"Howard J. Van Till" wrote:
> Bert says:
>
> > I am NOT arguing for "progessive creation."(pc) I am asking Howard to provide
> me
> > with something specific to support his views of one creation fully embodied
> for
> > life.
>
> Bert, if you're asking for an airtight _proof_ you will be disappointed.
> Neither science nor theology can offer proofs (in the strict logical sense)
> of its positions. Both can, however, offer a number of 'evidences' or lines
> of argumentation that build a case for favoring one theory or proposition
> over another.
>
> I suppose I could collect such a list from what I have written in various
> essays, book chapters, books, etc. But before I do that I would like to have
> some idea concerning which of my publications you have already read
> (apparently without being convinced).
>
> Howard
Not looking for an air tight proof, none exists. We argue to Okams razor.
But, in what I have seen for example in Christianity Today and here on the chat
line, I don't have the slightest idea how to test you viewpoints by physical means.
What do I look for with my neat new 8 meter space based telescope that would support
your views?
You "fully gifted formation economy" is not very scientific, How are your ideas
expressed when put into scientific terms such as "embedded into the initial
conditions at time equal zero"
etc etc.
Bert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 08 2001 - 23:23:33 EDT