Others on ASA thought me to be strange because of my simplistic theory of
thinking that God could make more than one universe:
But this flies as science in a Christian context??
Glenn Morton wrote:
> Now, the theological implications of this are obvious. If we have
> Neanderthal genes, even one Neanderthal gene, we simply can't have
> apologetical scenarios which separate us from them as is done by many of the
> apologists. So, why don't apologists pay attention to data like this? I
> wish I knew.
> Chris Stringer and Clive Gamble, In Search of theNeanderthals, (New York:
> Thames and Hudson, 1993), p.93
> R. Harding and J. Rees "Interpreting patterns of polymorphism in the
> melanocortin 1 receptor gene
> see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
> for lots of creation/evolution information
> personal stories of struggle
To which I ask:
Which apologists have "ignored" this "data"? When was it published and has any
"apologist" refuted the "data"?
I've never heard of this before and I'm not sure that red headed neanderthals
mean anything more than other established genes.
Is this "data", a "theory", or a "fact"?
Is this email a preemptive criticism of potential ignoring by "apologists" ---
or has it already been observed?
Finally is the premise really a logical extrapolation of the "data"?
Is it not possible that the author should consider himself to be an "apologist"
for his area of his (clearly limited) science specialty and his own published
pet theory -- (which is not universally accepted insofar as I know)?
But, I could well be wrong (as I often am) -- as a newcomer to this list.
Apologies to Glenn in advance, should he think me to be unkind to his email and
his published theory.
Walt Hicks <email@example.com>
In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
You can only find the truth with logic
If you have already found the truth
without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 28 2002 - 22:41:18 EST