assumptions (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Science is not a religion, and religion is not a science. —Dave Schuler

(...) I still don't agree; the true beauty of science is that even the scientific method itself isn't immutable. If a better, more complete system comes along, science as a discipline will embrace it. If one says "I have faith in the scientific (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Science is not a religion, and religion is not a science. —David Eaton

(...) Nevertheless, it IS what I was aiming at-- we do have faith when we see a coke can that it exists. The question is whether that existence is (as Ponty might say) an existence in itself or an existence as we see it. Basically, defining that (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Science is not a religion, and religion is not a science. —Dave Schuler

(...) I'll see your Ponty and raise you some PK Dick; reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. Okay, that's not a conclusive answer, but it entertains me. Once again I think the essence in our difference lies in how we (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Science is not a religion, and religion is not a science. —David Eaton

(...) I think that while I agree with that, I'll point out the clarification I'd make (more Ponty, actually, IIRC). Reality is, in *whole* or in *part*, that which is unignorable-- I.E. that which doesn't go away without you believing in it, as you (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Science is not a religion, and religion is not a science. —Dave Schuler

(...) This, too, is Postmodernism, and it depends on a solipsistic "me first" sort of reality. Certainly the caveman is dead, and that should be enough for him, but the agent of his death is separate from his perception of it. It is a handgun (or (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Science is not a religion, and religion is not a science. —David Eaton

(...) Exactly! The question arising forthwith, though, is whether we should go about saying what reality is. Should we say 'God does not exist.'? No. We should say 'God does not exist in MY reality.' The distinction should be made. And as I imply (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) No answer can be an answer when one side finds itself overmatched - slinking away quietly is an answer (I'm not saying that this is necessarily the case here). (...) It may mean he can't back up his claims. That doesn't mean others might not (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Tom Stangl

(...) I think that was HIS point too - reread what he typed ;-) -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | Please do not associate my personal views with my employer (24 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Ummm, actually looking back on the string, Steve was making the assumption that "Darwinists" are atheists by definition. They aren't - evolution doesn't address God. Now, a Darwinist can be an atheist, but they also may not be, which is what (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —David Eaton

(...) Exactly. It MAY mean he can't back up his claims. But he might also be able to. Can't say one way or the other... As science would be so keen to point out, lack of evidence does not prove a theory :) (...) Check out the other sub-thread on (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Dave Schuler

(...) But do you really experience life in this fashion? Either doubting everything that you haven't perceived personally, or equating the acceptance of another's testimony with the kind of Faith necessary to believe in a supreme being? The flaw in (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —David Eaton

(...) I'm not sure exactly if you're asking this as an either/or question or not... Really the answer is yes to both. If someone tells you the door is locked, what's the first thing you do? Try to open the door. You don't take it on faith. But if (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —James Brown

(...) I think they're more-or-less the same. It doesn't matter if you can verify something through the scientific method if you don't actually verify it. You are assuming that it is so - in other words, taking it on faith. Hundreds of thousands of (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Tom Stangl

(...) This is taken on Faith. I believe in extra-terrestrial life. Believing that we are on the only life-bearing planet in the entire universe is pretty arrogant, I think. (...) Ah, but this is NOT taken on Faith - this can be easily proved - (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Tom Stangl

I forgot a sentence in here... (...) However, I don't believe in UFOs in the classic sense. I don't think a species advanced enough to have intersystem travel would even waste their time with us, unless it was a paleontological study(on the level of (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —James Brown

(...) No. It *is* taken on faith. (Why are you capitalizing it?) Until and unless I buy a plane ticket, and go there and do the experiment (visiting Brazil), I am taking it on faith that other people's experiences of Brazil, however well or poorly (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Tom Stangl

(...) Prove you can. Supposedly you only see God when you die - that's not a physical visit. Maybe you want to say you can visit him METAphysically, but don't try to convince me that you can visit him physically. (...) Too cheap to buy a plane (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —David Eaton

(...) No no, you changed it around. You said "You can't visit God physically". Back that up. With replicatable evidence. James wasn't suggesting that you CAN, he was asking why he should believe you that you CAN'T. (...) <james' devil's advocate> I (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Dave Schuler

(...) Just so we're on the same page here, you're asking Tom to prove that you can't do something, which in this case is impossible for him to do because there will always be a case of "yeah, but what if..." It is far more reasonable for a skeptic (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —James Brown

(...) No. He's not asking Tom to prove that something can't be done. He's asking Tom to support his assertion that something can't be done. HUGE difference. James (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Dave Schuler

(...) You're quibbling. In that case, Tom might begin, for instance, by asserting either that God does not exist, or that God does exist, but he exists in a place physically inaccessible to us. In either case we cannot physically travel to God. Now, (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —James Brown

(...) AAAAARRRGGGGGHHHHHH! (I had to get that off my chest.) You're missing the point. You cannot catagorically state something as true OR false when there is no evidence to support or deny it. Lacking evidence either way, saying "God does not (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Dave Schuler

(...) Well, lighten up, because both of the above were hypothetical assertions under which one might be able to say conclusively that God cannot be physically visited. I was *not* categorically stating that God does not exist. You're missing the (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —James Brown

(...) So, did you snip my arguments to pick a nit because you agree with them, because you can't refute them, or because you're ignoring them? James 1: Or rather on "somone", before that nit gets picked. (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Dave Schuler

(...) Because the necessary level of proof for your claim is considerably smaller than the necessary proof for Tom's claim and mine. Again, if you can provide even one example of a way to visit God physically, you'll singlehandedly eliminate any and (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —David Eaton

Wow, this thread is fast becoming hard to track! :) (...) Maybe you changed the point, Dave, but just to backtrack: James: (...) Tom: (...) James: (...) Tom: (...) DaveE: (...) Basically, the point was, what makes proving Brazil different from (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) I agree with that. But I've never said God doesn't exist. (...) He should have stated that there is no verifiable known way to physically visit God. Tom probably doesn't want to modify his statement, but that's the way I'd put it. Bruce (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Dave Schuler

(...) Just so Tom doesn't think I'm sticking him with the footwork for my argument, I should admit that Bruce's statement above is a correct paraphrasing of my own post, which was in turn a suggestion based on Tom's argument. Dave! (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Tom Stangl

(...) And I agree with Bruce's modification. -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | Please do not associate my personal views with my employer (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Tom Stangl

(...) I've already done that, long ago - search for it if you want ;-) I said I had faith that God does NOT exist, and you can't convince me otherwise. (...) OK, I admit: 1 - IF God exists (I have faith he DOESN'T) 2 - someone MIGHT be able to visit (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Jon Kozan

(...) FWIW, the Christian view is that God exists everywhere He wants to since he is not contained in a physical body such as we are, thus to state to "visit" Him, doesn't understand the situation. He did, once, take on the form of man when Jesus (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Tom Stangl

And why is that any more probable than Evolution? (...) -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | Please do not associate my personal views with my employer (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Jon Kozan

(...) Er - I thought this was the "visiting God" thread?! -Jon (...) is (...) Him, (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Dave Schuler

(...) Okay; then why is your view any more likely than the Cosmic Egg doctrine of creation, or any other cosmogony? FWIW, Tom and I are not Christian (no kidding, right?), and I for one will not accept the Christian notion of God until it can be (...) (24 years ago, 20-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Jon Kozan

(...) Ah, now I see where you're coming from - I was only trying to let you know the Christian's perspective - I didn't think / or expect you would accept it. I do believe you can understand something, even though you don't accept it. Understanding (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I would submit that it is *much* more likely that you don't understand science, the scientific method, and evolution in particular, physics training or no, than that evolution is flawed in the ways that you claim it is. Steve has made (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Jon Kozan

(...) For now, I'm proposing (in another thread you haven't touched yet) that abiogenisis be examined critically - there I'm proposing it is impossible - from a scientific standpoint. And, yes, there I am proposing that the evolution theory (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —James Brown

(...) OK. I won't bother looking, I'll take it on faith. <grin, duck> I either didn't remember that, or never saw it, so all I had to go on was what you said today. James (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —James Brown

<aside>Tom, are you being deliberately obtuse, being a troll, or just missing the point? You appear to be reacting with a degree of hostility whenever the subject of God comes up. (...) I'm not trying to convince you. Why are you not getting that? I (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —David Eaton

(...) No no, the point is that it IS taken on faith. Maybe not by YOU, but by some. Let's say something more obscure (someplace you HAVEN'T visited, seen pictures of, etc). I dunno, say Sri Lanka. Really you'd be best to suggest such a place, but (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Depends on how you want to phrase it: I find given the scale of the universe, it seems mathematically likely that there is extra-terrestrial life. Evidence is suggesting that planets are fairly common. The right mix of time, elements, (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —James Brown

(...) But have you, personally, conducted these various experiments to prove the existance of Brazil, or are you accepting the testimonial evidence of those that have? If you have not actually verified for yourself that Brazil exists, you take it on (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) You are confusing an overwhelming body of evidence that reduces the probablity of inaccuracy to virtually nothing with "faith". You are also confusing reproducable results through a set experiment with no reproducable results that have no set (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —David Eaton

(...) Not in the least. You're taking people's word for it. "That's a picture of the earth from a satellite. Here's Brazil." Proof? Only if you *believe* the person. And that's faith-- at least in my book. Faith in that person's credibility, and (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Tom Stangl

(...) You can log in on a website and access sat photos. Ones detailed enough to identify your own car in a parking lot. Those satellites can then pick out cars in Brazil. If you have the infinite time, you can step your way from wherever you live (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —David Eaton

(...) Aha! EXACTLY the point. "Proof enough for YOU" != "Proof". Right? Becuase if I say God exists because I've had "Proof enough for ME", you'd argue that I was wrong, I assume. But back to Brazil-- You'd probably concede (I hope) that if there (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) That IS exactly what you are trying to say. You are welcome to correct me, but then explain what you are trying to do, since your initial point was that science is based on faith (at some point) and religion is based on faith, so they aren't (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Perceptions and Reality (was Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism) —David Eaton

(...) The inherent difference in the two ('science' vs. 'religion') is that for you, me, and I would argue, most, if not all humans, 'science' proves itself more worthy of faith. I.E. to argue against true 'science' is to look absurd, but to argue (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —James Brown

(...) We're fairly obviously working with different defintions of faith & evidence. What David (I think) & I are basically saying is that we take *everything* on faith. To function as individuals & as groups, we make certain assumptions, the two (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Actually, you are trying to say everything is equally valid because everything comes down to faith. I disagree. (...) Maybe. Test it against knowns and see if consistent results are obtained. (...) No, you are assuming that I am assuming such. (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —James Brown

(...) WHOA! That is completely not what I'm saying. (...) How do you test to see if your thought processes are valid? How do you test to see if the world is consistent with your perception of the world? Where are the knowns in that equation? (...) (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Major snippage of worthy discussion, but the really important part is here. Rummaging for a dictionary... faith 1. Complete confidence or trust. 2. Belief in God or the doctrines of religion. 3. A system of religious belief. 4. Loyality or (...) (24 years ago, 20-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —James Brown

(...) Yup. I figured it was a definition thing after the first couple of messages back and forth. I don't like the dictionary you're using. :) I have never understood faith as "complete confidence or trust", but rather "confidence or trust". With (...) (24 years ago, 20-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) #2 applies to yourself, and you are stretching #1 to apply to me and then are making the erroneus conclusion that they are equivalent. You further listing below does not support your assertation, and the further one I provided also doesn't. (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —David Eaton

(...) Ding ding! We have a winner! (although I'd qualify that 'logical proof' as 'proof', not 'logical proof') (...) Logical proof? First off, what's logical proof? And second, prove logically that all perceptions of physical events are more valid (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) We've been over the scientific process already. (...) I already said don't accept what your senses tell you on faith. We've been over this before. Time is a logical construct that we use, but in fact may be simply an illusion to our limited (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —David Eaton

(...) Ah, but you do... can you PROVE that any of your senses will always be consistant? I don't think so, at least. But you develop a trust-- a faith-- in your physical senses. You come to believe them, because they've been consistant in the past. (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Heck no! My right eye is slightly red shifted and my left eye sees slightly green shifted (relative to each other). Further, the effect is more pronounced when I wake up sometimes. (...) Clearly I can't. :-) (...) Or inconsistent in a way I (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —David Eaton

(...) Wait, just got confused for a sec-- yes what? Yes you can prove both A & B? (I assume no) Yes you can prove that metaphysical senses AREN'T being consistant, AND that metaphysical senses are inconsistent in ways you can't see? Or yes you can (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) My brain hurts just reading that! :-) I was agreeing with you. (...) Both seek to explain the world around us, but approach it at different levels. Ultimately, one is taken as a matter of faith, the other isn't. (...) That is correct. Well, (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —David Eaton

(...) Ok, phew! (...) Ah. Maybe this is the semantic that we've been missing. I'm dealing with religion in the theoretical sense. In my mind, I'm referring to what religion COULD be, not necessarily what it IS. My implication is that IF one judged (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —David Eaton

(...) Er... oops. Meant to say: "I kinda wonder whether I'd call mathematics as being explored by the scientific method..." (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with science and metaphysics —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) I agree that religion isn't necessarily wrong - though it would seem the conflicting claims of the religions, not to mention the sects within the religions would indicate that somebody *is* wrong somewhere! But then again, maybe every one of (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with science and metaphysics —David Eaton

(...) I perfectly agree, as was my point, I think-- it's not NECESSARILY wrong, but I *think* it's wrong based on what I've seen... (...) That's kinda what I thought might be happening-- I.E. I'm taking the absolutest of theoretical arguments, (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with science and metaphysics —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) No, it's universal because any advanced (I'm speaking extra-terrestrial) society is going to come up with the exact same rules. Different languages, different morals, different outlooks, different values, but the math will be the same. Bruce (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —James Brown

(...) <snip a lot> (...) Whoa... where do you draw the conclusion that #2 applies to me? I *really* think you're coming at this with a fairly large prejudice against "faith" in any form. Words can have different meanings in different contexts, and I (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Wrong. This makes the presumption that I don't have religious faith (note I have not lined up with the atheists). As to the other point, it may not apply to you personally, just the approach you are arguing. (...) Yes, that's my point. Faith (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —David Eaton

(...) I'm gonna go ahead and agree with James-- If that's the definition of faith you're using, then I agree with you. But honestly? I think dictionaries are wrong. I have more faith in my comprehension of certain words than faith in the (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Dave Schuler

Aaargh! I typed lengthy responses to two respective posts by you and by David, and both times my workplace suffered a blink in power, rebooting my computer. Thus we are all denied the glory of my wisdom, and thus we must all take on faith that I (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —David Eaton

(...) Darn. And I thought I was winning. Oh well. :) (...) Ah, but God's existence can be verified by experiment. The only problem is that the method of experimentation is too vague to be sure that you're doing it 'right'. Were I Joe the Christian (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Jon Kozan

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes: (snip) (...) Sorry Bruce, but I must differ - you must be speaking as a layman there. While planets seem to exists in ever-increasing numbers - that we can see evidence of, there is no evidence (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Tom Stangl

(...) Even if the odds WERE 1:10^50, the sheer # of stars in the universe give it an EXTREMELY good chance of happening elsewhere. MANY elsewhere's, actually. And thinking that God created a universe of BILLIONS (Trillions, quadrillions, etc) of (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Jon Kozan

(...) I think you're well-intentioned - but on the mathematics game -- you're sorely mis-informed. I'll take your billions and even trillions of stars against my 10^50 any day. You see, you're talking 10^12 vs 10^50 -it's soooo far off it's (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Dave Schuler

(...) You likewise seem fairly well-intentioned, and I agree that 10^50 is more stars than I can hold in my hand at once. However, the Drake equation (I remembered its name at last!) addresses the likelihood of life, and it often (depending on the (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Jon Kozan

(...) I very much appreciate having someone attempt disproof - Thanks! Actually, the Drake Equation has nothing to do with the chance of life evolving. It only has to do with the chance of communication with it (another life) given that one assumes (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Dave Schuler

(...) Okay, but it seems to me that life must evolve into existence before it can be considered likely to communicate with us, so I still think the Drake equation gives a useful model. Especially since the number of intelligent species must by (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Jon Kozan

(...) I started a new thread to address this! -Jon (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Dave Schuler

(...) Aha! I see it now. Thanks for the heads-up; I'll check it out. Dave! (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Tom Stangl

1 - I dispute your 1:10^50 2 - I don't have the # of stars in the universe handy (NOONE does), but it is multi-magnitudes beyond trillions. Not to mention the possibility of multiple planets around a large # of those stars is becoming more evident (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Jon Kozan

(...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Dave Schuler

(...) Exactly! And evolution is that force! More precisely, where are you getting those figures? It differs markedly from the estimations for number of inhabitable planets in the galaxy, much less the universe. Dave! (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Jon Kozan

(...) (It's Friday, so I have time to do this :-)) Evolution is not a force - it's: a) a theory, involving b) random chance Random chance cannot product life. the odds are just too far much. Indeed today's leading edge evolution scientists have (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Dave Schuler

