That's why I included opportunities as part of the list. You have to make due
with limitations placed on your talents, and lack of opportunity is the flip side
of opportunity. Why do we have proportionately fewer serious music composers today
than in the 18th and early 19th century, for example?
I was trying to make points that not everyone appreciates the talents we
may already have.
Stacy.
At 01:04 AM 11/07/2002 -0700, you wrote:
That's why I included opportunities as part of the list. You have to
make due
with limitations placed on your talents, and lack of opportunity is the
At 21:54 11/6/2002 -0600, Gryy wrote:
Though your text book told you about biology, you still cut into that
frog in class. Why? To prove the statements in the book that a frog does
have heart, lungs, etc.
Each time you turn on a light switch, you do it with faith, because you
have previously
Come-on line in Biology 20: Hi! My name's Marc. I'll pith your frog for you.
Worked with all the girls.
Elmer L. Fairbank wrote:
At 21:54 11/6/2002 -0600, Gryy wrote:
Though your text book told you about biology, you still cut into that
frog in class. Why? To prove the statements in the
Yes, we are. We at least must prove them sufficiently to ourselves in
order for us to accept them.
What is one plus one? The majority will say two. Why? Because we
accept the theorem, based upon evidence that it works for us. Do you and
I believe in the BoM? Yes. Why? Because we have tested it
What are we to do if our talents are being hindered?
Stacy.
At 07:58 PM 11/05/2002 -0700, you wrote:
This is true. Each has their own challenges, opportunities, talents, gifts and
assignments in life. This is what I get from what Paul says in I
Corinthians 13.
YOUR challenge and MY challenge
At 19:16 11/4/2002 -0700, M Marc wrote:
Anyone here remember that old cartoon about the swing? There are about half a
dozen ridiculous drawings of a simple swing in ridiculous configurations,
which
go from: what the salesman booked, what the marketeer spec'ed, what the
engineer
built, and so
John W. Redelfs wrote:
After much pondering, Gary Smith favored us with:
No, it is postulating a theory. Once a theory is set out for all to read,
then it is up to the rest of us to disprove the theory by testing it
against known evidences. That does not yet make it a fact, as future
This is true. Each has their own challenges, opportunities, talents, gifts and
assignments in life. This is what I get from what Paul says in I Corinthians 13.
YOUR challenge and MY challenge are to use those to the best of our advantage. I
learned a very interesting lesson recently. I've been
No, it is postulating a theory. Once a theory is set out for all to read,
then it is up to the rest of us to disprove the theory by testing it
against known evidences. That does not yet make it a fact, as future
evidence can always refute a theory. Without theories, we would not
advance in science
At 13:27 11/1/2002 -0900, BLT wrote:
It seems to me that an honest scholar would just stick to writing things
he can authenticate using the documentary record, or at least the
archaeological record. In the absence of such records the author isn't
just engaging in unfounded supposition, he is
At 15:29 11/1/2002 -0900, BLT wrote:
Was Ammon defending a flock of turkeys when he cut all those guys arms off?
Till thinks that he was defending the sheep FROM flocks of turkeys!
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please
At 15:53 11/1/2002 -0900, BLT wrote:
The oldest secular writings, from ancient Sumer, also speak of a Great Flood.
Yes, but they were obviously primitive unenlightened people, whose
superstitions count for nothing in the light of scientific truth and so
must be brushed away with all the other
At 22:01 11/1/2002 -0700, M Marc wrote (and wrote):
So maybe to me I see a turdus migratoris
[guess why I've always remembered *this* one!!] but my 4-year old
granddaughter
sees a robin and her little 2-year old friend sees a birdie. And is it the
European robin or the New World robin? They're
At 23:13 11/1/2002 -0900, BLT wrote:
Otherwise, it is just a long essay on how I look at things.
Till prefers very short essays on how he looks at things.
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
///
At 14:03 11/3/2002 -0900, BLT wrote:
I'm just a black and white kind of guy.
Yes, I noticed that about your hair, last time I saw you, John. 8))
Till
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
///
?
I don't get it.
Elmer L. Fairbank wrote:
At 22:01 11/1/2002 -0700, M Marc wrote (and wrote):
So maybe to me I see a turdus migratoris
[guess why I've always remembered *this* one!!] but my 4-year old
granddaughter
sees a robin and her little 2-year old friend sees a birdie. And is it
Then Diamond's book is not for you.
Elmer L. Fairbank wrote:
At 23:13 11/1/2002 -0900, BLT wrote:
Otherwise, it is just a long essay on how I look at things.
Till prefers very short essays on how he looks at things.
--
Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the
A general book like Diamond's is not part of the scholarly record. It's
intended for the general public. For those who want scholarly treatments, he
provides a long list of recommended reading related to each chapter of the book.
Elmer L. Fairbank wrote:
At 13:27 11/1/2002 -0900, BLT wrote:
At 11:34 11/4/2002 -0700, M Marc wrote:
?
I don't get it.
Elmer L. Fairbank wrote:
At 22:01 11/1/2002 -0700, M Marc wrote (and wrote):
So maybe to me I see a turdus migratoris
[guess why I've always remembered *this* one!!] but my 4-year old
granddaughter
sees a robin and her little
Dan Allen:
Thanks Larry, that's the one I was using.
The Scientific is meant to imply that the person making the
SWAG is basing it on some valid data that doesn't extend far
enough to make the SWAG a serious prediction - it's a confidence
level thing.
___
Ah yes, the confidence
John W. Redelfs wrote:
At 12:42 PM, Saturday, 11/2/02, Marc A. Schindler wrote:
The 1P don't say. It doesn't appear to be a concern for them. That could
be why all
the sciences are represented in the curriculum at BYU (in fact, BYU's
evolutionary
biologists are leading cladists, a
Yes, even the army's cleaned itself up ;-)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Larry Jackson:
Scientific wild- _ _ _ guess.
There are other meanings, as well, but that's the primary
one in most common use.
Paul Osborne:
Ha ha ha ah. I didn't think you had in you Larry.
___
Well,
After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
Part of the reason I turned away from science to religion is because I
despaired of learning anything with any certainty when the foremost
authorities in almost every field disagree with fellow scientists about
really basic things. I
JWR confessed
I'm just a black and white kind of guy.
Me too. And, I don't take prisoners.
;-)
Paul O
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com
How about just thinking of things as tools? Science isn't in opposition to
religion except in the hands of ignorant atheists, as far as I'm concerned (and
there are plenty of them, to be sure). It's just a tool, a certain disciplined
way of looking at things, that's all. The confusion arises when
At 08:19 PM, Friday, 11/1/02, Marc A. Schindler wrote:
And hence the humble SWAG is born...
What is a SWAG? I don't recognize the acronymn. --JWR
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
///
At 08:37 PM, Friday, 11/1/02, Marc A. Schindler wrote:
And there isn't even a proper bibliography, just some suggested
additional reading.
Define proper bibliography. John, if you don't like the book, don't
finish it.
But spare us your suffering.
A proper bibliography is a list of works
At 08:37 PM, Friday, 11/1/02, Marc A. Schindler wrote:
At 01:56 PM, Friday, 11/1/02, Marc A. Schindler wrote:
You're asking a question Diamond doesn't attempt to answer, and there's no
easy way
to answer this.
I don't believe I suggested that Diamond was supposed to answer my
question. I
At 08:37 PM, Friday, 11/1/02, Marc A. Schindler wrote:
Then perhaps you should follow the counsel of the brethren and learn how:
I quote
again, Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of
which
has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research.
Okay, I'll take that. Let me rephrase my question: Jim, care to back *any* of
this up with any actual facts?
John W. Redelfs wrote:
At 08:08 PM, Friday, 11/1/02, Marc A. Schindler wrote:
Jim, care to back *any* of this up with any actual facts, rather than just
a rant?
You are misusing the
At 12:37 PM, Saturday, 11/2/02, Marc A. Schindler wrote:
I don't believe it is merely a (secular) history book -- I think it's more
profound
than that. If it's truly a secular history of God's dealings [with] man
since the
first man down to the time of Moses why a) does it show signs of having
At 12:40 PM, Saturday, 11/2/02, Marc A. Schindler wrote:
That would be appropriate for a technical text, but Diamond's book was
meant as
an introduction for a lay audience. The scope of what he discusses is too
broad
for this kind of approach -- there would simply be too many footnotes.
That's
At 12:42 PM, Saturday, 11/2/02, Marc A. Schindler wrote:
The 1P don't say. It doesn't appear to be a concern for them. That could
be why all
the sciences are represented in the curriculum at BYU (in fact, BYU's
evolutionary
biologists are leading cladists, a sub-specialty in the field). Also, I
What is a SWAG? I don't recognize the acronymn. --JWR
Scientific wild- _ _ _ guess.
There are other meanings, as well, but that's the primary
one in most common use.
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only
Has anyone on the list read GUNS, GERMS AND STEEL by Jared Diamond? It won
the Pulitzer Prize for general nonfiction in 1998. I am about half way
through it, and I'm getting bogged down.
This guy is a scientist and a historian, but he keeps explaining how
domesticated plants were developed
Maybe the scriptures really are just an ancient collection of
Hebrew folk talks. Is that possible?
Well, I've put all my eggs in one basket in the which the scriptures are
true. However, it seems that symbolism plays a major part in the stories
told of the Bible which could make what we think
John:
Has anyone on the list read GUNS, GERMS AND STEEL by Jared Diamond? It won
the Pulitzer Prize for general nonfiction in 1998. I am about half way
through it, and I'm getting bogged down.
This guy is a scientist and a historian, but he keeps explaining how
domesticated plants were
I have.
John W. Redelfs wrote:
Has anyone on the list read GUNS, GERMS AND STEEL by Jared Diamond? It won
the Pulitzer Prize for general nonfiction in 1998. I am about half way
through it, and I'm getting bogged down.
This guy is a scientist and a historian, but he keeps explaining how
John:
It seems to me that an honest scholar would just stick to writing things he
can authenticate using the documentary record, or at least the
archaeological record. In the absence of such records the author isn't
just engaging in unfounded supposition, he is engaged in irresponsible
At 01:56 PM, Friday, 11/1/02, Marc A. Schindler wrote:
You're asking a question Diamond doesn't attempt to answer, and there's no
easy way
to answer this.
I don't believe I suggested that Diamond was supposed to answer my
question. I asked my question of the members of this list. If Diamond
Of course they're true. But what do you mean by true? Scientists use a
different definition, and this is where the apparent contradictions arise.
Science is forever tentative and can only deal with the physical data it has at
hand. It's been very useful and I wouldn't want to do without it, but
Scientists go from the assumption that the Bible isn't secular history, and in
that they are right. Apples and oranges.
Zion wrote:
John:
Has anyone on the list read GUNS, GERMS AND STEEL by Jared Diamond? It won
the Pulitzer Prize for general nonfiction in 1998. I am about half way
At 04:13 PM, Friday, 11/1/02, Dan R Allen wrote:
Something else to consider on the sheep issue John is that we seem to be
the only group that understands that Adam lived here - I think that most
people assume that Eden was somewhere in what is now the mid-east, if they
think about it at all.
At 04:42 PM, Friday, 11/1/02, Marc A. Schindler wrote:
Of course they're true. But what do you mean by true? Scientists use a
different definition, and this is where the apparent contradictions arise.
Science is forever tentative and can only deal with the physical data it
has at
hand. It's been
Jim, care to back *any* of this up with any actual facts, rather than just a
rant?
Jim Cobabe wrote:
John,
Scientists are free to indulge their fancy. Obviously there's little
historic evidence to substantiate supposedly prehistoric events. For
many science devotees, one basic premise is
Well put, Dan. Science has a methodology which is based upon certain assumptions.
Many scientists make the mistake of assuming that that's all there is. But many
non-scientists likewise make the mistake of pooh-poohing a scientific discovery
out of ignorance of how science works, or because on the
This issue comes up in apologetics all the time, especially with respect to the
evident lack of horses in the New World between the end of the ice age and the
time of Columbus (the Vikings don't count because it's known they didn't bring
horses with them). And the answer, or more properly, I
48 matches
Mail list logo
