Subject:
|
Re: Why not Both?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 23 Jan 2001 18:51:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
304 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...
> > 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.
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
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) ? Lemme rephrase what I think Dave! was saying: 1. Given that evolution appears to have happened 2. Given that we cannot disprove creationism may have happened Can we say that both may be true, hence avoiding the need for further dispute? And (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
