Subject:
|
Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 24 Dec 1998 04:15:22 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
LPIEN@CTPihatespam.IWANTNOSPAM.COM
|
Viewed:
|
853 times
|
| |
|
|
Barry McFarland wrote:
> Part of the understanding of evolution is that it does not require an "outside"
> force. Thus the two are not only irreconcilable, but also irrelavent in
> association. Choices are: (1) either one is true and the other in not. or (2)
> niether is true (*)
>
> (*)in context of the origin theory.
>
> Barry
Well, I'm not sure I agree. I have read of gods that were the "cause" of
the particular set of laws that apply in this universe(1), and the
"cause" of their consequences. Under that analysis, (whether these gods
could subsequently work miracles or not to overcome the laws) the god
was "responsible" for evolution, and therefore that god is compatible
with the theory of evolution.
That may not be the christian god, though.
Now, I don't subscribe even to that god, as I don't find him necessary
for the universe to get started, and I'm a big fan of Occam's Razor.
Also I have read analysis that said the origin story is allegorical, and
it actually describes a god that watched while life formed, and
evolution ran its course... That could well be the christian god. But I
don't buy that either.
1 - kind of like when you play Civ, you get to choose the world age,
aridity, and general water level... but to a much greater level of
detail... this god gets to choose stuff like Planck's constant, and the
coefficient of gravity, or more fundamental stuff than that, even.
--
Larry Pieniazek http://my.voyager.net/lar
For me: No voyager e-mail please. All snail-mail to Ada, please.
- Posting Binaries to RTL causes flamage... Don't do it, please.
- Stick to the facts when posting about others, please.
- This is a family newsgroup, thanks.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
| (...) Part of the understanding of evolution is that it does not require an "outside" force. Thus the two are not only irreconcilable, but also irrelavent in association. Choices are: (1) either one is true and the other in not. or (2) niether is (...) (26 years ago, 23-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
118 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
