Re: uhh? why not evolution?

Pim van Meurs (entheta@eskimo.com)
Wed, 11 Jun 1997 18:00:54 -0400

JQ: Shouldn't the same type of logic apply to evolution if it must apply to
God? Where is the proof? Besides evolution being 'called' a fact where
is the
burden of proof?

There are several issues here. 1) Evolution as observed as fact 2)
explanations of the observations: theory of evolution.

Since there is no repeatable observation of a deity, no independence
observations, no observations which can be verified or falsified, there is
the problem that there is no scientific theory of god.

JQ: Woops...Im sorry... you don't prove evolution..".it's just a FACT".
"It' both a FACT and a theory".

Yep. Neither one applies to a deity btw.

JQ: Why cant you apply the same logic to God? Hey, we dont have to prove
anything! He's a FACT! In addition there are some theoretical aspects
that
are still being worked out.

Show the evidence of the factual existance of a god. Repeatable
observations please. Please provide us with the hypothesis or theory of a
deity.

JQ: Shouldn't the proof of evolution be examined instead of just believing
what the majority of textbooks say?

Yep. And that is why it is a fact and theory