 | | Re: Why not Both? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | (...) OK. So in the system you accept as a true, revealed system, your god exists forever and created the universe, but himself doesn't need a creator. In the one I accept as likely based on the evidence and observations so far (note the difference, (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Tim Culberson
|
| | | | (...) Thank you for eventually saying this. The topic at hand could be argued in a number of ways but it reaches a very philosophical(sp?) level. (...) Okay Larry....I must say I'm starting to see Jon's frustration. PLEASE tell us even ONE (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Dave Low
|
| | | | | (...) What Larry meant was because Creationism explains everything, it really explains nothing. "Tigers look like lions" -- God's plan; "Dinosaurs don't graze on grassy plains all over the world any more" -- God's plan; "Plant chlorophyll has DNA (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Tim Culberson
|
| | | | | | (...) Before you assume that I am going to answer a question by simply stating "God's Plan" (which I agree is a cop-out if used as a response to every question), why don't you ask one. I will say, however, that you may insert "God's Plan" in front (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Dave Low
|
| | | | | | (...) I can't. That's the whole point. Because the Genesis creation story can be twisted to explain everything in the world, and because it is irrefutable as God's word, it can't be subjected to the same analysis as a scientific theory. (...) Here's (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Tim Culberson
|
| | | | | | This reply is brought about by Dave's direct request: (...) (URL) (sorry to keep using and defending this source because you all hate it so much - but it is the best online one that I know...if you're immediately plannng on saying "that source isn't (...) (24 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | | (...) I don't have a lot of time right now, so I'm not going to waste it refuting every point on this site (and there are MANY that are ludicrous), but the following is just too rich to pass up... "Aquatic air-breathing mammals such as whales and (...) (24 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Tim Culberson
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) No doubt in my mind. (...) People are a nice meal for lions, and tigers, and bears, and pirannahs, and sharks, and all sorts of carnivores/omnivores, but we seem to be surviving just fine. Perhaps your idea of a Trex isn't what you imagine (...) (24 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) Then I'm done wasting my time with you. You're hopeless, there's no doubt about it. I refuse to beat my head against a wall to try to talk some real common sense into you. You're just lost, and it's obvious you WANT to be lost. -- Tom Stangl (...) (24 years ago, 11-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Was T-Rex a herbivourous animal?(was: Re: Why not Both?) —Arnold Staniczek
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Just because a certain species of primates shows a significant enlargement of brain doesn't mean it always uses it: (...) As long as they can match in speed with their victims it's no problem - or do you want to tell me that the giant (...) (24 years ago, 11-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Was T-Rex a herbivourous animal?(was: Re: Why not Both?) —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) It's not the grey matter, it's how the grey matter is wired. The last study I've seen (admittedly only in the mainstream) suggests that it's the brain's ability to cool and warm itself--e.g., the blood flow--that determines a species's (boy, (...) (24 years ago, 11-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Questions Literal Creationists Can't Answer? —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Oh, see, they're still around today, they're just HIDING: (URL) And of course it's all a communistic government plot: (URL) It's interesting that each of the supposed questionnaires (each worded quite carefully) take advantage of the compart- (...) (24 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Literal Creationism--a non sequitur! —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | (...) to himself or others. Perhaps an intervention is in order. However, at the bottom of the page Dr. D does make an interesting and absolute refutation of literal readings of the Bible when he indicates: GODISNOWHERE There are two obvious (...) (24 years ago, 12-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Dave Low
|
| | | | | | (...) is incidental to the question, the answer seems to boil down to "The unity of the creation is testimony to the One True God who made it all." For my money this is a good explanation, IF you accept that (a) there is a One True God who made it (...) (24 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Why? So you could avoid this point? "If you fault my system for not explaining the origin of the universe, why then, I fault yours for not explaining the origin of your god. No better no worse, explanation wise. A draw." I'd rather see you (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —James Brown
|
| | | | | (...) (just picking a nit) I disagree... in my experience most christians only hold that God is fundamentally unexplainable. Creation and everything are currently unexplained, and may well be unexplainable, but that's not going to stop us from (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Point taken but to continue splitting this particular hair, I agree with "everything" but not "creation" except inasmuch as the explanation is "god created (the starting point of) the universe", which is fine, since it's no better or worse an (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Jennifer Clark
|
| | | | | | (...) I've been thinking along those lines too due to this thread, and recalled a "Raft" by Stephen Baxter in which gravity is much stronger than in our universe. If I remember correctly it was quite a good read, although I'm not a good enough (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Jennifer Clark
|
| | | | (...) Something else I find interesting is that literal creationism also seems to be almost solely the preserve of inhabitants of the US, at least from where I'm standing. The only person I've ever come across in person in the UK who professed a (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | (...) The Creationist movement is primarily U.S. Protestant driven. Not exclusively, of course. Perhaps it's part of the insular nature of the U.S., especially the interior of the country. Europe has been through this all before. Bruce (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
