 | | 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)
|
| | | | |
