hort.net Seasonal photo, (c) 2006 Christopher P. Lindsey, All Rights Reserved: do not copy
articles | gallery of plants | blog | tech blog | plant profiles | patents | mailing lists | top stories | links | shorturl service | tom clothier's archive0
Gallery of Plants
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Mailing Lists
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
sHORTurl service
Tom Clothier's Archive
 Top Stories
New Trillium species discovered

Disease could hit Britain's trees hard

Ten of the best snowdrop cultivars

Plant protein database helps identify plant gene functions

Dendroclimatologists record history through trees

Potato beetle could be thwarted through gene manipulation

Hawaii expands coffee farm quarantine

Study explains flower petal loss

RSS story archive

Re: Emily & teaching Science, or not

As Einstein himself said "God is subtle, but He is not malicious."

Cathy, west central IL, z5b

On Jul 20, 2005, at 5:54 AM, Melody wrote:

> See this here is part of the problem...humans are just conceited  
> enough
> to believe that they can understand the mind and workings of God.  
> If we
> can learn to separate what we know about the human experience of
> life/time/space/etc. from what GOD knows about those things, it  
> makes it
> all much simpler to reconcile a divinely inspired and created universe
> that operates under the laws of natural science. And just FYI, Pope  
> John
> Paul II agreed with the premise that there was absolutely no problem
> with believing in God and believing in evolution or any other natural
> laws of physics/science. And Einstein, who proposed the initial
> beginnings of what would later become quantum physics when he stated
> that at it's most basic level, matter can and does exist in more than
> one state at a time, was a very religious man. He would have needed to
> be in order to be able to separate out the limitations of what the  
> human
> mind can conceive of as real from what God really is able to do.
> Melody
> Hills, IA  zone 5
> Work for the Lord:  the pay isn't much but the retirement is out of  
> this world!
>  --- On Sat 07/16,  < EvaTEsq@aol.com > wrote:
> From:  [mailto: EvaTEsq@aol.com]
> To: gardenchat@hort.net
> Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 23:55:12 EDT
> Subject: Re: [CHAT] Emily & teaching Science, or not
> That is even more screwed up than just being taught the 6000
> <br>years-creationist belief. Damn, I can't even follow that  
> "logic", to
> use the term loosely. <br>Unless the time-space continuum got  
> fouled up
> along the way [<----Let's mix <br>some star trek in there to REALLY
> screw things up!]<br> <br>Eva<br>Long Island, NY<br>Zone 6/7<br><br>
> <br>In a message dated 7/16/2005 11:48:24 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> <br>lindsey@mallorn.com writes:<br><br>The creationists were all
> thrilled. They said that this meant both camps<br>were right --
> dinosaurs were around millions of years ago, but only because<br>TIME
> WAS FASTER THEN. They claimed that if time had been constant it
> <br>would've only been 6000 years or
> whatever.<br><br>----------------------------------------------------- 
> ----------------<br>To
> sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with  
> the<br>message
> _______________________________________________
> Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
> The most personalized portal on the Web!
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the

To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the

Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index

 © 1995-2017 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement