RE: deception in perception

From: Stephen J. Krogh (
Date: Wed Jul 24 2002 - 22:40:53 EDT

  • Next message: Glenn Morton: "RE: Coal and YEC models"

    That's "Mr." Spock.


    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: []On
    > Behalf Of Jay Willingham
    > Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 4:42 PM
    > To: ASA
    > Subject: Re: deception in perception
    > Yes, I have studied logic and its limitations, Dr. Spock.
    > Logic must accept the existence of alternative explanations when there =
    > is no dispositive empirical proof. How does one prove that the ancient =
    > creatures classed as hominids were not merely men, or animals who failed =
    > to compete with man? We have gone around and around about the =
    > acceptable variation in the human genome.
    > Logic is not the sine qua non of all theological truth. It is of the =
    > scientific method. Logic includes the existence of mystery and the =
    > unexplained by concluding that some things cannot be logically explained =
    > within our frame of refernce. Logic in man's eyes is not the same as it =
    > is in God's eyes. Yes, I have already quoted the Bible for that premise =
    > in this line.
    > You have dispositive proof of natural selection/microevolution which you =
    > illogically allege is dispositive proof of macroevolution. As your =
    > arguments are not without basis in empirical fact, your conclusions are =
    > illogical when they categorically exclude alternative explanations.
    > You are falling prey to the same tactic I have read being used against =
    > you, unless I can point to specific courses in logic I have taken at the =
    > post graduate level, you assume that my mind does not work logically.
    > Logic is our desperate effort to understand our existence, some aspects =
    > of which we will not understand this side of the veil, per, yes, another =
    > Bible verse already cited.
    > For instance, a philosophy course I took at Duke was on the structure of =
    > aesthetics. There is a subject amenable to only a very "soft" =
    > application of logic.
    > I have also previously pointed out to you how in your website you make =
    > educated guesses friendly to your pet hypothesis as to the cause of =
    > various geologic features or parts of the fossil record and then =
    > illogically conclude that those interpretations are proof positive of =
    > your hypothesis.
    > When I assert that isotope decay rates may not be constant and that =
    > creation may have resulted in isotopes in various states of decay, the =
    > response is, if God did not create something a scientific, logical =
    > method can readily describe and and explain as truth then God is is =
    > deceiving me and must be Satan. =20
    > Your logical syllogism seems to say "God's mind conceived and created =
    > the earth. My mind can understand all there is to know about the earth. =
    > I can understand the mind of God."
    > I do not believe that the mind of man can understand all there is to =
    > know about the earth. =20
    > Where does that leave faith and hope in things not seen? Yes, another =
    > verse, hang it all.
    > I am sure the old serpent fools me, too. I never said I was right and =
    > you were wrong. What I did say was we are probably arguing about =
    > endless genealogies.
    > Jay

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 24 2002 - 22:47:17 EDT