Debate : 9780


Off-Topic / Debate / 9780

Re: Alien races —Selçuk Göre

(...) Ryan, could you please inform us about your profession/occupation? Just wondering. I never think that science is a matter of "beliefs", so I just wanted to learn which "facts" do you have under your "scientific belief", and how can you obtain (...) (23 years ago, 4-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races) —Ryan Farrington

(...) I'm sorry, Selçuk, but I don't understand what exactly you are asking. Could you please rephrase it? BTW, I'm a seventeen-year-old college student. Thanks, --Ryan (23 years ago, 4-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races) —Dave Low

(...) Hi Ryan, This isn't exactly what Selçuk asked, but it's a similar sort of question. Most scientists think about the world in terms of falsifiable theories, rather than beliefs as such. So here's my question: Under what circumstances would you (...) (23 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races) —Ryan Farrington

Dave Low: (...) The thing is, I believe the Bible to be literal truth about the universe! So in that case, I never will stop believing the Bible. I believe the Bible is the word of God, written by the hands of men, under the inspiration and (...) (23 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races) —Bruce Schlickbernd

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ryan Farrington writes: Other questions also arise, casting doubt (...) Which neatly sums up the corner fundamentalists paint themselves into. The Bible is the literal word of God, no interpreting (which variation of (...) (23 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races) —Dave Schuler

(...) Ryan, I don't presume to question your Faith, but for a number of reasons your position on the nature of text isn't entirely supportable. If, for instance, even a single snippet of The Bible is found to be not literally true, then the literal (...) (23 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races) —Robert Bevens

(...) What if God isn't perfect? What if he purposefully put in mistakes as a sort of "test of faith"? (...) We could be, where is your undeniable proof that we aren't? For all you know your entire reality is just some form of illusion. (...) (...) (23 years ago, 5-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races) —James Brown

(...) How is that relevant to Dave's question? Ryan stated his belief that the bible (not portions, or "except the bits to test our faith") is literal truth. If one holds the entirety as literal truth, then any example of non-literal truth (...) (23 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races) —Robert Bevens

(...) Uh...what question? Are you getting something I'm not or did I miss another meeting? (...) A yup. (...) Not entirely true, it could all be literally true whilst parts could still be incorrect. You might ask why, but then I'd have to start (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)) —James Brown

(...) <many other people wrote, but the attributions have been snipped> (...) Oops, silly me. c/question/argument (...) Go ahead, amaze me. Statement: the Bible is all literal truth. Statement: part of the bible is not literal truth. I'm fascinated (...) (23 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)) —Robert Bevens

(...) Okay let's really break this down first. You have two things, A and B. A is true, but only when B is false B is true, but only when A is false A is true, and so is B, therefore the premises are false. Okay, that's some standard logic right (...) (23 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)) —Robert Bevens

Disregard my last post, I mistyped a few of my sentences (got all my true and false mixed up), I also bothered to run spellcheck this time. (...) Okay let's really break this down first. You have two things, A and B. A is true, but only when B is (...) (23 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)) —Jeff Stembel

(...) You are hedging the issue. He asked you a simple question, "Which is correct?" (I would add an "and why" to it, though) and you avoid it by saying "One of them." This is not answering his question. As well answer the math teacher's question of (...) (23 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)) —Robert Bevens

(...) No I'm really not son, I broke it down to pure logic. I can even break it down further into truth tables, but I doubt you even know what those are so I won't bother. (...) Actually that isn't what he asked me. Don't you know what a premise is? (...) (23 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)) —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) It's times like this when I wish we could score articles as "Troll" and "Obvious ego autoflagellation" like on Slashdot... :-P Cheers, - jsproat (23 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Well, we can't... but we CAN spotlight stuff we agree with. You got my vote on this one, Brother Sproat. ++Lar (23 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

A washed-out Robert (Was: Robert gets to invalidate logic) —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) Wow, cool, thanks Brother Lar. Keep the flattery up, you might make a Larritarian out of me yet! ;-) I'm noticing (and I'm sure it's been observed before) that these kind of noisemakers come in cycles, but only last a short time. Burn brightly (...) (23 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)) —Robert Bevens

(...) I have not even BEGUN to inflate my ego! I can produce devastating walls of text in my sleep the likes of your puny brain has yet to comprehend! `, Þ Robert (23 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Even awake for that matter, I suspect, as comprehending gibberish that has no underlying meaning is a bit beyond Sproat's prowess. I've got one of those gibberish generators too, though, so producing text that is incomprehensible isn't much of (...) (23 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)) —Robert Bevens

(...) Well I suppose if I was doing some social engineering I could stop...but since I'm not that might be a problem. If I was social engineering anyone I would not be so straight forward and blunt in my posts. Robert (23 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)) —Selçuk Göre

(...) So why you just don't cut your holly book into two slices, and put your intellect between them and shove it all together to your holly hole, instead just losing your holly time here? If you want to debate, than debate till the end, if you (...) (23 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)) —Robert Bevens

(...) I tell ya, seems you guys have absolutely no sense of humor, at all. (...) There be no holly on my intellect! What do I look like, a jolly fat elf with a sack full of presents? Robert (23 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Indeed it has. You might want to parcel it out a bit cautiously, as it would be a shame to run out of it too soon. ++Lar (23 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)) —Selçuk Göre

(...) Heh..heh..heheheh.he...e...heheh. Selçuk (...) (23 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)) —Robert Bevens

(...) I don't know what you're smokin....but I want some! : ) Robert (23 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)) —Selçuk Göre

(...) Not smoking anything but Camel, but, just breathing your melodious fart that sounds like "oh my dear lovely and only intellect" maybe? Selçuk PS. Why don't you put your true identity that we are already familiar, Hatter? (23 years ago, 9-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic —Dave Schuler

(...) You're equivocating. James has done a good job of fielding your foul balls while I've been away, but I'd like to point out a few additional flaws in your logic. (...) In fact, it is nothing at all like that. It is like this: "If all of The (...) (23 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic —Robert Bevens

(...) Not at all. An entire text that I have written may represent the truth of what I believe, however when things are taken out of context, they do not represent the truth of what I believe. Therefore as a whole it is true, but not when broken (...) (23 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic —Dave Schuler

(...) Trying to find equivocation in your arguments is like trying to find grass in a meadow. I don't have all that much experience on Usenet, as you so proudly proclaim yourself to have, but your style of argument (about which, see below) was old (...) (23 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic —Robert Bevens

(...) Again simply accusing me of being equivocal, but this time doing it in a rather prolix over exasperated way, as if that somehow makes it any less transparent and laughable. In case you hadn't noticed I'm still "holding" the position I started (...) (23 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) There no reason to say this except to let him know that you don't really believe he's right and your wrong, i.e. you *do* have a problem letting him believe you're wrong and he's right. Bruce (23 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)) —Robert Bevens

(...) Ahh, but that's only your interpretation of it, remember, I'm an experienced social engineer. Given that you really can't say what I really mean or think. That's not to say I'm trying to manipulate anybody, it just means I'm trying to control (...) (23 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) More sophistries. And yes, I can say it (there it is above). Not only that, I'm right. (...) You failed in your stated purpose. It seems you aren't as clever as you like to think you are. (...) Sometimes known as jerking people around. What's (...) (23 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)) —Robert Bevens

(...) Let's keep you thinking that way, shall we? (...) I like how you say I failed in my stated purpose, but then fail to explain why. Not that it's any real surprise. (...) If you say so. (...) No, not at all. When I take a side I try to argue and (...) (23 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) That's a pretty pathetic comeback. I thought you said you are clever - I'd figure you'd use something good for a stock phrase. I'm not impressed. (...) Oh, I'm sorry - you keep telling me how clever you are. I thought you could figure it out. (...) (23 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)) —Robert Bevens

(...) Well your lame was pretty pathetic. You shouldn't expect any more than you're willing to give out yourself. (...) I think maybe I missed a meeting, I didn't know we were flaming against one another. If that was the case I probably would have (...) (23 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Robert: Just another Troll —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Hahaha. You got ever worse - where's this cleverness you keep gloating about? A Mystic 8-Ball has better comebacks. Concentrate and ask again. (...) I think I missed that same meeting - why are you flaming *everyone*? I'm for one sick of it. (...) (23 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Robert: Just another Troll —Aaron West

And now for something completely different: "Gentlemen, you have no chance. Make your time." www.planetstarsiege....video.html Captain West, LSF Ertbergle (23 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Robert: Just another Troll —Steve Lane

(...) That explains a lot! I'm now quite glad we don't share an interest in Transformers. Steve (23 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Robert: Just another Troll —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) Bobby, just answer just *one* question, ok? Just *one*. Here goes...what is your point? *shake* *shake* *shake* ...OUTLOOK NOT SO GOOD... *shake* *shake* *shake* ...REPLY HAZY, TRY AGAIN... *shake* *shake* *shake* ...VERY DOUBTFUL... *shake* (...) (23 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Robert: Just another Troll —Robert Bevens

