hoffman@cheshire.columbia.edu (Edward Hoffman) (09/08/86)
Wow! I took a quick vacation, and found so much stuff on the nets that it's taken me a week of spare time to catch up. Although net.origins is my favorite net (outside of our local Columbia garbage, of course), I had to save it for last because of the plethora of amazingly long articles by good ol' Ken, Ted, and others. I'm finally caught up, and back in shape. A few weeks (months?) ago, someone requested that we all post our personal philosophies on the net; I intend to do so shortly. In the meantime, there are a few points I would like to make concerning Ted's six-episode trip through fantasyland: First off, at least so far as I know, the current theory is that Jupiter and Saturn radiate excess heat because they have still not cooled completely from the time of their formation. It is in no way related to a history as stellar bodies. Second, I noticed a rather nice quote from Ted in his reply to a rebuttal: > You have to get used to the idea of gravity not being the ONLY (or in some > cases, the MAIN) force governing cosmic interactions. Isn't this coming from the same gentleman who wants us to believe that grav- ity is the ONLY (or at least the MAIN) source of stress on animals as part of his "proofs" that dinosaurs can't exist today?!?!? I guess we really have to get used to the idea that gravity behaves as Ted wants it to... :-) Next to the contention that Jupiter and Saturn lost their status as stars when they came close to the sun. This really is not borne out by observation, since there is no known correlation between the size of stars in multiple systems and their separation. Some companions are SO close that their gravity fields are actually sucking each other up, leaving a bridge of stellar material in between; however, these stars are not becoming planets, even in those systems where one star is much larger than the other(s). Finally, I would like to make a comment on the general pattern of Ted's postings. Generally, they seem to say, "Look at these legends! How much mythology (I think Ted would not use that word here, but I can't think of a better one) does it take to convince you that science is wrong?" Ted, how much science does it take to convince you that mythology is wrong? Now on to Ken's articles. First, I would like to commend Mr. Arndt for at least trying to explain his reasoning. It still isn't completely clear to me (as well as many others, it seems), but at least it's a start. However... Ken mentioned that a vast preponderance of cultures have legends about a spiritual world, and submits this as evidence that such a world exists. I counter, however, that these stories are mythology designed to explain the world in the best way available to the authors. Remember that the vast majority of cultures up until the 1400's believed that the Earth was flat. Science disagrees. Ken, would you suggest that science is wrong in this matter as well? After all, your argument is equally valid here... Also, Ken asks what kind of evidence it would take to convince us of the existence of god. Well, I for one would be a lot closer to believing if I saw a verifiable ghost (i.e. other people saw it, proving that it was not one person's imagination; it revealed something verifiable about its former life that no one present would be able to know, but which was susceptible to verification afterwards, etc.). Why would this make me more likely to believe? Simply because it would demonstrate the existance of some aspect of human life which is separate from the body--a "soul", if you like. Evidence of such a thing should not require god's personal (please excuse the term) intervention, and thus would not be an instance of god stooping to reveal himself to a person of no faith. So, next time anyone out there sees a ghost, send it to me and have it tell me something about itself that I could look up. I may not be able to prove it to anyone else, but at least I would have to alter my view of things. Well, that's all for now. More soon, unless my account goes away (it just might)... Edward Hoffman ARPAnet: hoffman@cheshire.columbia.edu BITnet: CC4.EA-HOFFMAN@CU20A UUCP: ...![seismo,topaz]!columbia!cheshire!hoffman