Quote:
On 2002-05-22 17:42, Denise wrote:
Is religious debate frowned upon on this board? Just curious, and not really wanting to get into it.
|
Off-topic debates of any kind, whether religious, gardening, or favourite race-car driver, are frowned upon, and rightly so. As long as we can keep fairly close to astronomical subjects, or at least generally-related physics and the like, we can certainly talk about religious aspects of, or reactions to, the topic at hand. But, f'rinstance, if I were to post on why your point claiming that Biblical interpretation changes because our scientific views of the world have changed is wrong, and whether or not the Bible actually teaches a flat earth, is edging into that grey-and-getting-darker area called Off-Topic.
By the way, my attempts at painting BA Phil as a man-eating ogre who violently reacts to any infringement on OT are all intended to be seen as humourous exaggerations. Phil has never come close to saying anything extremely harsh to me personally, although I know he's had to with some other posters. On the other hand, I certainly respect his right to control the content on his bulletin board, and so I'm really engaged more in reminding myself not to step over the edge than I am at (perish the thought!) baiting Phil or any posters here.
Quote:
|
Here is a link originally posted on the JREF board for general perusal.
|
I'm a regular lurker on JREF, although I've stopped posting there due to several considerations.
Quote:
|
Anyhow, I think that scientists like this might be a part of the problem. He says the skeleton negates evolution. Ummm... How? Well apparently he's not telling!
|
Umm, did you read the whole article, Denise? Try paragraph 8. And nowhere in the article does he say "negates evolution"--that's
your phrase. Instead, the article says:
Quote:
|
"The evidence strongly points to a relatively recent and catastrophic event similar to that described in the Bible as the flood of Noah's day," he said.
|
"
Strongly points to a ... recent ... event" and "
negates evolution" are not equivalent phrases. Judging from the article, he's dealing with it as he should: evidence to be evaluated. Sure, he wants to see it as supportive of his belief that the evolutionary theory is wrong; but to say that he's claiming that this one piece of evidence has completely negated the evolutionary theory is to seriously overstate his position.
But enough now. Let's take this to Private Message if you want to continue it. Or Phil really will start measuring my liver for his dinner plate.
The (I hope he enjoys it pre-marinated) Curtmudgeon