jah@philabs.UUCP (Julie Harazduk) (08/14/85)
>>>It is also supported by archaeology, paleontology, cosmology, ... Not an >>>assumption, no, it is the converse (that it DID [yes, it DID, DID, DID and >>>DID!] ), that a creator deliberately caused it to exist, that is the >>>assumption. [RR] > >> Archeology winds up supporting Biblical accounts. Cosmology doesn't pose >> too many definite answers as to the origins of things (from nothing...BANG... >> dream on!!!!) [HARAZDUK] > You left out paleontology. Of course. Archaelogy merely shows that the > civilizations described in the Bible existed around the times and places > described therein. Archaeology certainly offers no support to the notions > of divine acts also described therein. And as for cosmology, well, this > just sounds like "Ah, you don't know the ultimate truth, therefor MY wishful > speculations MUST be right". Paleontology just collects evidence also. The evidence for an old earth looks pretty good, but is not conclusive (and probably never will be). I won't argue any old earth theory, because I'd have to show Carbon 14 dating to be inaccurate and I can't do that. Besides, I'm expecting Carbon 14 dating to be crucial to the Shroud of Turin investigation. Besides, this discussion should be in net.origins. I just love the way you explain cosmology, "The study of a self-perpetuating, self-induced Universe, especially without a God because we know there isn't any such thing." That's not even wishful thinking, it's more like curve fitting. Let's see if we can get the results to match our predetermined con- clusions. Let's find some way to explain it all away with science. Isn't it the same thing? Julie A. Harazduk (just trying to split this discussion into arguable parts)
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (08/15/85)
> >> Archeology winds up supporting Biblical accounts. Cosmology doesn't pose > >> too many definite answers as to the origins of things (from nothing...BANG... > >> dream on!!!!) [HARAZDUK] WRONG! Cosmology does not say this. All cosmology seems to imply is that at some earlier time the universe was very much smaller than it is now. It is observed to expand, hence the "bang". Cosmology does not have anything to say yet on what happened before the bang. It is incorrect to deduce that it claims there was nothing before the explosion. >... because I'd have to show Carbon 14 dating to be > inaccurate and I can't do that. Besides, I'm expecting Carbon 14 dating to > be crucial to the Shroud of Turin investigation. This is fascinating; The willingness to accept c14 dating when it serves your purpose, while not being prepared to accept it fully in the case of determining an old earth. Padraig Houlahan.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/18/85)
> I just love the way you explain cosmology, "The study of a self-perpetuating, > self-induced Universe, especially without a God because we know there isn't > any such thing." That's not even wishful thinking, it's more like curve > fitting. Let's see if we can get the results to match our predetermined con- > clusions. Let's find some way to explain it all away with science. Isn't > it the same thing? What's the "it" that's being "explained away"? Has the "it" been shown demonstrably, or is it just believed by some people because it makes them more comfortable? That is the question at hand. You can only make attempts to "explain away" things that have been proven. There is no need to "explain away" that which has not been. Curve fitting, Julie? The curve already fits pretty well. It's you who seems to be plotting points at random. -- Meanwhile, the Germans were engaging in their heavy cream experiments in Finland, where the results kept coming out like Swiss cheese... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
jah@philabs.UUCP (Julie Harazduk) (08/23/85)
> > I just love the way you explain cosmology, "The study of a self-perpetuating, > > self-induced Universe, especially without a God because we know there isn't > > any such thing." That's not even wishful thinking, it's more like curve > > fitting. Let's see if we can get the results to match our predetermined con- > > clusions. Let's find some way to explain it all away with science. Isn't > > it the same thing? > > What's the "it" that's being "explained away"? Has the "it" been shown > demonstrably, or is it just believed by some people because it makes > them more comfortable? That is the question at hand. You can only make > attempts to "explain away" things that have been proven. There is no need > to "explain away" that which has not been. Curve fitting, Julie? The curve > already fits pretty well. It's you who seems to be plotting points at random. The "it" is the Universe and its creation! That's what the "it" is. This state- ment was a Julie Harazduk paraphrase of the Rich Rosen version of creation (calling it that for lack of a better word--not to imply any theories discussed in net.origin). There has not been a theory that you have suggested that has been proven. By the way, science is empirical study of things. Mathematics models science and the rest is all conjecture. We build a story based on what is available and what we think makes sense. It's not a bad idea and the story may turn out to be right, but stop acting like these things are proven beyond any doubt because another story may come about with the next newest discovery. Also, by saying "explain it all away with science", I refer to the science that you profess (archaeology, cosmology, ....) the science you talk about is not science at all but educated guessing. When taking an educated guess, the quesser can be wrong, even though he is less likely to be. (throw in paleontology...why not? It's also just conjecture.) Julie A. Harazduk