To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 8984
8983  |  8985
Subject: 
Re: Why not Both?
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Wed, 24 Jan 2001 01:29:42 GMT
Viewed: 
1803 times
  
Jon Kozan wrote:

> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jon Kozan writes:
> > > (off topic)
> > > Evolution is man's construct. It actually doesn't fit with man's science -
> > > but
> > > that's another thread.
> > 
> > Indeed another topic-- and maybe not even another thread... but I probably
> > won't join in on it, just because I don't feel qualified to do so, and as
> > such I don't think I could provide much that'd be useful to the debate. Were
> > I more informed, maybe. But for now I'll just stick to the philosophical
> > side of things. :)
> 
> Philosphically - what would your logic say if it were shown that science does
> not contradict the Bible - not prove it necessarily, but supported a literal
> interpretation of it?
> 
> What if science supported that the earth is young and not billions of years
> old?
> 
> What if science could prove that we could not have come into existance without
> another causal force - a creator?


Who created the creator?


--
| Tom Stangl, iPlanet Web Server Technical Support     Netscape Communications
Corp
| iPlanet Support - http://www.iplanet.com/support/    A division of AOL Time
Warner
|      Please do not associate my personal views with my employer



Message has 2 Replies:
  Re: Why not Both?
 
(...) Hey, no fair, I was gonna ask that one. Did already, actually. :-) (URL) towards the bottom... :-) ++Lar (26 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
  Re: Why not Both?
 
(...) Here we come to what is seemingly an impossible thing to answer: HOWEVER: If you are already in a position where you say you believe the Bible the answer is simple - the Bible clearly states that God always was, is, and always will be (sorry, (...) (26 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Why not Both?
 
(...) Philosphically - what would your logic say if it were shown that science does not contradict the Bible - not prove it necessarily, but supported a literal interpretation of it? What if science supported that the earth is young and not billions (...) (26 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
    

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR