🚀 go-pugleaf

Paul J. Gans (gans@scholar.nyu.edu) wrote:
: Brian J Flanagan (bflanagn@sleepy.giant.net) wrote:
: : 
: : 
: : On 4 May 1997, Paul J. Gans wrote:
: : 
: : > Marcelo Cantos (marcelo@mds.rmit.edu.au) wrote:
: : > : wf3h@enter.netxx writes:
: : > : 
: : > : > On 3 May 1997 02:33:24 GMT, jgardner@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (John Gardner)
: : > : > wrote:
: : > : > 
: : > : > >wf3h@enter.net wrote:
: : > : > 
: : > : > >: thats what happens with competition and the diversity of
: : > : > >: environments...no designer needed.
: : > : > >
: : > : > >assuming evolution and not weighing evidence.
: : > : > 
: : > : > uh, prove it. science IS evolution and NO designer. unless you have
: : > : > some reason for including magic...
: : > : 
: : > : You've just revealed your ideological bias by presupposing evolution.
: : > 
: : > 
: : > Bingo!  You've just been caught in the Giant Double Meaning Trap.
: : > There are two evolutions.  One is the FACT of evolution.  This
: : > fact comes from the observation that life has changed during
: : > the geologic history of the earth.  This is not in doubt as
: : > invalidating it would require invalidating almost all of 
: : > geology and much of chemistry, physics, and astronomy.
: : 
: : 
: : BJ: To be sure. The entire debate devolves upon a simple-minded, 
: : literalistic interpretation of Genesis. A more enlightened view might 
: : have it that evolution is the dance of creation, and that the order which 
: : science reveals is by design - that might be an interesting debate, at 
: : least, whereas this continual exchange is really only so much tired 
: : drivel between subgeniuses who have already made up their minds. 

: Of course it depends on a literalistic interpretation of Genesis.
: What in blazes do you think drives creationists?  

: If I understand what you are saying (and I'm not sure I do, poetic
: terms tend to confuse me in technical discussions) is that God's
: plan involves evolution and that He set the universe up that way.
: If I am correct, then I must make two observations:  (1) your
: view will never be accepted by creationists, who will condemn
: you to the nearest hell as a non-christian unbeliever, and (2)
: your viewpoint does not in any way contradict the scientific
: position.  Of course, it doesn't confirm it either because
: being an untestable statement, it is quite outside the purview
: of science.  Doesn't make it wrong, mind you, just untestable.

:     ------ Paul J. Gans  [gans@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]

  I don't condemn you to Hell, but if evolution contradicts creation,
as I believe it does, then we all have to choose where to make a 
stand.  The contradiction I mention is that Death is the
consequence of Sin, so there was no death before there was Sin.  
Understanding that Man brought Sin into the world, there was no
death before man, so evolution is in direct conflict with the
Bible.  


--
    John Gardner