----- Original Message ----- From: "revtec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jed Rothwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 10:45 AM Subject: Re: OFF TOPIC: Intelligent design
> > The hypothesis that an object is "nonphysical and timeless" -- invisible in > short -- can never be proved or falsified, so it is not scientific. > > It sounds like you are saying that any truth that cannot be "proven" true > must be accepted as a lie! You can't even accept the possibility that it > might be true but must automatically insist that it be false simply because > your proving methods, regardless of how inadequate or primitive they may be, > are unable to deal with the hypothesis. > > Can we not consider the possibility that life in this universe, consisting > of the interaction of matter and energy, is way to complex to have evolved, > as has been calculated by several credible mathamaticians, but that a > creator being outside of the universe, whose life operates on entirely > different principles, produced this universe and the life we experience?And, > that the totally different life form of the creator, being so different, IS > amenable to evolutionary principles on that plane? > > There is a rather serious paradox here. Can a being, who is simple enough > to evolve, rise to such a high level of intelligence and power that it is > able to produce things that are too complex to evolve? I presented this > question before and no one commented. In fact I said a few things over the > years that I thought were somewhat profound without getting a single > response. What I can't figure out is whether the points were either > unassailable or so stupid that they were unworthy of a response from anyone. > > In any event, the model I presented solves all the problems except that our > "Holy Scientific Method" is useless, and that many people, who are > absolutely unwilling to accept the authority of a higher power, will say, > do, and believe almost anything to disprove the existence of said higher > power. > > Jeff > > P.S. > > It really baffles me how the scientific method can be invoked to eliminate > the possibility of a creator while it is ignored when considering all of the > pseudoevidence for evolution. >
