This reminds me of the 'blotch' tests back in elementary school. If you
look a an object long enough you can find what you want to see.
When I was a police officer we called that investigating with the blinders
on.
The pictures of the Mars surface mean absolutely nothing. Remember our moon
is made of cheese!
-----Original Message-----
From: Guy HPTraderOnline [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 9:32 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: Ohio wants to teach "2001" in 2 002and
beyond
And God commanded, "Go forth and evolve not!"
We only believe we evolved here. There are very large monuments on Mars
which could be explained away if looked at individually. However, they are
all configured to match our own ancient monuments.
http://www.planetarymysteries.com/mars/totzek/index.html
Could humans have inhabited Mars first, then Earth? Or maybe a homesteading
movement like the Oregon, California trail.
Guy
www.hptraderonline.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Dirickson" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 3:52 PM
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: Ohio wants to teach "2001" in 2 002and beyond
> > Remember the context of this discussion: Intelligent design
> > theory. It is
> > the opinion of the author of the web page I cited that
> > natural selection
> > performs all the functions of an intelligent designer, which
> > was formerly
> > known as God, Christian or otherwise. In other words, he is
> > saying that we
> > have merely swapped one definition of God for another when we
> propose
> > natural selection as the the Designer.
> > ....
> > In general, theologians have always pondered how we got here
> > and why we are
> > here. These are questions that evolution tries to answer as well.
>
> I don't see it. Evolution provides an answer--that appears to be
> elegant, consistent, and complete--to "how"; I don't see anything
> anywhere in it that remotely tries to address "why". Which is why this
> "you must choose God or evolution" thing seems so stupid to me:
> allowing only one of them means that you'll always be "wrong", because
> you'll have only part of the answer.
>
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
|
