Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 18:48:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1568 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jon Kozan writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jon Kozan writes:
> > > > 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."
> > >
> > > 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
> >
> > 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
>
> 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 noise, little surety) have been behind the
> Piltdown Hoax, the man who wrote "The Lost World", to make a point about
> evolution. I simply find it hugely ironic. :-)
>
> Bruce
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, fictional or not. (the flaw, if any, is in the "left with" part,
since to be "left with" the correct possibility after eliminating the rest,
you must have enumerated all (or at least a set that includes the correct
one) the possibilities in the first place, a non trivial task)
I think Jon's all wet in a lot of different ways but I wouldn't take him to
task for this particular canard. It's a target rich environment, after all,
why plink at sparrows when he's got plenty of albatrosses to shoot down?
Just MHO of course.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 21-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
|
|
|
|