(...) Oh you are so right, what can I say, I guess ya beat me, huh Bruce? (...) Well I'm not actually. I only flame when I get upset or when I'm hired and certainly haven't been hired for anything here, and I'm not upset...it seems you are though. I (...) (23 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Robert: Just another Troll —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Immense powers of destruction! I sleep better at night knowing that. (...) And you're actively defending us from external onslaught! I sleep better at night knowing that too. (...) OK, clue us in. (...) When we said *who* was the Mad Hatter? I (...) (23 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Robert: Just another Troll —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) I'm still waiting on your cleverness... (...) Not for lack of trying. (...) Hey, I'm just having some fun! I think you need to develop a thicker skin. Note above how *you* are the one claiming *we* (that includes you, junior) are flaming each (...) (23 years ago, 8-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Robert: Just another Troll —Ross Crawford

(...) Hey Bruce, watch yer attributions - You're actually replying to your own post ((URL) I really think such long & scathin) replies belong in e-mail, rather than a public post. I'd say the same to Robert / Matthew / Mad / ??? but I feel it would (...) (23 years ago, 8-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Robert: Just another Troll —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) I understand the NBA, as noted before here, and the guy retaliating always getting called for the foul. :-) I take it you didn't make it to the end of message, where I said the following: (...) Happy? Bruce (23 years ago, 8-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)) —James Brown

(...) BZZT, wrong. Thanks for playing, though. If you want to use logic terminology to restate my challange, please do it correctly. Statement: A is true if and only if all occurances of B are true. Statement: B is false. Reconcile away. (...) (...) (23 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)) —Robert Bevens

(...) Oh really, how so? (...) Oh, and whose logistic standards would those be? I'm partial to Copi and Cohen's work myself. You do realize that logic isn't exactly something written in stone, right son? (...) Ahh but that's putting it into your (...) (23 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)) —Robert Bevens

Oops, in case anyone caught it I sorta used the f word in my last post, I didn't mean to do that, I have since applied a filter in my Lugnet spell checker which will alert me to it if it happens again. Again I apologize to anyone who has been (...) (23 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races) —James Simpson

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes: For centuries the "literal (...) One nitpick(1): I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the Bible never says that the earth is the center of the universe. I think that, at best, this idea is (...) (23 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races) —Dave Schuler

(...) That's not a nitpick at all, and I think you're right. My point is that according to the then-current "literal" interpretation (and, admittedly, the teachings of Aristotle), the Earth was the center. Maybe my beef should be with Aristotle, (...) (23 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races) —Dave Schuler

Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races) —Frank Filz

(...) A few other basic problems with the literality of the Bible: - Which translation? - How do you reconcile the apparent contradictions? Would someone care to list them (I'm affraid I'm not a student of the Bible and therefore can't list them all (...) (23 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races) —James Simpson

(...) IMO, the issue of interpretation and translations and so forth is, at a fundamental level, very simple: Reasonable, well-intentioned, well-informed, open-minded inquiry is a root necessity of any fruitful scholarly, literary, scientific, (...) (23 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races) —Dave Schuler

(...) Here again, the problem is that literalists assert that The Bible *is* beyond reasonable criticism. (...) Agreed. Let us assert for the record that the so-called "Bible Code" is equally nonsensical and without meaningful predictive value. (...) (23 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races) —Dave Low

(...) Most believers of other faiths have a holy language in which the sacred text is written: Hebrew for Jews, Arabic for Muslims, Sanskrit for Hindus. Here I'm particularly interested in how translation affects this communication between the text (...) (23 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races) —James Simpson

(...) In terms of reliability, I believe that the basic kerygma (the proclamation of religious truth, if you will) of the Judeo-Christian faith has been passed down through the centuries "in a reliable manner" such that we may have reasonable trust (...) (23 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races) —Steve Bliss

(...) Unfortunately, your stated position doesn't jive with the position stated by Ryan: "I believe the Bible to be literal truth about the universe!". The two statements are different. Not saying that either of you is more correct, just pointing (...) (23 years ago, 9-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races) —Frank Filz

(...) We had a minister use one of these once in a service. That was one of the most memorable services I've ever attended. It was Palm Sunday, and the minister read us the relevant passages from two of the gospels, then he had us act out the (...) (23 years ago, 9-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Science and beliefs —Katie Dokken

