Subject:
|
Re: Why not Both?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:55:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
289 times
|
| |
|
|
I didn't really want to step into the evolutionary debate as it's so much
plowed ground, but there's just something about speaking your mind that's
just irrisistable once in a while :)
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jon Kozan writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> Dave - don't get upset - I just thought that your posting was about joining
> the 2 lines of thought together. That has been considered already. My point is
> precisely that. I'm not attempting to debunk it here...
(I'm assuming that you mean "it" to be the scientific side, yes? In context
it sounds rather like you mean Dave's thought about combining the two, which
IS exactly what you're attempting to debunk, or should be)
> Is that what you
> want? I just didn't want to mix the threads and further confuse anyone reading
> them.
>
> You asked, "Why not both?", and I responded with a non-scientific answer. I
> provided a philosphical answer. Surely that's ok within the limits of how _I_
> want to answer here? I'm reserving scientific evidence for the other
> threads - rather than repeat myself in different threads.
No no-- you responded scientificially:
"While it is intellectually stimulating, it misses the scientific evidence for
creation that is indeed consistant with the Biblical account - a literal 7-day
creation."
And THEN you stated the philosophy as derived FROM the scientific:
"Yes, God could have done anything He wanted - then why say He did something
different?"
The reason you were given is BASED on the scientific-- NOT the
philosophical. Why say He did it differently than the Bible seems to say?
Because what the Bible says doesn't mesh with science. Hence, the question
becomes can we re-interpret the Bible to be in accordance with evolution?
The question assumes already that we're accepting the scientific principle
already as valid.
Your only recourse following this assumption is to show that the Bible's
version of creationism IS NOT compatible with evolutionary theory. But I
expect you'd prefer simply to not make the assumption to begin with, which
goes RIGHT back to the scientific argument.
> I suppose I could have ignored your posting, but that wouldn't have been
> constructive. No offense intended.
Well-- really, I rather think it may have indeed been your purpose, not that
it's a bad one. You were critiquing his logic. You were saying that there is
no cause to jump to conclusions for which already satisfactory conclusions
have been made, and as such, you were critiquing Dave!'s logical abilities
or methods. But now I'm bordering on silly. Quite clearly you instead were
following proper rules of rhetoric and/or civility. I honestly don't think
you meant what I'm implying by 'offense'. Instead you were trying to say you
didn't mean offense to Dave! per se, but his suggestion, or that you wanted
to make Dave! appear as more reationary to your comments, which I think is
less warranted, and probably not really your intent. Anyway-- I'm off topic.
But hey, you started it! :)
DaveE
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) Either, actually, depending on how you read it, I suppose. I'm not arguing the "evolution-isn't-scientific" point here... AND I'm not really debunking combining the 2 either really - although I _did_ do that to a certain degree. My point #1 - (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) That's stating an assumption- "what the Bible says doesn't mesh with science" I dispute that - and I will present evidence in the other threads that support that claim. -Jon (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) In addition, your phrasing answers the very question you pose: "seems to say" explicitly points out the interpretability of the text. Who determines what the book "seems to say"? The natural world "seems to say" that evolution took place, but (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) Fine - now we're on a philospohical discussion... The question of whether the Bible's version of creationism is compatible with evolutionary theory is fundamentally a question of interpretation. There are 2 fundamental, particularly relevant, (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) Dave - don't get upset - I just thought that your posting was about joining the 2 lines of thought together. That has been considered already. My point is precisely that. I'm not attempting to debunk it here... Is that what you want? I just (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
  
- 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
|
|
|
|
