[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[at-l] OFF LIST: Extinction?



Creemos,

Reference your post, dated 04-08-05.

Have you ever believed in Santa Claus?  Have you ever believed in The Easter 
Bunny?  Have you ever believed in The Tooth Fairy?

If I read something allegedly written by, or at the behest of, Santa Claus, 
The Easter Bunny and The Tooth Fairy, whether separately or collaborating 
together, it wouldn?t prove their existence nor would it prove what is said 
is true, correct, or a fact.

An inherent problem trying to prove something using Biblical quotations is, 
you must first prove the infallibility and divinity of The Bible.  You 
can?t, logically, say ?It is, because I know it is.?

?Evolution is not a science.?

You overreach.  The key to ?science? is the approach taken, The Scientific 
Method.

?(Evolution) is a belief system called religion.?

Used in this way, you are within your right to label an addiction to 
pornography ?religion.?  Such a label ?proves? nothing.  Using this label is 
merely provocative.  Your statement is insignificant and distracting, proves 
nothing, and is a waste of time.

?Science is based on a witness to the event ...?

For the scientific method to be relevant it needs to observe something.  It 
does not need ?an event.?  It certainly doesn?t need ?THE event.?

?... a systematic approach to study and a conclusion based on the facts 
derived.

You?re on to something with the ?systematic approach.?  You lose a lot when 
you say ?facts? are ?derived.?  Much of what is derived is/are never called 
?facts.?

?As far as I know, the only credible witness to creation and it pending 
destruction was and is God himself.  He even has a name; Jesus the Christ.?

You haven?t proven God anymore than you have proven the Easter Bunny.  You 
can just as logically state ?As far as I know, the only credible witness to 
creation and it pending destruction was and is a rabbit.  He even has a 
name; The Easter Bunny.?  You can?t use a witness you haven?t proven exists.

?Evolution is a religion that attempts by theory to disproved the existence 
of God ...?

Whatever evolution is (and only in the loosest sense is it a religion), it 
does not deal with God or any religion.  Biblical scholars have gotten their 
panties in a knot (thank you Bart Simpson) over implications of ?Natural 
Selection? (the actual name of what you term ?evolution?).

Organized religion, in the form of the Catholic Church, was upset by 
Galileo?s theory, that earth circled the son.  The Church held Galileo?s 
theory disproved the existence of God, was wrong, and blasphemous.  The 
Church weighed upon Galileo to recant his theory that everything did not 
circle the earth.  The Church apologized only forty years ago.

Your post, henceforth, rests upon errors of fact and fallacious logic.  It 
is therefore nonsensical.

Think.  Don?t just accept.

Steve