Re: paleonet Re: suitable discussion

From
Date
In-Reply-To
20050406151442.85170.qmail@web54407.mail.yahoo.com
Reply-To
Hi,

Somebody has asked me today how I can relate to so many people in Britol a 
very segregated city at all levels!

I use  what defines what is any society, culture, and nation. Preserving the 
ideas but, destroying both radical sides, I create a common space where all 
these cultural nucleous construct bridges of common agreement. I think we 
answer the same points using different languages!

For example, reading the definition of God in different books...have ever 
both sides consider that God could mean energy in the Bible, Koran etc or 
any other book; and they did not have other means than words to explaining 
it?

Definitively, we can demomstrate that God is not a superhuman-like being 
somewhere up there> Nonetheless, both sides could agree in defining it as 
energy.

This is a simple example, that could well serve to illustrate my point!

Thank you

Xavier Panades I Blas, Ms

Please, send letters to:

55, Marksbury Road
Bedminster
Bristol BS3 5JY
England
European Community
cogombra@hotmail.com














From: Nancy Meyer <marsglow@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: paleonet@nhm.ac.uk
To: paleonet@nhm.ac.uk
Subject: Re: paleonet Re: suitable discussion
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 08:14:42 -0700 (PDT)

I agree, if you are saying that ID is a belief, not a
science, and it has almost nothing to do with creationism,
but instead with final causes.
--- Frank Holterhoff <frank@matricus.com> wrote:
 > Help, I'm having an identity crisis!  Am I really one of
 > the Bad Guys?
 >
 > I'm a staunch Christian, though definitely NOT a
 > Creationist,
 > Fundamentalist or Literal-Interpretationist.  In fact,
 > I'm really not
 > even a very good Christian, as I'm not big on
 > evangelizing, which is the
 > Great Commission Jesus gave to all Christians.  But I'm
 > also VERY
 > staunchly pro-Evolution, Science, Truth, Reason, etc.  I
 > am not a
 > professional paleontologist; for those wondering why I'm
 > even here, I
 > have a paleontology education (MS), worked as a petroleum
 > geologist for
 > 20 years (until 8 years ago), and have been a lifelong
 > fossil
 > collector/fan of Science in general.
 >
 > I have my own views, and while I might disagree with
 > those of others, I
 > would never invalidate or ridicule them (that's part of
 > why I'm not a
 > better evangelist).  I will however always stand up
 > against disingenuous
 > convoluted logic, and malice, when those are used as
 > weapons in the
 > Evolution/Creation conflict.  And, believe me, neither
 > side has a
 > monopoly on those!
 >
 > For a while now here, it seems that ID has been lumped
 > with the mindless
 > invalidation of observeable phenomena and reasonable
 > interpretation, as
 > well as the disingenuous support of
 > Creationism/refutation of Evolution
 > by bogus science, practiced by many Creationists.
 >
 > Based on my understanding of the term when I first heard
 > it, I've come
 > to regard myself as an IDer.  I thought that ID was a way
 > of looking at
 > things that was able to reconcile the undeniable
 > observations of the
 > world, and their reasonable interpretation, with faith
 > that a Creator
 > exists.  To me, Evolution, The Big Bang, Relativity, how
 > neurons &
 > synapses produce consciousness, etc. etc. are all part of
 > how He set
 > things up to run.  I thought that ID was a way for those
 > of Faith to
 > acknowledge observeable phenomena, rather than trying to
 > discredit them
 > as formal Creationists do much of the time.
 >
 > I would never for a second claim that, at present,
 > there's any
 > scientific evidence for a Creator; I didn't realize any
 > proponent of ID
 > did, as some here seem to assert.  Maybe I haven't read
 > enough about ID
 > yet.  However, there's also no scientific evidence that a
 > Creator
 > doesn't exist (this of course gets to the "absence of
 > evidence vs.
 > evidence of absence" discussion of a few days ago).
 > Based on that, I
 > see ID as a reasoned, reasonable view for a person of
 > Faith, Occam's
 > Razor notwithstanding (I didn't say the MOST reasonable).
 >  Therefore, I
 > can't see where there's an attack on Science.
 >
 > So, I guess I've made everybody read through my life
 > story just to ask
 > the question:  Do I not understand the term Intelligent
 > Design
 > correctly?  Or am I one of the Bad Guys after all?
 >
 > F
 >
 > Dr. Lisa E. Park wrote:
 >
 > > Dolf's own closing remarks mentioned ID and how we must
 > continue
 > > discussing and challenging this attack on science.
 >
 > --
 > Frank K. Holterhoff         MATRICuS Inc.
 > Physical Design Engineer    570 South Edmonds Lane, Suite
 > 101
 > 972-221-1614 ext. 18        Lewisville, Texas   75067
 > fax: 972-420-6895           USA
 > frank@matricus.com          www.matricus.com
 >
 >
 >

"The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian religion." - 
George Washington



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates.
http://personals.yahoo.com