Subject:
|
Re: Why not Both?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 23 Jan 2001 18:47:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
326 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> 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)
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 - this is not a new thought, many have considered it, and while it
had its followers to a certain degree a few decades ago, it has largely been
abandoned today.
The scientific basis for that action, I'm keeping in another thread (my choice)
Anyone else can certainly do otherwise.
-Jon
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| 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 :) (...) (I'm assuming that you mean "it" to be the scientific (...) (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
|
|
|
|
