 | | Macro-Evolution - Impossible!
|
|
"Remember, the evidence the fossil record gives us is not about *how* macroevolution happens, merely that it does." ++Lar The fossil record as an evidence for macro-evolution has two aspects which must be considered: 1) Do strata (layers of soil) (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"
|
|
(...) Yes, it does support a progression of life through time. You are welcome to present a different hypothesis. (...) Yes. (23 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"
|
|
(...) I thought that the fossil record does not show any evidence of survival of the fittest. It is my understanding that the fossil record does show ample evidence of evolution per se, but gives no reason why. "Survival of the fittest" is a catch (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"
|
|
(...) I stand corrected. With the caveat that Darwin had no part in the phrase "survival of the fittest". Evolution was postulated before Darwin, he simply came up with an explanation for the mechanism behind it. His evidence was in large part from (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"
|
|
(...) Ok, so you're saying it can't be debated? You think evolution is a fact? If you don't like my #2, please restate it in the form you like better. After everyone agrees on the form of the question - I'll then address it as the unsupportable (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"
|
|
(...) Hardly - but that shows you just how easliy you've bought into the theory. If my statement isn't sufficient for you, please write one, and I'll address it. Please be concise. -Jon (23 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"
|
|
(...) Jon: You've repeatedly mentioned leading scientists and overwhelming numbers to defend your case against evolution without giving actual names or numbers. For the umpteenth time, can you provide any actual names or numbers, other than those (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"
|
|
(...) You keep making these claims, but I have seen no evidence of such (debate within science on if evolution happens). You are welcome to submit such (gotta be accredited scientists in scientific journals - spare me the religious crackpots). You, (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"
|
|
(...) First - I've never said "leading" scientists, since that is always open to debate. I understand your thoughts/feelings on this - however, with this thread I'm trying to establish what it is that I should be addressing regarding evolution - (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"
|
|
(...) I don't for an instant imagine that you won't attack what I say, but that's not the point with my opening post. Nor have I attempted to cite any evidence yet one way or the other. All I'm trying to do is state the tenants of macro evolution as (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"
|
|
(...) not (...) your (...) In other words, you can't back up your claims. You only want to stick to the subject if you get the last word ("Hardly - which wasn't on topic, but I wanted to have a zinger without a rejoinder"). Don't lecture me on what (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"
|
|
(...) No Bruce - give me a break - if you can't establish the basis for a discussion there is no discussion. I'll be glad to backup my claims when I make them. For the 4th time - Do you accept my statements as descriptive of the key questions of the (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - Impossible!
|
|
Jon and Bruce are exasperating each other without getting very far, so I thought I'd go back to the beginning of the thread and look at Jon's original statements. I may be falling into his trap, that's OK. I've done it to him before so I guess it's (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
I'm stepping out onto shaky ground here as I have to admit that I've only been sparatically(sp?) following the whole "Christianity/Darwin.../Religion" debate except I have been reading the "Macro Evolution" thread thoroughly- but I will now step in (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"
|
|
(...) Just following *your* lead. (...) You've been challenged on your extravagant claims of support or lack of support for either side many times by many people and have never offered any shred of proof. You'll continue to dodge the question. (...) (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"
|
|
(...) Okay, but you haven't named names in any thread in which you've participated. My objection isn't simply to your line of reasoning (which is a substantial objection, I grant you) but rather to your willful choice not to support your claims (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - Impossible!
|
|
(...) Thank you. (...) REVISED: 1) Do strata (layers of sediment) support a progressive, over millennia, approach which reveals the progression (simple forms leading to more complicated forms) of life through time? Or is there a better explanation (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
Tim: Thank-you. You got ahead of me, but I suppose that's ok. I wanted to reach some agreement on the basis for the debate before I began to present research. I will continue to go down that road, but your references should give them some food for (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"
|
|
(...) I've revised my groundwork statements in line with Larry's suggestions. If they're sufficient I will proceed. -Jon (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"
|
|
(...) evolution (...) Back up to the beginning and note Larry's comments - I've responded and I think that's where we can start. Meanwhile you might read Tim's post... I wanted to establish a basis for the discussion before presenting evidence - (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) Yes, thank you Tim, since you answered a question that Jon has ducked through dozens of posts in several debates and threads thereof. And thank you for providing some references, so that those of us who support evolution are at last able to (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - Impossible!
