[continued from previous message]   
      
   years ago.  Eratosthenes used physical measurements to estimate the   
   circumference of a spherical earth a couple of centuries before Christ   
   was born, and it took us thousands of years to figure out things like   
   biological evolution, the age of the earth, and that we did not live in   
   a geocentric universe.  There are still YEC flat earth Biblical   
   creationists that want to believe that, that gap in our knowledge has   
   never been filled.  Pagano was a geocentric IDiotic Biblical   
   creationist.  That should tell you how much denial is worth at this   
   time.  IDiotic gap denialists like yourself lack the faith in your   
   religious beliefs to accept the 100% failure rate and how you should   
   have dealt with it in a more honest way than continuing to want to be   
   lied to about reality.  Like Saint Augustine you should have accepted   
   the fact that nature is not Biblical, and that your faith should not be   
   based on denial of the actual creation when the existing creation is not   
   the one described in the Bible.  The fact that you have to run from   
   dealing with filling the origin of life gap with a non Biblical god   
   should tell you that what you are doing will never support your Biblical   
   beliefs.  That is why the other IDiots quit the ID scam.  Any valid ID   
   science would just be more science to deny, and denial is the only   
   reason that they were IDiots in order to support their religious beliefs.   
      
   Ron Okimoto   
      
   >   
   > A reasonable, rational response would be to conclude that consideration   
   > of a supernatural cause is then warranted on the basis of scientific   
   > evidence. The search for a viable natural cause may continue in   
   > parallel. This is only ever a provisional conclusion, given that a   
   > negative cannot be proven.   
   >   
   > To indefinitely refuse to consider a supernatural cause (note: consider,   
   > not concede) indicates a presupposed exclusion of the supernatural,   
   > which is an unjustifiably truncated assumption of reality.   
   >   
   > Of course, the threshold for this is an individual decision.   
   >   
   > What could science itself tell us about this supernatural cause?   
   > In one sense, nothing - it is by definition restricted to the natural   
   > domain. Further investigation would be in the realms of theology and   
   > "special revelation", philosophy etc. On the other hand, I infer from   
   > what I know of the universe and from life things like design,   
   > intelligence, powerful agency; also abstract things like love, beauty,   
   > morality. So "natural theology" may identify attributes of a   
   > supernatural agent.   
   >   
   > What position would you/do you take?   
   >   
   > ------   
   >   
   > An observed phenomenon could conceivably breach the causality threshold   
   > to a such a degree as to give some individuals full conviction of   
   > supernatural involvement. Biblical miracles served that purpose (not   
   > arguing for their veracity here, just using them to illustrate the   
   > principle). For example:   
   >   
   > Immediately he made the disciples get into the boat and go before him to   
   > the other side, while he dismissed the crowds. And after he had   
   > dismissed the crowds, he went up on the mountain by himself to pray.   
   > When evening came, he was there alone, but the boat by this time was a   
   > long way from the land, beaten by the waves, for the wind was against   
   > them. And in the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on   
   > the sea. But when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were   
   > terrified, and said, “It is a ghost!” and they cried out in fear. But   
   > immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, “Take heart; it is I. Do not be   
   > afraid.”   
   >   
   > And Peter answered him, “Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you   
   > on the water.” He said, “Come.” So Peter got out of the boat and walked   
   > on the water and came to Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid,   
   > and beginning to sink he cried out, “Lord, save me.” Jesus immediately   
   > reached out his hand and took hold of him, saying to him, “O you of   
   > little faith, why did you doubt?” And when they got into the boat, the   
   > wind ceased. And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are   
   > the Son of God.”   
   >   
   > (Matthew 14:22-33)   
   >   
   >>   
   >>> "Given a priori presuppositions, people holding different views   
   >>> regarding origins look at the same evidence and come to different   
   >>> conclusions. Or they ignore evidence that doesn’t support their   
   >>> viewpoint, while touting evidence that does.   
   >>   
   >> That's true for OEC and YEC, since they are required to ignore almost   
   >> every feature of the world, and the evidence they imagine supports   
   >> their views is in face imaginary. Not sure what you think the evidence   
   >> for PE or DE would be.   
   >>> Personally, I agree with Rau that none of the models has a complete   
   >>> model with adequate explanations for all of the evidence."   
   >>   
   >> Nor would we expect to have such a model. If we did, science would be   
   >> done. We would know everything.   
   >>   
   >>> https://cathyduffyreviews.com/homeschool-reviews-core-curricula/   
   >>> science/creation-science-intelligent-design/mapping-the-origins-debate#   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)