To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 8749
8748  |  8750
Subject: 
Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:25:17 GMT
Viewed: 
1211 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
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 answer some of the refutations of your claims here on
LUGNET.  Otherwise, you seem to be taking a head-in-the-sand approach to
debate, and nothing constructive can come of that.

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 have a problem with that: no answer IS an answer.  :-)


In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:

Yet "your cohorts" present a theory for which there is scant
evidence as though it has been scientifically established as fact.

You're equivocating on the definition of fact. In science a fact is something
which can be accepted per se because it has been utterly and clearly
demonstrated to be consistent with an overwhelming body of evidence in
preference to other interpretations. Evolution fits this criterion.  Thus the
theory can be invoked as a fact because it is no longer necessary to prove (by
which I mean to demonstrate to be consistent with an overwhelming body of
evidence in preference to other interpretations) the theory each time it is
invoked.  It is taken as a foundation piece of science.

Essentially, he is saying evolution isn't science, but at the same times
betrays he doesn't understand what science is, and then equates science and
religion as the same thing.

However, this is not to say that the theory is immutable or impervious--far
from it, in fact; the point of science is to advance constantly our
understanding, ever modifying our theories to describe an ever-increasing body
of information.  That is why evolution is accepted as fact, and it is why, even
if evolution as a theory is supplanted by some larger, more complete theory,
until that time it is still sufficiently verifiable to be accepted for all
intents and purposes as fact.

A complex creation doesn't require an intelligent creator?  That's one of
the things that truly baffles me about people who believe in Darwinism.
If I told you that the <set:8002> sitting (assembled and functional) on
my desk wasn't created by me out of parts created by TLC...

Evolution does not address God.  That's one of the things about Creationists
that baffles me - they seem to think it does.  It neither confirms nor
denies God.  In any case, what appears random to science presumably is not
to God (omniscient).  I've mentioned before that my mother was a physical
anthropologist and a Christian and didn't seem to have a problem with it.

Darwin, by the way, studied theology in college.  :-)

Kinda addressed this to both of you simultaneously - should be obvious where.

Bruce



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
 
(...) 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)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
 
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)

298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR