On Sat, 10 Jun 1995 22:14:13 -0400 you wrote:
>I wrote:
>GM>So does this mean that you don't believe that the Galaxies are
>orbiting each other also? There is no direct evidence of that
>either.
>
>Stephen Jones replied:
SJ>Well if there is no "evidence" of it, why *should* I believe it?
>But I really have no problem with it, either way.
>OTOH I presume your response confirms that in fact "there is no direct
>evidence" that "small changes in the genetic composition eventually
>leads to major morphological change"? If that is the case, why do you
>criticise "Christians" for their "reluctance..to disbelieve" it? <g>
I think this should be "believe it". <g>
GM>I would not agree with ignoring things for which there is no direct
>evidence. There is evidence for line of sight motion in the galaxies
>but no measurable motion in the radial direction. I firmly believe
>that they are in orbit around the other galaxies. So, I believe in
>indirect evidence and so can freely criticize those who say that only
>what we directly observe can be believed.
There is a subtle shift in your argument here. You did not mention
"indirect evidence" originally. When you said "no direct evidence",
I took it to mean "no evidence". If there is good "indirect evidence"
for something I would not necessarily disbelieve it.
Besides, you seem to be slipping away from your apparent admission
that "there is no direct evidence" that "small changes in the genetic
composition eventually leads to major morphological change"? Is that
in
fact the case? And if so, why do you criticise Christians for their
reluctance to believe it?
GM>In the US now we are having a trial with a famous sports figure.
Are you? I hadn't heard! <g>
GM>No one directly observed him killing his ex-wife and her friend.
>If only things that we can directly observe can be counted as real,
>then this guy is sure to get off!
I never said that "only things that we can directly observe can be
counted as real". This is a figment of your own argument. Clearly as
a Christian I believe as real things that I cannot directly observe:
Jn 20:29 "Then Jesus told him, `Because you have seen me, you have
believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.'"
Heb 11:1 "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of
what we do not see."
In fact C.S. Lewis, based on 2Cor 4:18. "So we fix our eyes not on
what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary,
but what is unseen is eternal", argues that it is the unseen things
that are more real
than the seen.
GM>Shoot, if I can only believe things I directly observe, then it is
>patently obvious to me that I can not believe in your existence. I
>have never observed you. Nor has anyone I know observed you and you
>have not been written up in a scientific journal. :-)
Then I can't be real. Now all I have to do is convince the tax man!
<g>
God bless.
Stephen