From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 11:40:42 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B34737B401 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:40:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D45C343E6A for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:40:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g89IeUGd077587; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:40:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g89IeUIi077575; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:40:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:40:30 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Terry Lambert Cc: Giorgos Keramidas , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <3D7CD69E.E585EBBE@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20020909113703.N9219-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > I think it fails the simplicity test, and it fails the predictive > > > test. > > > > > > Your theory requires additional axioms that are not required by > > > the previous theory, > > > > Yes, but *your* theory requires that one set aside the law of > > non-contradiction. Self-creation is a logical impossibility. > > It doesn't require this, though I fail to see the paradox that's > created by ignoring the "law of non-contradiction". I guess the > question you raise when you say "Self-creation is a logical > impossibility" is "Who created God?". 8-). Inherent in the question is a false assumption. God, by definition is uncreated. 8-) > > It was never intended to predict such things, only the reason for > > the prohibition of certain taboos within the context of OT Israel > > at a particular point in redemptive history. Your attempt to give > > another reason is a subtle begging of the question and rationalization > > to support your rejection of God. > > I think that if I were to wash my car, you would take it as > a "rejection of God"... Actually, it would be confirmation that deep down in your heart of hearts, you really do know Him, since to wash your car presupposes the uniformity of nature, and the uniformity of nature is only intelligible on a Christian worldview. 8-) Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message