[net.religion] No. Really.

hua@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (06/09/85)

___________________________________________________________________________

> { From: damon@nisysg.DEC }
>
> > > ...if scientific theory collides with Biblical Scripture, then
> > > something has to give. For me, Science must give.
> > >
> > > Bill Gates
> >
> > At last, an electrical engineer that believes:
> >
> > - The sun revolves around the earth
> >
> > - The earth is about 10,000 years old
> >
> > - All the marsupials & other animals were packed up on an ark
> > while it rained a lot, then, upon release, ALL the
> > marsupials traveled hundreds of miles over the ocean so
> > they could live over the remains of fossilized marsupials
> > (which occur nowhere else). Rabbits & foxes, however,
> > stayed away.
> >
> > - Light traveling from the Andromeda Galaxy (2 million
> > light-years away) must've been created in transit to be
> > arriving 1,990,000 years early.
> >
> > Fortunately, the Bible failed to mention electricity.
>
> Don't ever think of becoming a
> biologist/geologist/archaeologist/astronomer. Too many "contradictions".

Such as?

> However, this hasn't stopped other people from building workable
> hypotheses in these fields.

Really?  Like what?  or are you just (here we go again) "whistlin' dixie"?

> Too bad they contradict the Bible; then again, science isn't trying to.
> Science tries to discover the truth, and preconceptions be damned!

Yup.  (In simplistic terms)  Perhaps you have something else in mind?

> This person is mistaken, not only does the Bible refer to the unseen
> world of the it also states the force holding it all together.

"of the"?  "of the" what?

> THAT FORCE BEING, THE WORDS (For example:"LET THERE BE LIGHT!!")
> SPOKEN BY THE ALMIGHTY HIMSELF. It is true that they (people in the
> Bible) didn't have the word electricity but it doen't mean that they
> didn't acknowledge its existance.

Of course not.  You mean to tell me that Noah had electricity?  (It wasn't
mentioned, but that does not mean it was not acknowledged ...)  I guess
he also had weather radar ... damn helpful those days of unpredictable
weather!

> You must relies that the universe was built on this philosophy of
> TRUTH or you have to even abandon science, for it (science) proves
> God ,the Father of Jesus Christ in archaeology, Physics and any other
> branch.

Really?  Science can prove God?  Surely you jest.  God is BY DEFINITION
beyond nature.  Science only deals with nature.  It cannot deal with
anything that can alter the rules of nature since it only has nature to
study.

> I recommend that this person should read his Bible with an open mind
> & concordance again. For in IT anything that can be thought of has
> been mentioned at least twice.

"Open mind"?  I suppose YOU have an open mind!  Would you care to show
me where quarks are mentioned?  Also, show me where computer/IC's/semi-
conductor technology is mentioned.  While you're at it ... tell me where
it shows us how to setup Usenet.

> For Example (of the top of the head):
> - Telatransportation Acts 8:39-40, John 6:21
> - LASER beams in orbit (Star War Sys) Rev 13:13
> - Nuclear Wars Rev 6:12-14
> - Androids (robots or human statues) Rev 13:14-15

I will comment on these after reading the specific segments.  I can almost
guarantee you that I will make a fool of you.

> There are only two philosophies at work on the earth today in these
> last days.

Philosophies?  Will you take a damn philosophy course first!  Gee wiz!
You don't have the slightest idea of what you are talking about!  You
only have a narrowminded/indoctrinated view of the world filtered by
your Bible.  You do not understand the fundamental basics of science,
and yet you find it very easy to criticize it.

> Love === God (Father of Jesus Christ)the trinity
>
> Hate === Satan (God of the air & world system)
> =====================================================================
> If one denies HIM he doesn't yet Know HIM.
>
> ed

Incidentally, have you read any of Rich Rosen's articles on basic
assumptions?  It would be good reading for you to use to analyse
your overt a priori assumptions that you are using to build your
set of knowledge.
___________________________________________________________________________

Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }