> chardin wrote:
>
> > > Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 15:56:50 -0600
> > > To: virus@lucifer.com, virus@lucifer.com,
> > virus@lucifer.com
> > > From: David McFadzean <david@lucifer.com>
> > > Subject: Re: virus: Free thought and control
> > > Reply-to: virus@lucifer.com
> >
> > > At 08:45 AM 10/16/97 CST+6CDT, chardin wrote:
> > > >Well, guys I hate to break it to you but it is still the THEORY
> > > >of evolution. You're putting too much faith in a few of your
> > > >priests.
> >
> > >
> > > What kind of connotations does "theory" have for you? Do you put
> > > it in the same category with "hypothesis" and "educated guess"?
> > >
> > > -> David McFadzean
> >
> >
> I dont understand how you can believe Jesus existed because some
> writings mention him as does the bible, even though there is no
> physical and observable evidence, but cannot accept that Mankind
> evolved from a less evolved form. Observation has shown us, and I
> would say that it falls into the realm of fact, that all complex
> systems evolve from less complex systems. AND. There is such a
> preponderance of evidence to support mankind just being an ape.
> Evolutionary evidence is all around the world, wheras indications of
> JC's existence are limited to a few hundred miles and a few years in
> scope. The concept that you must "see" something to believe it's
> existence would eliminate almost all of our supposed "facts". Do you
> say the Atom doesn't exist? How about photons, or sound waves or
> dark matter. I have never seen the Northern Russian frontier, but I
> will bet my life that it is usually pretty cold there. As I said in
> a different post, the Bib Bang looks probable, and is a theory.
> Evolution on the other hand, has made it to the level of fact.
>
> Sodom
>
Sodom, I never said that one must "see" something to believe it;
otherwise, the descipline of history would be completely useless. As
a matter of fact, you have taken my side of the argument regarding
the existence of Jesus. A member of the list asserted that the
Hebrew Scriptures were myth, had no authenticity and that Jesus
probably never even existed. I pointed out that given there were
some, though modest, secular accounts of Jesus and all sorts of
writings about the people who believed in him, I have every right to
believe that such a person existed. I think we had argumentation
about this to the point where no one asserted that the Jesus did not
exist. If anyone still thinks that we can discuss. Be that as it
may be, my point was that we do depend upon historical documents, etc.
for proof of events to which we areselves were not eyewitnesses. I
find the scriptures convincing in this regard. They also testify of
themselves.
As for metaphysical assertions, such as the Big Bang, I cannot buy
this hook , line and sinker. There is simply insufficient evidence
for that. I can find it an interesting and entertaining proposition,
but it is not as certain say, as the fact that King Charles I was
beheaded in-- when was it 1632?
Science is a field which is constantly in a flux by the very nature
of its design. To base your whole system of beliefs on an idea that
might very well change in a month or a year or five years or twenty
is a periolous way to construct your philosophy of life.
For example, I saw a geologists on a TV special who went back to Mt.
St. Helen just a few years after the explosion. He was amazed at the
transformation of the landscape. He said an interesting thing to
this effect: I've had to go back and rethink everything I was taught
in school. If I had come upon this landscape, I would have sworn
these sedimentary deposits were layered like this after several
million years. But I KNOW for a fact that it has only been a few
years since that mountain blew."
I found that very interesting. And it goes to show you that a great
deal of what is being taught might, in fact, be incorrect--with a
missing variable that has not yet been taken into account.
I saw another scientist who was investigating the life of an ant. He
held up a little piece of amber with an ant suspended in it--Jurassic
Park like. Then he showed us a live ant of the same type. "Isn't it
amazing," he said, "how little this ant has changed in 2 million
years?" Well, my obvious thought is perhaps it hasn't been 2 million
years at all--that is the logical explanation, isn't it? He never
told me why I ought to believe that the one encased in amber was 2
million years old. But as the gullible public, I am to have faith in
his assertion that the one in amber is 2 million years old. Can
something not be encased in amber and be less than 2 million years
old? Just because it is shot out of the mouth of a volcano in a
piece of amber, does that make it 2 million plus years old?
I am going to have to review what the evolutionists are claiming for
themselves now. Let me get this straight: Are we saying man is an
ape--I think this used to be said because of the opposeable
thumb. But like I said elsewhere, they used to tell us they were
looking for the "missing link" which would complete that picture of
evolution. Now, they say there never was a missing link. Well, why
did they tell us there was?
When I used to take a geology course, they said they could tell how
old a certain strata was by the type of fossils found in the strata.
They come from such and such an era; in anthropology, they would
tell you they could tell how old fossils were by where they fell in
the geologic strata. That is circular reasoning. Now, I realize
carbon dating is supposed to be accurate, but it has been years since
I've read about that, so I can't remember how accurate or how far
back it goes.
When you deal with 18 billions years ago, I am sorry. On its face it
must be speculation and metaphysical musings.
I repeat, I'm going to have to look at your evolutionary claims more
closely so that I can see what is truly being asserted.