(...) Okay, but recognize outright that I was being light-hearted. (...) Which scientists? In this and our previous exhanges you often cite "respected scientists" without naming names. I'd be interested to hear who you're referring to. You likewise (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) What scientific study are you quoting on those odds? (...) Not that I'm aware of. Sources? Bruce (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Jon Kozan

(...) 50, (...) the (...) I've started a new thread for this topic... -Jon (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Tom Stangl

(...) Prove it (what's that? We've said time and time again you can't prove a negative?) (...) And just EXACTLY where are you getting these odds? Have you calculated them? (...) We didn't even have to come from an INTELLIGENT life form. (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Jon Kozan

(...) 50, (...) markedly (...) negative?) (...) the (...) in (...) base (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Tom Stangl

No, just Highly Improbable. But it obviously happened ;-) (...) -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | Please do not associate my personal views with my employer (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Jon Kozan

No, evolution didn't happen. As Sherlock Holmes states - or is attributed to have said, "After you eliminate the impossible whatever you are left with, however improbable, must be the answer." I'm not stating that Creation happened (not here, or (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Sherlock is a fictional character, not a scientist (and I suppose I shouldn't mention Piltdown Man and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in the same breath). :-O Bruce (24 years ago, 20-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Jon Kozan

(...) Way off topic here... I suppose you thought that I believed the SH was real? hardly - Piltdown wasn't either... - But we all know that too. But he was more of a pig than SH :-) -Jon (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I don't think that there is anything wrong with attributing a pithy and apropos idea to a fictional character... in reality the attribution is to the author. As long as people know that, no harm, no foul. It may not be appropriate to do so for (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Jon Kozan

How appropriate that you and I had nothing else to do on a Sat evening! -Jon :-O) (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) If it's way off topicn then why do you bring it up? You suppose incorrectly. I was pointing out that you were using a fictional character to attempt to make a scientific point - a character written by the man who may (or maybe not, lotsa (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Ironic it may be... but what is fundamentally wrong with the statement? ... "After you eliminate the impossible whatever you are left with, however improbable, must be the answer." seems like a reasonable statement, whatever the source, (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) You have to realize the train of thought he is trying to establish. If he can prove evolution impossible, therefore, creationism, however improbable, must be the answer. He may deny that is the point he is trying to make, but note that there (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Larry Pieniazek

Bruce, you have a valid point in the larger context. I just think it's OK to quote fictional characters if there's merit in the thoughts of the author behind them. That's all. And I think it's OK to quote voices in your head too, but I digress. (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Jon Kozan

(...) Actually no - you presume incorrectly :-) I realize, by now, that I can't convince you of much, but, here and now, my only point is that you should not hang your hat on "evolution" (in it's many definitions) except so-called 'micro-evolution'. (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Jon Kozan

(...) Ah - thanks for the clarification. Now I understand. I was quoting "Sherlock" only because Sir ACD via Sherlock made an appropriate statement and I gave him credit. That's all. -Jon (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Dave Low

(...) I don't really, so apologies for the brevity of this reply. (...) As Jen Clarke pointed out, there is a theory and there is the phenomenon. The theory could be improved, refined, replaced or debunked, the phenomenon remains real (cf gravity). (...) (24 years ago, 20-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Jon Kozan

Evolution is not observable. And to state it again - I'm not attempting to convince you of Creationism here - just that evolution is impossible. You've tried to loop creationism and spirituality back into things - sorry if it appears that that is (...) (24 years ago, 20-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Dave Low

(...) See Larry's post here: (URL) source you quote on abiogenesis doesn't discuss evolution as a force in living things, presumably since it is irrefutable, and eminently observable. He focuses on the least observable, most speculative and most (...) (24 years ago, 20-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Oh, but that's just MY view of the observations and how they fit together. The serious creationist will easily dismiss the evidence of bacterial evolution by saying "God has changed the bugs in our lifetime to teach us the folly of thinking (...) (24 years ago, 20-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Jon Kozan

Perhaps it would be helpful to break apart the different things that are ascribed to the term "evolution." Common usage of the word "evolution" is the idea that living things in our world have come into being through unguided naturalistic processes (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Larry Pieniazek

(...) This is not true, there are creationists that dispute it. SRC for example. (...) I don't think these mechanisms are at all similar, really. (although since the argument is made that we are actually colonies of cooperating organisms who happen (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Jon Kozan

(...) Where? (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Jon Kozan

(...) My new thread does not have Darwinism in it's title - It is: Evolution - Impossible! I acknowledge that it's a bit general in the use of "Evolution" -Jon (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Jon Kozan

