 | | 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)
|
| | | | |
