On May 12, 2006, at 4:17 PM, Julia Thompson wrote:
William T Goodall wrote:
On 12 May 2006, at 6:29PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
Direct evidence, to me, means directly observing, measuring, etc.
It does not mean directly observing the results or aftermath of
something. A mechanism other than evolution as we presently
understand it could be responsible for the historical evidence that
we find in the fossil record. Nanomachines devised by evil
overlords, whose purpose is to confuse us, may have assembled the
whole thing, to give a silly example.
This is like the difference between watching a building burn and
looking at a burnt building. The former is direct evidence of a
fire, the latter is indirect.
But what if the evil overlords use their nanomachines to confuse your
eyeballs into seeing a burning building that isn't there?
Then we should rip our eyeballs out so they can't confuse us in
that manner.
That's so Biblical of you: One of my least-favorite verses...
And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from
thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye,
rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.
-- Matthew 18:9, KJV
Dave
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
