hua@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (05/07/85)
___________________________________________________________________________ > From: arndt@lymph.DEC > > Reply to Ken Perlow. > > Science without the 'why' is NOT SCIENCE. Since when does science deal with "why"? "Why" asks for a intellectual reason, which is subjective and beyond the realm of science. Science only deals with "how" or "what". > It's fiddling around. It's noise. It's killing time till it's time > to die. It's Miller time! :-) It's real science, man. If you don't like it, tough cookies. > Rosen and I together! Ha. I love it. Truth is, I actually think I'd > like the guy if I ever met him, what with us both being from NJ and all. YOU are from NJ?! Please don't ever repeat that again in public! > Science DOES start with a 'why'. Even if it's only 'Why bother?'. Science starts with a "how". (e.g. how do plants synthesize oxygen? No one cares WHY they make it, except maybe you.) > "Dogmatic", sure sure. Like everyone who has a point of view . . . yawn. I do. You don't. Your Bible does. > Science rests on certain 'why' assumptions that are not what YOU call > 'science'. Creationism is not 'science' to you because you have chosen > different 'whys' to start with, that's all. Yeah. Nature is consistent. That's not science? I guess you are not refering to that. So what ARE you refering to? (By the way, this was NOT a "why".) > I don't find the 'how' stuff boring. Only when it has no 'why' to give > it meaning! Then it becomes EXTREEMLY boring. Rather be surfing, you > know. Meaning? Are you serious? Please go surfing and stop bothering science with your own brand of pseudoscience. > Where do you hear anything about God? Tests and stuff? Oh, people like you ... (in your withdrawl into nothingness far below, you referenced Christianity; in many of your previous articles, you refer to a Creator; ...) > SCIENCE is a METHOD not an answer! You heartless soulless wretch. Ha > The ANSWERS depend upon which 'why' you have chosen going in. Method? I guess you could look at it that way. Answer? Answer to what? ... answer to "how". No one really cares about an answer to "why", except, of course, you. > But I'm not telling you anything you don't know. The statement applies quite well to itself. > Hua asks me to defind Creator after I have defined it about three times > on the net. The Ground of Being. I choose (because it makes the most > sense to me - not from 'authority' or angst - after having considered > the alternatives) to believe in a God who created the whole bannana. "The Ground of Being"? I think you are just some hacker's creation in between compilations. Can't you think of anything better than that? Just in case you are serious: That definition is junk ... what "ground"? what "being"? Perhaps you would be a little bit more specific. You continued further, but I won't comment specifically, since none of it make too much sense, unless you are trying to convince us that you have lost your marbles. > Me included. It's late but I'll tell you I have some other ideas on > the subject. Don't go away now, will ya. > > Science! Geee. What a short sheet job that is to try and live by. > > But you little buddy. You're not far from the Kingdom, I feel. > Just stay out of the clutches of the Mormons and JW's and such. > Until I get a chance to beat you over the head. > > We're way past Galieo now. By the way, he was a Christian as you know > if you have read his private papers. Today we say, "Nevertheless, it > moves, I think, maybe, possibly, or not." Welcome to the Dark Ages, > Modern version. Life is lived on a bannana peel. And we sing about it. > > Really got to go. Just in to work to set up a training course for > Monday. Mommy and the kids need me at home. ___________________________________________________________________________ Live long and prosper. Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }