ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (09/22/84)
[] >But I notice that while you're disputing who can set rules and such, >that you haven't said what rules you want? Same rules that apply everywhere else on this Net. Which is to say, none of us are in the position to set rules for the net. Say, who *is* the ball monitor in this playground? >This is silly. One doesn't "prove" one's basic assumption. One assumes >something (anything!), for the sake of argument, and then tries to >determine what one might expect to find on the basis of that >assumption. > >If anyone is looking for a model "of creation", I (like many of you) >don't see how that can be done. > >You can view science as having enlightened us, or you can view it the >way I do: it has had the opposite effect of enlightenment. How many ways can they say it: Creationism is nothing more than an attack on science. Which is OK. The problem is that they're also trying to pass it off as science. Can't have it both ways. -- Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!ward ARPA: hplabs!hao!sa!ward@Berkeley BELL: 303-497-1252 USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307