[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: cs lewis

In a message dated 6/22/01 2:25:01 AM Central Daylight Time, 
soberman_69 at hotmail_com writes:


 <<Especially Kevin, who I'm starting to think I was separated 
from at birth.

Hey Matt, now I know what the hell this big gaping hole is in my side - it's 
where we parted company!

 << .  Then we get things like "Creation 
 Science", a seemingly oxymoronic term if ever there were one, that just look 
 silly in the eyes of the world.   >>

 yea oxymoronic yea (the return of Rainman)
one of the books I've cracked on the CS subject that I thought had some 
interesting things to say argued against pairing those two words together.  
It was called Origin Science IIRC (still oxygripped).  The main point, as I 
recall, was that science deals in regularities and any theory of origin would 
be dealing in a singularity, hence any origin theory would be more in the 
realm of metaphysics rather than science and should be treated as such.

Don posted: They are still presenting
"evidence" that has been disproven for over thirty years.

This reminds me of something from another book on the subject written by a 
couple Christian scientists who DIDN'T like "creation science" for the most 
part.  It's been a long time since I read it so if all my ducks aren't in 
order sorry but I still remember the basic gist of it: They mentioned the 
fact that the reason the first moon shuttle had them long tripod legs was 
because they thought that the moon would be very deep in sediment because of 
its age.  When it was found not to be creation scientists latched onto this 
saying "see its not as old as you thought na na na na na."  But right after 
they discovered that there was, in fact, deep layers of it -- it had just 
been crushed down by all the asteroids and such pummeling the moon.  Well, " 
30 years later" some creation scientists are still blowing smoke up the same 
old monkeybutt and looking like bloody baboons.
  I think there's a lot to be said for the philosophical arguments for the 
existence of God and some creationist idea's are interesting but, just as 
some evolutionist theories, they shouldn't be confused with pure science.  
And please, even from my very laymen understanding, I'd imagine the only 
scientists worth spit would be ones who study and take into account the 
important works of ALL his peers, not just the ones who promote his/her 
particular theories, whatever they may be.
---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/MediaNation/OtR/