Re: Stereotypes and reputations

From: janice matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri Aug 05 2005 - 14:37:47 EDT

Tim wrote: "I was not describing the creation of the universe but the
development of life on Earth about 10 billion years afterwards. I do not
think Alvin Plantiga maintains that the separate *creation of species* (or
'kinds') is a necessary explanation for the pattern of life observed."

Sorry if I misunderstood you. I'm trying to work and keep up with email as
I go at the moment. Does this fit better?:

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/arn/odesign/od181/methnat181.htm Methodological
Naturalism ~ Alvin Plantinga

Janice

At 01:58 PM 8/5/2005, tpi.hormel@comcast.net wrote:
>janice matchett wrote:
> >> *Tim wrote:* /"...Another major reason for ignoring creation
> >> also has to do with whether it is a necessary explanation. .."
>Janice:
> >> /## I assume you've been able to provide a cogent rebuttal to Alvin
> >> Plantinga's arguments such as can be found in [...]
>
>Pim:
> >How does this relate to Tim's statement about 'necessary explanation'?
>
>I can't figure that out, either. Not even with the recent reply to Pim:
>Janice:
>"Tip of the iceberg:
><http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-necessary-being/>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-necessary-being/"
>
>Janice,
>Let's put my comments back into context of the original discussion... I
>was not describing the creation of the universe but the development of
>life on Earth about 10 billion years afterwards.
>
>I do not think Alvin Plantiga maintains that the separate *creation of
>species* (or 'kinds') is a necessary explanation for the pattern of life
>observed.
>
>Regards, Tim I
Received on Fri Aug 5 14:39:19 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Aug 05 2005 - 14:39:20 EDT