Subject:
|
Re: Why not Both?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 23 Jan 2001 19:24:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
338 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jon Kozan writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > 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.
?
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 he also said that he thought his answer would be "yes".
You then responded by saying that evolution does not appear to have
happened, and that trying to bend #2 in accordance with #1 is useless
because of the lack of value in #1, yes? I.E. The reason we shouldn't
combine the two theories is that evolution has no evidence to suggest that
it happened (or that evidence exists to the contrary), therefore we
shouldn't even consider it. Of course, feel free to correct me and explain a
bit more if that's not what you were saying, or if you were saying something
else in addition to it.
The question isn't "Does science mesh with the Bible?", the question is
"Does evolution mesh with the Bible?", with a little hint of "Should we mesh
evolution with the Bible?"
If your answer is that evolution isn't supported by science, then you're NOT
giving a philosophical rebuttal, you're giving a scientific one. So
basically, if you're going to say that you don't want to put scientific
reasoning in this thread, then DON'T put it here. But if you ARE going to
give a scientific impetus, then don't go changing it around on Dave! by
saying that you don't want to back up the scientific argument in this
particular thread.
But as for that, I'm perfectly happy if you DO want to give your scientific
reasoning here. I don't personally really care to debate such, but certainly
it's welcome. I'll just step in if I think I see a flaw with what you're
saying, which I did. Fact of the matter is that you said you were providing
a philosophical reason, when in fact I think you were providing a scientific
one.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| I see from the below that we have a difference on debate styles and definitions Ok. I believe that when I present scientific evidence I'm arguing scientifically. If I don't, then I'm not. That simple. Anything else is philosphical. (by my (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (23 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
|
|
|
|
