From: Walter Hicks (wallyshoes@mindspring.com)
Date: Sat Nov 30 2002 - 17:36:53 EST
Yes, I was the author but I
did not quibble with the fact
-- rather the theory.
RFaussette@aol.com wrote:
>
> I was addressing Walt
> because I thought he wrote
> this:
>
> In my opinion, the
> evolutionary THEORY, not the
> "FACT", (excuse the
> capitals) is just a set of
> shifting sand that is
> adamantly supported by
> scientists
> who refuse to yield any
> ground at all in their quest
> for absolute scientific
> naturalism --- proven or
> not. Slapping Band-Aids year
> after year on Darwin's first
>
> notions hardly makes for an
> acceptable theory by most
> scientific standards in
> other fields.
>
> I offered (to the author of
> that statement):
> what if you were able to
> find major aspects of
> evolutionary theory in
> genesis and so give the
> genesis "tales" scientific
> plausability, revealed
> science, if you will? If you
> were able to do that would
> you accept evolution as
> fact?
>
> rich
>
-- ===================================Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Nov 30 2002 - 17:46:26 EST