At 09:41 pm 15-01-05 -0500, you wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Harry Veeder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 6:35 PM >Subject: Re: WHAT'S NEW Friday, January 14, 2005 > > >> >> >> revtec at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> > I believe in variation and natural selection within the constraints that >we >> > see it happen. >> > >> > I am quite content to have someone label biblical creation >> > as also a theory since no one seems able to prove that scientificly >either. >> > >> > >> > Biblical creation requires almost as much faith as evolution. >> > >> > Darwin never touched the question of origin. He left that extrapolation >> > entirely to our imaginations! >> > >> >> Agreed, but what do you mean by the "question of origin"? >> >> Darwin did touch on the ancestry of man and many other animals. >> In particular he argued man and ape evolved from a common ancestor. >> Hence the title of his work -- The Origin of Species. > >Darwin quit at postulating common ancestry without addressing the origin of >life in its most basic form. In a previous thread, we hit on the >difficulties of having matter mixtures within the universe self oganizing to >the fantastic degree of forming a living cell, which implies the necessity >of intelligent design input to make it happen. > >At another level we have what is termed the Cambrian explosion where a >myriad of strange creatures come into existance at once with no trace of >ancestors in the underlying rock strata. This is one of the great >difficulties Darwin wrestled with. He tries to explain this problem away, >but it sure resembles an act of creation to me. > >And, then you have the career ending level of origin, where God told Moses >how he did it and Moses wrote it down as the first chapters of Genesis. > >> If you want to be considered a scientist today, and you imagine >> a different origin of man, you dare not express it or you will be >> branded a simpleton or a quack. > >Are you saying that the scientific establishment allows a scientist to >attend church so long as he/she does not believe the first chapters of the >Bible? I'm thankful that I am not beholden to the scientific community. >They don't sign my pay check and they never will. > >If the first part of the Bible is a fairy tale, then, how far into it does >the truth start? If the first part is a lie, then, the rest can't be >trusted either. The whole thing should be dumped in the trash and one >should sleep in on a Sunday morning. The Bible is either the word of God or >it isn't. It's all or nothing for me. Anything else is hypocritical. > >My bottom line is that the Bible makes more sense to me than Darwinism. > >Jeff > >
Well said Jeff. 8-) Cheers Grimer
