"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote in message
...

"Larry Blanchard"
"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote:

All I suggest is the possibility of a designer, especially since it's so
unlikely that the universe and life jump started itself into existence.
If someone says there's a better likelyhood that there is no designer,
they do so out of faith, not science.

Once again, the only rational answer to where the universe came from is
"I
don't know".


Only agnosticism is rational? Even if one sees more evidence one way or
another?

One can accept religion and still not know where the universe came from.
The only way to surely "know" is to accept on faith the Genesis account, or
something similar, i.e. nonscientific. The Bible is not a science book.

But once it did exist, evolution seems to account quite well for the
diversity of species present and extinct. Our increasing knowledge of
DNA
only reinforces it.


That's an overstatment if there ever was one. Many things are not
explained
by evolution by chance. You are pretending there's no controversy on
things
like The Cambiran Explosion within the evolutionist's camp.If you picked a
theory that you favor the most I fail to see any consistency with your
agnosticim.

the existence of heated debate about something that happened 600 million
years ago, and left only a very sparse fossil record, does not equate with
controversy about evolution, although the anti-science camp will grasp at
any straw to make it seem so.

So you can only be rational if you don't know about a designer but
insist on a particular evolutionary model? Hmm.

So evolution should be taught in schools - where the universe came from
should not.


Evolution by itself leaves more questions than it answers. Perhaps
intellectual
curiousity will finally be purged out of public ed but I hope not.

I will be most interested to see your lists of answered and open questions,
to see which is greater.

Steve