From: Robert Comer 

 > Do you have any examples of that?   Honestly, I don't pay that much
 > attention so really don't see that kind of stuff.

Sure, anything that has to do with the big bang itself and before that.
(just one example)

 > Yep, that's the definition of science.

It's the answer to more than just science. 

 > Well, I agree that Stephen Hawking wasn't one of God's mistakes. We'll
 > just have to agree to disagree about Bush, et al. .

I know it doesn't look good right now. 

- Bob Comer (Using Thunderbird under Vista now... )



John Cuccia wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 15:15:46 -0500, "Robert Comer"
>  wrote:
>
>
>>>The problem with religion filling in those places that are out of the
>>>realm of testable hypothesis is that they are purely subjective and so
>>>there can be as many religious opinions as there are people to hold
>>>those opinions.
>>
>>As is science when it trys to answer those same questions.
>
>
> Do you have any examples of that?   Honestly, I don't pay that much
> attention so really don't see that kind of stuff.
>
>
>>>Science doesn't know everything about anything, and doesn't claim to
>>>as far as I know.
>>
>>Yep, but I have a problem with some in the scientific world claiming some
>>speculation is science when it's not, it's probably the same reaction some
>>get when someone talks about ID.
>
>
> See above.  I don't pay enough attention to know when scientists are
> overstepping.
>
>
>>>Dicarding theories because they have holes is disingenuous at best.
>>>Note: that is in particular a comment aimed at people who discard
>>>evolutionary theory because it doesn't answer every question.we just
>>>haven't found it yet. It is definitely not aimed at you.
>>
>>I agree, it usually just means new facts have to come to light and the
>>theory maybe needing some modification.
>
>
> Yep, that's the definition of science.
>
>
>>>Sure.  As soon as one posits "God" then all arguments
are reconciled.
>>>Does evolution exist?  Sure, because God created it as the mechanism
>>>for the development of life on Earth.  Etc, etc.
>>
>>Nah, I really didn't mean to go that far, just that if we ever, even if it
>>is ever so unlikely, get some scientific evidence for the existence of God,
>>that does the reconciliation,
>
>
> That's what I said .
>
>
>>I know I'm not going to say this well enough in a couple of short
>>paragraphs, but I'll try: The religious explanation, is that it really is
>>God's plan and these instances are all leading to the better good. I know it
>>seems to come up short on a personal level, but we really don't have the big
>>picture in mind.  As an example of a bad thing turning good, look at
>>someone's great hardship, say Katrina victums from this year -- it caused a
>>great outpuring of support and love from a great deal of people, and if some
>>of that support and love pours out to other less spetacular areas, things
>>are going to get noticed that weren't noticed before, things that needed to
>>be done.
>>
>>Another example would be Stephen Hawking himself, here is this guy, trapped
>>in a totally useless shell of a body, yet he not only perceveers, he
>>shines -- he's the preeminent mind of our times, yet he has probably been a
>>better example to the people (geeks only I guess ) that are also
>>suffering greatly and see that they too can shine in some way if they just
>>try.
>
>
> Well, I agree that Stephen Hawking wasn't one of God's mistakes. We'll
> just have to agree to disagree about Bush, et al. .

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5