Necessary History?

Walter J Hicks (whicks@ma.ultranet.com)
Sun, 21 Dec 1997 16:09:28 -0500 (EST)

At 04:32 PM 12/20/97 -0700, John W. Burgeson wrote:
>
>Whether I'm "right" or not, I don't know. What I am saying is that I
>THINK if God DID create anything in a "sudden" manner, i.e. not through
>mutation/selection processes, that the thing He created, be it a new
>organism, or wine at the wedding supper, or food for the 5,000, or
>something as ordinary as a stone, must necessarily have been created with
>an apparent history.

Why should this be so? I can see your point when it is the duplication
of something that exists (like wine or fish circa 30AD)--- but why does that
logic apply to the "first man". Why should there _necessarily_ be a
"history" of something nearly like a man before that?

Walt
==========================================
Walt Hicks <whicks@ma.ultranet.com>

In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
(Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic
if you have already found the truth
without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
==========================================