----- 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