(...) Cosmology is the Big Bang theory which is the starting point of evolution. The abiogenesis is evolution. Certainly we can differ on terms, and probably do, but if it helps I'll refer to abiogenesis instead of 'evolution'. -Jon (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I missed this point the first time. I dispute that this extraordinarily broad definition is "common usage". Common usage covers only points 3 and 4, below. It would be helpful if creationists were clear about what they feel is in dispute. (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Jon Kozan

(...) Now, I'm a bit confused - you've replied to my post without quoting any of my new material - what are you referring to ?? Is this "question" you're referring to in the above paragraph the question of abiogenesis (my 2.) or what??? (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Larry Pieniazek

(...) The deeper quotes that I left (...) your 2. ++Lar (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Jon Kozan

(...) Ok -Jon (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Jon Kozan

(...) Yes - I haven't looked too far, but can't find anyone who doesn't. (...) Actually I think that the fossile record shows no support for evolution at all and I rather surprised that you would hang your hat on such a discredited bit of evidence. (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Since it's pretty commonly accepted by most real scientists (not just the mass media, disdain for which I happen to share with you, but I digress), I'll let *you* discredit that fossils represent the remains of animals, that there are various (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Jon Kozan

(...) all (...) evidence. (...) Done - Jon (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Man's best friend. (24 years ago, 20-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) If he runs on about evolution being bankrupt without addressing the other points, I think we have an answer through a non-answer. If he simply drops the subject, we probably have an answer, but can't be sure of it. Anyway, a non-answer can be (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —David Eaton

(...) The issue that I'm bringing up elsewhere is in faith of perception. Not in the scientific method, per se, but with the data it examines being based on faith-- as for a SPECIFIC post... I dunno... if you've read them all (and the new ones since (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) See above: I don't always agree with a scientist's findings. So, no, I didn't take it on faith. And there were a fair number of creditable scientists that confirmed the cold fusion experiment (the problem not being the results, but the test (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —David Eaton

(...) So-- you're basically saying that experiments quoted in Scientific American are very likely to be accurate, yes? Ok, to me, that's faith. You have faith in the fact that Scientific American's experiments are usually valid. Why do I call it (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —David Eaton

(...) Before I say 'Aha!' I'll say you can take this back and rephrase it if you wish to... Can God condemn either Bob or Joe to a different fate than the other? And your answer is no? Then aren't you arguing my point that God MUST be fair on this (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Steve Chapple

(...) God always keeps his promises. Are we agreeing again? :-) (...) You said you wanted me to correct your assumptions; Here's a biggie - perhaps your most fundamental. The Bible was penned by men, but the author is God. Your assumption to the (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —David Eaton

(...) 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: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Steve Chapple

(...) 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: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Tom Stangl

(...) 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 —David Eaton

(...) 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: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Tom Stangl

(...) This is one of the other basic problems I see with Christianity. The Bible was written by MEN. Poorly written in many cases. No one can adequately explain to me WHY God seemed to be so chatty with his people 2K years ago, then promptly zipped (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Guy Albertelli

(...) I have always been curious how "literal" readers of the bible reconcile the 2 different stories of creation in Genesis? (...) That is right. I would suggest you take a look a fractal mathematics, and celluar automata theory to see how very (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —David Eaton

(...) I wouldn't. Basically, what it boils down to is predictable fractal behavior. Although still random-looking, the system follows very consistant patterns. For example, imagine fractal-generated landscapes. Or basically just imagine 'possible' (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Guy Albertelli

(...) I still think you are seeing patterns you find interesting. When I buy a lottery ticket I always get "1 2 3 4 5 6" The U.S. coast line appearing _exactly_ the same somewhere else is "as" unlikely as the 200 mile one you posit. (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Chaotic Systems... (was: Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism) —David Eaton

(...) 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: Chaotic Systems... (was: Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism) —Scott Arthur

(...) 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)

Re: Chaotic Systems... (was: Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism) —David Eaton

(...) 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) —Scott Arthur

(...) 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) —Scott Arthur

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) —Frank Filz

(...) 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...) —David Eaton

(...) 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: Probability: (Was: Re: Chaotic Systems...) —Scott Arthur

(...) 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: Probability: (Was: Re: Chaotic Systems...) —David Eaton

(...) 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...) —Frank Filz

(...) 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: Chaotic Systems... (was: Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) 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)