Fortunately Science does not rely on rumour and hearsay.
Roughly a hundred people claim to have seen the Loch Ness Monster and some
have even taken photographs. Surely it must exist then.
-----Original Message-----
From: Kim Borgman [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 29 April 2005 21:22
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: Evolution, Question 2
Can my belief in God include eyewitnesses ? Like 500...
That he was seen to be killed, buried, and then walking around again ?
Seen and documented in writings other than the Bible ......
------------------------------------------
And in my eyes, the evidence does not match up to evolution. I am suppose
to believe at one time that things increased in complexity, but now they go
toward randomness, or less complexity. Second law of thermodynamics I
believe....
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Landin [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 2:15 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: Evolution, Question 2
> >At what point did "life" start? What was the spark, so to speak?
> >What caused a compound in a "primordial soup" to "feed", to grow and
> >to start replicating? (Compound being some aggregate of chemicals, I
> >guess.)
>
> So Denys,
>
> where did "GOD" come from? who is his "maker"?
> can't remember that answer.
>
> Michael
Michael,
Please don't mix apples and oranges.
Denys asked questions that any good scientific theory should be able to
answer. In fact, some of those answers may in fact be known to some
population of biologists, although I certainly don't know what they might
be. The fact that there are unanswered does not mean evolution as a theory
is incorrect. It means that there is a possibility that some experiment,
observation, or fact will tell us that evolution is not the correct theory,
but right now it's the most plausible. It's what happened to Newtonian
physics when quantum physics came along.
The same may or may not happen to evolution, but right now it is the
strongest candidate for being the Right Explanation.
The existence of God, and his/her/it's possible origins, are decidedly a
matter of faith and are not subject to the same kind of inspection that
scientific theories are. My beleif in God is NOT predicated on the answers
to those questions, nor even that those questions are even answerable.
Belief in God is (supposed to be) strictly faith. Belief in science is
(supposed to be) strictly evidence.
* 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 *
==================================
This message contains confidential information and is intended solely for
the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not
the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this
email. Please inform the sender immediately if you have received this e-mail
by mistake and delete this email from your system. Email transmission cannot
be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be
intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or be incomplete. The
sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in
the contents of this message, which arise as a result of email transmission.
If verification is required please request a hard copy version. No contracts
may be concluded on behalf of Virgin Express SA/NV by means of email
communication. Finally, the recipient should check this e-mail and any
attachments for the presence of viruses. The company accepts no liability
for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.
==================================
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
|