|
|
(...) I still have a quibble, to wit, with the use of "progression" and/or the use of "simple to more complicated". That's the way that it seems to have come out in this case, but that's not necessarily an implication. If conditions change radically (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - Impossible!
|
|
(...) Ok - REVISED AGAIN: 1) Do strata (layers of sediment) support a progressive, over millennia, approach which reveals the progression (simple forms leading to more complicated forms, or vice versa: one type changing into another type) of life (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) Again I apologize if I'm re-hashing what has already been discussed due to my not following these discussions from the beginning but I assume by saying that (and I do agree with that statement) I can also state with the same implications that (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - Impossible!
|
|
On the subject of Macro evolution: I present the following excerpt (again from (URL) understand, when I talk about evolution I am not referring to simple variations that occur in any species. Dogs produce a variety of puppies, but never will dogs (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
Looks like Tims' running strongly - I may just need to sit back and watch. -Jon (...) that (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) Do you understand what a theory is? Do you understand that gravity is a theory? Do you understand that science deals in theories all the time? (...) Man's best friend (dogs). Tested, observed, and demonstrable. Perhaps you may wish to be more (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
Tim Culberson wrote: <snipped> (...) ??? I sure hope your mistaken about the relationship between science and theory. You see, I teach two intro science labs today where I plan to discuss the scientific method, including how hypothesis testing leads (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) and science", which means that he didn't get a degree. "He then transferred to Midwestern Baptist College to double major in Bible and education." Therefore he abandoned, for whatever reason, his pursuit of a science or math degree in favor of (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) Far more important than your perception of his credentials is his facts. Are they correct? Get past the rhetoric and personal attack - his methods are probably as distatesful as others on the other side - but that's not the point. Are the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) If you had read Tim's post, rather than leaping to disagree with mine, you'd have noticed that Tim asked me to consult the page in question before questioning Dr. Dino's credibility. I examined the page, as Tim asked, and, having found found (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Credibility... (Was: Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"))
|
|
(...) And just because I found myself thinking about it, I earned over 190 hours credit in philosophy when in school... Wonder if I could get retroactive credit for all these Lugnet debates? Easily a term's worth of papers-- backed with the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) The only thing that is credible, other than perhaps my conclusion that you have got to be winding me up about all this, is that "Dr Dino" has been kissing the blarney stone in a big way. For example, on the "win a great deal of cash" section, (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
Jennifer Clark writes (with snips of some excellent points): (...) A great point--I wish I'd made it. One might as readily include the Evolution of Dave Schuler! from infant to (supposed) adult as a forbidden topic. (Or, more seriously, the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) HOLD ON! Did you stop reading there or did you just deliberately skip the following sentence so as to be misleading: "While he taught math and science at Christian high schools for the next fifteen years, he earned his Masters (1988) and (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) What???...??? Your big bang theory must not be the same as any other big bang theory. AS far as I know the big bang theory teaches EXACTLY that time, space, and matter where brought into existence from nothing. (...) Ahem....that's why the (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
Ok Tim, you are surely trolling me here, but I'll reply anyway, magnanimous individual that I am ;-) (...) It is correct to say that Big Bang theories do tend to mention that time, space and matter come from nothing (or more strictly speaking from a (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) It is interesting still further that he doesn't specify the subject in which he received his degrees. For instance, numerous fly-by-night organizations offer two-week doctorates in "divinity," so until and unless he specifies, I'm no more (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) Please forgive me if this is how you took my writings. I assure you that I intended no trolling at any point (I'll try to use less punctuation :) (...) So that I am clear on exactly what you are saying, could you please define for me (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) Since he bases his entire argument on his belief in God, he does have a base for this... (...) No, this isn't a meaningless question. I guess I have to reword what I'm saying: What I am trying to say is that those who claim that the (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) Schoolbooks due suffer from a variety of errors. This however is not because Darwinian Evolution is wrong, but rather because the people writing the books are more interested in selling them then getting their facts right. (...) For the same (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - Impossible!
|
|
(...) IANAP (I am not a paleontologist), but I'm not sure that the fossil record shows either of these things. It shows the spatial and historical pattern of life on earth (what lived where, when), but we can only infer the evolutionary process from (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) If this is all you want, no problem. I concede that the creationist beliefs (as they relate to macroevolution) are not impossible. They are highly unlikely, unverifiable, and unsupported by the available observations, but I concede that it is (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) I've detailed this in previous posts, including the following one where I made a distinction between evolution as a process and the theory of evolution: (URL) that we are discussing material presented in schools, and so I will reiterate here (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) So how can one say that issuing a misleading textbook without pointing out the BLATANT errors isn't misleading the student? (...) There are a heck of a lot less evidences to discredit the above theories compared to Evolution. (here's 20 to (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - Impossible!
|
|
(...) IANAP either, however: (URL) -TiM NB, CA (URL) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) And I have repeatedly asked you to provide an example showing their unlikeliness and telling me at least one or two available observations that don't support it. (Notice that I left out "Unverifiable" since the claims of Evolution are also (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) Carbon dating. Speed of light. (More specifically, observed doppler shift as pertains to stars (and other astronomical bodies), indicating direction, speed of travel & distance.) Two well established scientific processes, both of which (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) Hmmm....I wish I had seen this earlier. Did you happen to follow the link to "Answers to commonly asked questions about the $250, 000 Offer" ((URL) addresses every point that you mentioned in your previous post so rather than me try and defend (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Its Own Worst Enemy (was Re: Support for Creationism )
|
|
(...) snipped from (URL) Questions for Evolutionists for the purposes of review and discussion. No challenge to the copyright status of this work is implied or should be inferred. (...) It does not evolve into a butterfly; the organism has the same (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) Easily explained away. All that is required is a god that wants to rig the game... The stars were created in 4006 BC with the appropriate compositions and velocities and things were set up so that light of the appropriate frequency was already (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Credibility... (Was: Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"))
|
|
(...) Self-aggrandizement. (...) Not that I know the answer for this guy, but different colleges award credit hours differently. I've attended 4 colleges and they all used different measures of "credit hours". -Jon (23 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) have (...) level is the Big Bang theory, which has nothing to do with Darwin's theory of (...) In your experience, perhaps, but then we're all limited by our own personal experiences. Evolution and the theory of origins, and the Big Bang are (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) Gee I can say wrong too! :-) "Abiogenesis" is not taught in schools as "abiogenesis" - it's called 'evolution' too. And my other comment still applies - they're all intertwined - one cannot exist without the other. If one claims that simple (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) Well, I don't have kids of a relevant age, but I can certainly state definitively that they were clearly seperate and not intertwined when I learned about them in school - In fact, when I took that kind of stuff, the Big Bang Theory was only (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) Actually, he doesn't address the points I make - all he produces is more sophistry and verbal obfuscation, the main thrust of that being that anything with the word "evolution" in it is akin to Darwin's Theory of Evolution. I have provided a (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) Well, we did indeed go to different schools, so at least in this case we can both be right :-) (...) What can I say? In my experience this has not been the case, and I have yet to hear any sufficient explanation of why all these things are (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) This is not so. As pointed out in a very recent post, any cause and effect (and there may be none, some, or a lot) is unidirectional. Perhaps some explanation? First of all, let's get the temporal sequence correct, where "->" means "happened (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) Sounds like the Bible to me. Pot - kettle - black. (...) In the US? Damned straight I would - Separation of Church and State, remember? Now, if it were a PRIVATE school, more power to you. But if a public school that gets MY tax money, that (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Credibility... (Was: Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"))
|
|
