In article <1993Apr15.231515.19982@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>, wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes: >In article <C5FtJt.885@sunfish.usd.edu>, rfox@charlie.usd.edu (Rich Fox, Univ of South Dakota) writes: >|> In article <1993Apr10.213547.17644@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>, wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes: >|>  >|> [earlier dialogue deleted] >|>  >|> >|> Perhaps you should read it and stop advancing the Bible as evidence relating  >|> >|> to questions of science.   >|>  >|> [it = _Did Jesus exist?_ by G. A. Wells] >|>  >|> >     There is a great fallacy in your statement. The question of origins is >|> >     based on more than science alone.   >|>  >|> Nope, no fallacy.  Yep, science is best in determining how; religions handle >|> why and who. > >        The problem is that most scientists exclude the possibility of the >        supernatural in the question of origins.  Is this is a fair premise?  Not entirely.  Its not a premise, its a conclusion.  Second, that scientists (for the most part) exlude the possibility is not a problem, its a necessity.  Scientists are empircists, not theologians.  >        I utterly reject the hypothesis that science is the highest form of >        truth.  So do scientists, and long before you did.  Clearly you have a deep and  fundamental misunderstanding of science.  >|>  >|> >     If you met a man who could walk on >|> >     water, raise people from the dead, claimed to be the Son of God, and >|> >     then referred to the inviolability of the scriptures, this would affect >|> >     your belief in the origin of man.  (I can expand on this.)   >|>  >|> Nope, wouldn't affect my knowledge (not belief) of origins of anatomically >|> modern humans.  If that man could show me something better, I'd change, even if  >|> it was the biblical story in exact detail.  But then I would ask, "Why in the >|> world did your father endow us with intellect and reason, and then proceed to >|> fool us.  I mean, the bible says nothing about the human-like creatures that we >|> know exist. > >        Some of these so-called human-like creatures were apes.  Some were >        humans.  Some were fancifully reconstructed from fragments.  Absolutely and utterly false (except for some were AMHs). Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis, ca. 3 to 3.25 mya) is 40% complete, and about 80% taking into  consideration bilateral symmetry.  Lucy walked upright and bipedally, just  like humans, and the two share a remarkably similar dental pattern.  Her cranial morphology is unlike humans or modern apes.  There are hundreds of  other specimens of this and other species, of which only some are *partially*  reconstructed.  They exist Bill.  You can touch them, feel them, hold them.   But forget hominids.  The earth, the universe, the cultural record all look and  test out as ancient indeed.  They are not reconstructions.  Has God has tricked us here too?  It won't go away, Bill.     > >|>  >|> I doubt any of us will meet a man like this.  But, Bill, if your version of all >|> this is absolutely correct, I'm still no worried about my salvation.  I'll >|> probaby make it (I don't steal, murder, covet, etc, and I like to help other >|> people).  All I did was use the reason and intellect your god provided.  >|> He or she - benevolent and loving - will understand my dilemma, don't you >|> think?  >           Good deeds do not justify a person in God's sight. >           An atonement (Jesus) is needed to atone for sin.  So *you* and other fundamentalists say.  What about the billions who don't  say so?  Beware of people who say they have the truth, Bill, and reconsider each time you think you do.  >|>  >|> >  Science and >|> >  the Bible are not in contradiction.  God can supercede the scientific >|> >  "laws" as man understands them.  Creation is a good example.  God has the >|> >  power to create something out of nothing, order out of chaos. >|>  >|> Haven't been on t.o. long, but I have a feeling, Bill, that the veterans will >|> agree with you here.  No contradiciton, and god *can* do anything at will.  So, >|> what's the beef? (or more properly, "where's") > >     My point: God is the creator.  Look's like we agree.  That was not your point, Bill.  Your point above was God *has* the power .... Scientists generally agree with that.  That's a far cry from saying God did. Please attempt to understand your own posts.   >|>  >|> >    If the title of the book you mentioned has anything to do with the  >|> >    substance of the book, it must be a real laugher.  Of course Jesus existed, >|> >    and there are volumes of evidence to back it up.  I can give many if you >|> >    are interested. >|>  >|> Its not a laugher, Bill.  Its a scholarly book that many happen to disagree >|> with.  I am definitely (and seriously) interested in confirmation.  I know of >|> the bible, inferences therefrom (e.g., prophecies), apocrypha, the Koran and >|> others.  What I am interested is independent evidence.  Do you have any?  I >|> know of Josephus, but this is almost certainly an insertion.  Also I know of a >|> few Roman documents (e.g., Pliny), but these deal only with early Christians. >|> Do you have any independent evidence?  I am most interested.  Please Email or  >|> post.  Thanks, and best regards. > >     I'll send you some info via e-mail. >     Regards, Bill.  I have your info, and I have replied - several days ago.  Hope you have it.   Somehow your post above appeared at my server only today.