 | | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
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
|
|
(...) <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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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)
|