(...) So if DAVE says it, it's Self-aggrandizement, but if a Creationist says it about their credit hours in science, it's not, it's proof they know what they are talking about? Elaborate, please. -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Credibility... (Was: Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"))
|
|
(...) Not really... I was thinking about applying the same logic in reverse-- I.E. that if I studied philosophy whether I'd somehow earn your respect in my arguments. But you'll notice I didn't do that. I just thought about it for a minute. But if (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Credibility... (Was: Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"))
|
|
(...) Well, "credit hours" made a certain amount of sense at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute where I attended. A 3 credit hour class (which was an "average" class) had 3 hours of lecture per week (courses with labs didn't reflect the lab time in (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Credibility... (Was: Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"))
|
|
(...) I guess I'm just stuck saying 'ick'... My instincts just tell me to measure courses by evaluated content, not time... But I spose if you wanted to measure it that way, I guess I can't say there isn't a logical reason behind it. Oh well... Oh, (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) Ah, but it does. You're a Bricksmith, and Technic fans everywhere are saving their pennies and salivating in anticipation of the release of your first kit. And if *that* isn't an significant effect on the universe, maybe we're not in the same (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) :-) I think we are - however, having read many ancient myths, I am ever cautious of hubris ;-) Jennifer Clark (23 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Hubris
|
|
(...) I'm extremely proud of my hubris. Dave! (23 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hubris
|
|
(...) It'll be your undoing, mark my words ;-) Or something along those lines. Speaking of Greek Tragedy, I could be doing with some serious Deus Ex Machina for my latest creation. Jennifer Clark (23 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Hubris
|
|
(...) Hmm.. My hubris, or my pride in my hubris? 8^) (...) Ugh! I feel your pain. Many's the supernaturally cool design I could have built if only some higher being had come down and told me how to get it to work. Dave! (23 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) I have to admit, I find this a rather curious point. I know of no religion where there god must prove its/his/her self worthy of the worship of the individual. Further, I believe that if an entity, whatever it is, were able to create the whole (...) (23 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Credibility... (Was: Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"))
|
|
(...) You went to RPI? When? -Erik ECSE '94 (23 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Credibility... (Was: Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"))
|
|
(...) BS ECSE '85, Meng ECSE '89. Looks like we just missed... FUT: lugnet.people Frank (23 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.people)
|
| |
| | Re: Creditability...
|
|
(...) By an even narrower margin -- I was class of '93 until I went on co-op. Have you visited there recently? I've got some photos of the new Approach here. (23 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.people)
|
| |
| | Re: Creditability...
|
|
(...) Ahh, then we could have seen each other in passing. I was occaisionally on campus in fall of '99 (like I went to interviews, also did a few outings with the outings club). (...) here. Haven't visited since summer of '91, and even that wasn't (...) (23 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.people)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) You're right. *Now* I know what I dislike about all of them! Thanks! I have the overweening pride to prefer eternal damnation to groveling to a god that is not worthy of me. (...) It's indeed irrefutable for an all powerful/creator of the (...) (23 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hubris
|
|
(...) It would appear that my pleas have been answered, as a large bout of inspiration lead to an "until 5 in the morning" highly productive building session. Now the only qustion is - who is responsible for the abiogenisis of this model? And will (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) I think it is all relative - if our universe was the godly creation equivalent of assembling a Duplo kit then perhaps said deity would perhaps not be so deserving of respect. However, respect would certainly be true if our universe and (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) The humanity is very small part of the universe. Humanity can be good - there are just a few bugs that is all ;-) But I note your lack of confidence in you fellow man to do good - we must start a club. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - Impossible!
|
|
(...) and what little does is some 40 years old--the palaeontological equivalent of considering an IBM PC-XT "cutting edge" in 2001, just because it's only a dozen or so years old. It's selective misinformation--Kitts's work is even older, mostly in (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