(...) That would be a long list. Just for starters: King James Version New King James Version Aramaic Bible Revised Standard Version The Book of the Law of the Lord, 1856 Edition The Douay-Rheims Bible New International Version New American Standard (...) (23 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races) —Steve Bliss

(...) I've heard that one, but I think it was an extra-biblical belief of the ancient Hebrews. Steve (23 years ago, 9-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races) —Dave Schuler

(...) Though I shudder to point it out, there is also an apocryphal Inuit belief about the ratio of diameter to circumference... Dave! (23 years ago, 9-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races) —Dave Low

(...) Perhaps the only belief too have such a delicious chocolate coating. --DaveL (23 years ago, 10-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races) —James Simpson

(...) Why? (...) The Bible also says in Proverbs that "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, and the glory of man to seek it out." God gave us the faculties of reasoning, inquisitiveness, and creativity, but our arts, science, and industry has (...) (23 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races) —Daniel Jassim

(...) Rabid evolutionist, eh? Is that the same as an ignorant creationist? (...) That's an interesting way of summing up centuries of painstaking research, experiments, observation and learning that has helped mankind gain a greater and more (...) (23 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races) —Dave Schuler

(...) It's been a while since I heard a Highlander reference. Weren't they going to relase yet another redundant sequel? There Should Have Been Only One. Dave! (23 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races) —James Simpson

(...) Perhaps. If either is proven false in some measure, and they likewise refuse to modify their positions, then, yes, they are bed-fellows. (...) Perhaps I did not clearly express my attitude in these comments: I mean that we as humans should (...) (23 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Theistic Evolution (was Re: Science and Beliefs) —Ryan Farrington

James Simpson: (...) James, If God used evolution to create (and an integral part of evolution is struggle and death) then God created by using death. In Romans 5:12, God said that death entered the world as a result of sin. Did God create sin so (...) (23 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Theistic Evolution (was Re: Science and Beliefs) —James Simpson

(...) Struggle and death has indeed always been present. Let's for a moment assume that the literal interpretation is true. God created man on the 6th day. He created all of the other animals prior to that. I don't know if you're going to deny the (...) (23 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races) —Ryan Farrington

(...) Here's something my brother Ken wrote that pertains to the subject... Food for thought. --Ryan "Many have made reference to facts of science, etc, or understanding of the universe, as if they speak a definite, proven message. But, indeed, they (...) (23 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races) —Bruce Schlickbernd

This is the same old Creationist dodge: (X) scientific theory isn't PROVEN (nothing is in science - it simply shows you don't understand science when you say such things) so it's just as much an article of faith as religion. Except one is based on (...) (23 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races) —Ryan Farrington

Bruce Schlickbernd: (...) hand, (...) to (...) Evidence I gave did not *prove* creation, nor did I say that it did. But the evidence can *support* creationism. Here's a few premises: Facts exist Man discovers facts using the scientific method (...) (23 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races) —Dave Schuler

(...) I would modify this as follows: Facts Exist Man form hypotheses and theories which he tests via the scientific method Evolutionists find that their hypotheses do not always fit the facts, so they re-evaluate and re-formulate those hypotheses (...) (23 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races) —Selçuk Göre

(...) I think my phrase was quite open, although I'm not a native english speaker and screw up saying the exact words quite frequently. Actually, you seem to be understand since you already answered the question...:-) What I want to learn is, this (...) (23 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Language Barrier —Dave Schuler

(...) No fair claiming "non-native speaker" status--your English is better than some of my coworkers, and at least as good as most of us here. I'm always taken aback when someone from outside the US reveals that he or she isn't a native speaker, (...) (23 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Language Barrier —Selçuk Göre

(...) Thanks for the nice compliment Dave, but I know what I'm..:-) Actually, typing a message is much more easy since I can review what I've just said, but I'm really bad especially while speaking..:-( By the way, all of you have a great share in (...) (23 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races) —Ryan Farrington

(...) Science can't prove whether it is a "young earth" or an "old earth," so everyone has to *believe* that one of them is true. So it is a "belief" thing for everyone. (...) I understand where you're coming from and what this means, so I take no (...) (23 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) The point is that you attempt to invalidate science on one hand, but it's suddenly valid when it serves your purpose. You do this very thing below. (...) The last willfully misconstrue evidence, take it out of context, ignore what is (...) (23 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)