"Azaliah" <_giantwaffle_@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 10:20:32 -0700, while bungee jumping,
> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dlzc@xxxxxxx> shouted thusly:
>>"Greywolf" <greywolf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> And I would add that not one of the listed Christian
>>> scientists -- as brilliant as many of them were --
>>> somehow were *never* able to present proof-positive
>>> that a 'God' actually exists (or existed). Now why do
>>> you think that is?
>>Because science, even christian science, cannot *prove*
>>anything... only disprove.
> Agreed. The evolutionists set a double standard.
Not really. They simply set out how to describe *how* it was
done. Religion tends to simply gloss over little things like
> And the real question is, "as brilliant as they were",
> why would they believe in something that is so
> "anti-science", according to the atheists/evolutionists?
This "something" that you are obliquely referring to... is
> The fact is, they knew that it made no sense at all
> to think that it could all happen by itself, with what
> is required to make the universe work and life and
> to make life work.
Evolution appears to be how the works of God are made manifest.
We are made in his image. Yet we came up with "successive
approximation". We continually improve on past successes. Why
do you think that is?
David A. Smith