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

[at-l] OFF LIST: Extinction?



Many thanks Steve for saying something that badly needed to be said, and which I was both unable, and too lazy to try to say. 

Weary

> ------------Original Message------------
> From: "Steve Adams" <stephensadams@hotmail.com>
> To: creemos@pgmradio.org, ARNDTJRW@aol.com
> Cc: at-l@backcountry.net
> Date: Fri, Apr-8-2005 5:15 PM
> Subject: [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 
> cant, 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.
> 
> Youre 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 havent 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 cant use a witness you havent 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 
> Galileos theory, that earth circled the son.  The Church held Galileos 
> 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.  Dont just accept.
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> at-l mailing list
> at-l@backcountry.net
> http://mailman.hack.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l
> 
>