Sky and Tel's anti-bible editorial

Shawn wrote:

Ioannis wrote:

Florian wrote:

OK, let me be more explicit... open your mind to the possibility that
this is the result of intelligent design.



Fine, i'm open to the possibility. Now show me evidence for such design



If you can look at the night sky and see no evidence, then it will
elude you until a moon eclipse and a sun eclipse happen simultaneously.

Do you do this while urinating on children's graves?

Oh, cut the crap, please. Just because I flamed you in this other
thread, it doesn't mean that I hold a grudge forever. You were the one
who called me a "sick ****", first, by misinterpreting what I wrote
about spiders.

If you don't want me to insult you, then don't use abusive language on me.
--
I. N. Galidakis
http://users.forthnet.gr/ath/jgal/
Eventually, _everything_ is understandable

Ioannis wrote:
Shawn wrote:


Do you do this while urinating on children's graves?


Oh, cut the crap, please. Just because I flamed you in this other
thread, it doesn't mean that I hold a grudge forever. You were the one
who called me a "sick ****", first, by misinterpreting what I wrote
about spiders.

Your later comments about my child didn't dissuade me.

If you don't want me to insult you, then don't use abusive language on me.

Truce

I believe that the problem lies in some people's inability to accept
that the Bible cannot be used as "absolute truth" in a scientific
debate. To do so, is to say that there was an Ark, and on it, were
pairs of thousands of insects etc. etc. and that Noah was able to do
this. I consider myself a devout Christian, but use the Bible as a
guide to Christian living (a GREAT book, I must say that I read every
day!!) not as an encyclopedia.
Richard, in Christ.

Chris L Peterson wrote in message . ..
On 7 Mar 2005 12:35:15 -0800, "Mark" wrote:

Sorry to throw even a hint of dissent into the midst of all you learned
scientists, but "evolution" as you are characterizing it is not an
observed fact. "Variation" is certainly an observed fact but one
species changing into another is not observed in the fossil record or
in real time and the amazing diversity of life that we see in today's
world are not adequately explained by theories that preclude even the
hint of a Creator.

You are mistaken. Continual transition from one species to the next is
well observed in the fossil record, and is seen both in nature and
experimentally in the lab. The evolution of species is as close to being
a fact as the observation that the Sun rises every day. There is no need
to invoke a creator to explain the diversity we see today, and doing so
is pointless when the discussion is scientific, unless you can think of
some experiments to prove or disprove the existence of a creator.


Whether or not you believe the account of Creation as recounted in the
Bible or other religious sources you should at least open your mind to
the possibility that this was not all an accident. Closing your mind
to that possibility is the antithesis of objective scientific thinking
IMHO.

Fully accepting the reality of evolution and a mechanism based on
natural selection doesn't argue against intelligent creation (a
possibility I'm open to, although don't currently believe in based on
the available evidence).

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

" wrote in message roups.com...

Here is a hint to a philosophy you need to learn:

Swami Ashtasahasrika posed to Buddha: "Is it possible to find perfect
wisdom through reflection or listening to statements or through signs
or attributes, so that one can say 'This is it' or 'Here it is'?"

The Buddha answered: "No, Subhuti. Perfect wisdom can't be learned or
distinguished or thought about or found through the senses. This is
because nothing in this world can be finally explained, it can only be
experienced, and thus all things are just as they are. Perfect wisdom
can never be experienced apart from all things. To see the Suchness of
things, which is their empty calm being, is to see them just as they
are. It is in this way that perfect wisdom and the material world are
not two, they are not divided. As a result of Suchness, of calm and
empty being, perfect wisdom cannot be known about intellectually. Nor
can the things of the world, for they are understood only through names
and ideas. Where there is no learning or finding out, no concepts or
conventional words, it is in that place one can say there is perfect
wisdom."

That may well be the correct route to perfect wisdom.

The imperfect craft that enables us to make clever devices such as
typewriters and electric light bulbs and computers and rockets,
however, requires one to learn, find out, explain, and divide. One
must name things to identify them, one must put them in a conceptual
framework.

It is correct for a scientist to maintain humility, and to know that
our present understanding of the world is not final, but is merely an
approximation and provisional. But activities which are not consistent
with wisdom in its perfect form still have their place; we must spend
time obtaining food, weaving clothing, and building houses as well as
meditating.

John Savard