Re: Fwd: [asa] Creation and Incarnation

David,

I'm in tentative agreement with the "other" Dave. What is your point
anyway? Do you have anything to contribute to the faith/science debate or
do you just want to banter about rhetoric you learned in your law school
experience?

What is you origins view? Do you accept the consensus conclusion of
modern science of a 13-15Ga universe and 4.5Ga Earth? Do you accept that
God created and sustained life via the natural processes of what the
scientific community calls "evolution" (both chemical and biological)?
What is your view anyway? Come on, be up front with us. Don't use your
wordsmithed lawyer language, please answer in terms that mere
mathematicians, physicists, chemists, biologists, and (heaven forbid!)
even philosophers can understand.

I've read your posts in this thread and I don't have a clue about you're
trying to say. Perhaps it's because I'm too dense. I'll not discount
that possibility. ;-)

Roger

P.S. So, what's your point anyway?

> *I'm not really sure that I want to jump into this thread, but it strikes
> me as odd that we are considering human activity to be non-natural.*
>
> I thought someone might bring that up. Yes, human activity is "natural"
> in
> a sense, but obviously it adds an element of conscious intent that goes
> beyond the mere operation of physical laws (assuming a deterministic view
> of
> the mind is wrong). But ok, set that aside: suppose upon investigation we
> learn that all the frfls prayed one day that their hair would turn green.
> Could we entertain the notion then that a non-naturalistic cause is
> involved?
>
> *Should have known better than to respond to a lawyer. Sorry, folks.*
>
> Dave -- why is this necessary? I'm not the one who started throwing
> around
> the unfriendly rhetoric. You still haven't responded to anything I've said
> on the merits. So what about the merits?
>
> On 8/20/06, Terry M. Gray <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu> wrote:
>> I'm not really sure that I want to jump into this thread, but it
>> strikes me as odd that we are considering human activity to be non-
>> natural. As far as I can tell there's no violation of any natural
>> process when people decide to dy their hair green. It appears that
>> some of us are operating with very different means of the word
>> "natural".
>>
>> TG
>>
>> On Aug 20, 2006, at 7:13 AM, David Opderbeck wrote:
>>
>> > we know about hair color, the best explanation for a few isolated
>> > frfl's is a non-naturalistic one: some people decided to dye their
>> > hair gree
>>
>> ________________
>> Terry M. Gray, Ph.D.
>> Computer Support Scientist
>> Chemistry Department
>> Colorado State University
>> Fort Collins, CO 80523
>> (o) 970-491-7003 (f) 970-491-1801
>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.