To: <1/1,000,000th%
I wouldn't tie faith to material evidence. I don't think that usage would make sense to the other side of the argument. Sorry, I was just trying to be complete. What do you do with things like the Mons Angels, Shroud of Turin, etc. where you have either credible eyewitnesses without other axes to grind, or disputed physical evidence (carbon dating of a non-representative sample to muddy the waters, suggestions of Maillard reactions which are consistent with the chemical structure but not "topography" of the image...)
Cheers!
98 posted on
02/08/2006 5:42:42 PM PST by
grey_whiskers
(The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
To: grey_whiskers; PatrickHenry; Ichneumon
Sorry, meant to include you the time I replied.
BTW, where's Ichneumon on this thread? Haven't seen him...
101 posted on
02/08/2006 6:30:33 PM PST by
grey_whiskers
(The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
To: grey_whiskers
What do you do with things like the Mons Angels, Shroud of Turin, etc. where you have either credible eyewitnesses without other axes to grind, or disputed physical evidence (carbon dating of a non-representative sample to muddy the waters, suggestions of Maillard reactions which are consistent with the chemical structure but not "topography" of the image...)Those are interesting examples, but they apply to the Catholic faith, which has no issue with evolution. It's the Protestants who we're having the argument with.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson