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 / 9107
    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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (23 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 

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