Subject:
|
Re: Why not Both?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 27 Jan 2001 00:05:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
480 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Culberson writes:
> Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > Let's stick to the creationist refutation of speciation and macroevolution,
> > it at least has the potential for not being quite as plowed ground.
>
> Thank you for eventually saying this.
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 tackle that point than repeatedly posting these
references to fire/brimstone/junk science that are easily debunked (to
critical thinkers, but not to those who lack an elementary grasp of the
definitions of science, theory, observation, etc. such as yourself), and
have been, repeatedly, here.
But I have to admit I'm baffled. Christians who defend literal creationism
as scientifically plausible (more probable than alternative explanations)
seem to be in a small minority. Members of splinter sects, even. Most
christians instead say that god, creation, and everything are fundamentally
unexplainable and that we should take things on faith.
Why do you claim literal creationism is the best explanation? It is so
easily shredded. (to critical thinkers, but not to those who lack an
elementary grasp of the definitions of science, theory, observation, etc.
such as yourself).
You even have christians arguing against you! Why believe in a fantasy
world? Are you luddite? What?
I just don't get it.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) (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 (...) (23 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 25-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
|
|
|
|
