lvron@earth.lerc.nasa.gov (Ronald E. Graham) (11/10/90)
In article <s64421.658155100@zeus>, s64421@zeus.usq.EDU.AU (house ron) writes... >rjn@hpfcso.HP.COM (Bob Niland) writes: [regarding "proof" that the moon is 6000 years old, and who adheres to it...] >>What makes you think that anything you might have to say about lunar >>evidence would sway them in the least? Before bothering to prepare counter >>arguments, make sure you first come to agreement with them on fundamentals, >>like the meaning of words, and rules of logic and evidence. What are they >>prepared to accept as disproof of their position? (probably nothing) >I suspect you are right - nothing I say will change their minds. Someone >else pointed out the vacuum welding effect. If the moon dust had been there, >they would say "AHA! not enough time for vacuum welding to take place!" [...and the fruitlessness of debate...] Guys, I don't normally care for folks who say "this topic doesn't belong here." But I'm going to say it now. This topic, at least addressed from the perspective of preparing for debate, doesn't belong here. They have a group where it does belong. It's called talk.origins. This is coming from the point of view of a "creationist" who doesn't care how old the world is, or the mechanism by which it was made: only who started the mechanism. Some folks do believe that. Be careful not to assume all folks are the same. And if you want to flame me, kindly do it e-mail. The flames don't belong here either. RG
gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) (11/13/90)
Sorry I couldn't take this to Email guys. In article <1990Nov9.223440.5571@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> lvron@earth.lerc.nasa.gov writes: > >Guys, I don't normally care for folks who say "this topic doesn't belong >here." But I'm going to say it now. This topic, at least addressed from >the perspective of preparing for debate, doesn't belong here. They have >a group where it does belong. It's called talk.origins. > >This is coming from the point of view of a "creationist" who doesn't >care how old the world is, or the mechanism by which it was made: only >who started the mechanism. Some folks do believe that. Be careful not >to assume all folks are the same. And if you want to flame me, kindly >do it e-mail. The flames don't belong here either. I've got to ask what a creationist with this unscientific attitude is doing in a sci group or for that matter receiving my tax dollars at a public scientific institution. Don't you belong in a Monastary sir? I've got no quarrel with someone who might say God created the big bang, now let's work out the science from there. But someone who says God created the Universe and then declares that that is all that counts and disavows any interest in working out the science can't claim to be a scientist or be trusted to do scientific work. I don't want to start a flame war over this, but felt it had to be said. Gary
lwall@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall) (11/14/90)
In article <1519@ke4zv.UUCP> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes: : : In article <1990Nov9.223440.5571@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> lvron@earth.lerc.nasa.gov writes: : >This is coming from the point of view of a "creationist" who doesn't : >care how old the world is, or the mechanism by which it was made: only : >who started the mechanism. Some folks do believe that. Be careful not : >to assume all folks are the same. And if you want to flame me, kindly : >do it e-mail. The flames don't belong here either. : : I've got to ask what a creationist with this unscientific attitude is doing : in a sci group or for that matter receiving my tax dollars at a public : scientific institution. Don't you belong in a Monastary sir? I've : got no quarrel with someone who might say God created the big bang, now : let's work out the science from there. But someone who says God created : the Universe and then declares that that is all that counts and disavows any : interest in working out the science can't claim to be a scientist or be : trusted to do scientific work. Hmmm... Could it perhaps be that you've misread Gary's article? I read the "doesn't care" as an assertion of open-mindedness on the means, not lack of interest. As such, there is nothing there inconsistent with a scientific attitude, apart from any emotional baggage you wish to attach to the word "creationist", which, after all, he did put into quotes to tell you it wasn't being used in the ordinary sense. While we're on the subject of being in touch with reality, you shouldn't assume that everyone who works at a scientific institution is a scientist, either. (I think there are more secretaries than scientists at JPL. Which is not to say that the rest of us aren't keenly interested in science...) Using such an assumption as the basis of a quasi-diatribe is not in the best interests of net harmony. Larry Wall lwall@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov
lvron@saturn.lerc.nasa.gov (Ronald E. Graham) (11/15/90)
In article <1519@ke4zv.UUCP>, gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes... [a bunch of stuff that belongs in e-mail...and I would have responded there if my mailer could reach the original poster...] >I've got to ask what a creationist with this unscientific attitude is doing >in a sci group or for that matter receiving my tax dollars at a public >scientific institution. Doing my job. Which is all you should be concerned with. The subject of this guy's posting didn't even rate talk.origins, IMPO. RG
gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) (11/15/90)
In article <10350@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> lwall@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall) writes: >In article <1519@ke4zv.UUCP> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes: >: >: In article <1990Nov9.223440.5571@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> lvron@earth.lerc.nasa.gov writes: >: >This is coming from the point of view of a "creationist" who doesn't >: >care how old the world is, or the mechanism by which it was made: only >: >who started the mechanism. Some folks do believe that. Be careful not >: >to assume all folks are the same. And if you want to flame me, kindly >: >do it e-mail. The flames don't belong here either. >: >: I've got to ask what a creationist with this unscientific attitude is doing >: in a sci group or for that matter receiving my tax dollars at a public >: scientific institution. Don't you belong in a Monastary sir? I've >: got no quarrel with someone who might say God created the big bang, now >: let's work out the science from there. But someone who says God created >: the Universe and then declares that that is all that counts and disavows any >: interest in working out the science can't claim to be a scientist or be >: trusted to do scientific work. > >Hmmm... > >Could it perhaps be that you've misread Gary's article? I read the "doesn't I think you mean lvron's article. >care" as an assertion of open-mindedness on the means, not lack of interest. >As such, there is nothing there inconsistent with a scientific attitude, apart >from any emotional baggage you wish to attach to the word "creationist", >which, after all, he did put into quotes to tell you it wasn't being used in >the ordinary sense. > >While we're on the subject of being in touch with reality, you shouldn't >assume that everyone who works at a scientific institution is a scientist, >either. (I think there are more secretaries than scientists at JPL. Which >is not to say that the rest of us aren't keenly interested in science...) >Using such an assumption as the basis of a quasi-diatribe is not in the >best interests of net harmony. Ok, I probably over-reacted to what may have been merely an unclear choice of words on the original posters part. Sorry net. Gary
jwm@stdb.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) (11/15/90)
In article <1990Nov14.170226.13028@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> lvron@saturn.lerc.nasa.gov writes: }In article <1519@ke4zv.UUCP>, gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes... } }[a bunch of stuff that belongs in e-mail...and I would have responded }there if my mailer could reach the original poster...] } }>I've got to ask what a creationist with this unscientific attitude is doing }>in a sci group or for that matter receiving my tax dollars at a public }>scientific institution. } }Doing my job. Which is all you should be concerned with. The primary problem (as that with SciAmer) is not just what the individual may or may not do, but what organizations will do with a representatives holding the stated opinions. Creationist's organizations have a tendency to say that their views are validated solely due to the position of one of their representatives. An irrelevant statement, but it gets made anyway. A PR nightmare for SciAmer... Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not necessarily represent those opinions of this or any other organization. The facts, however, simply are and do not "belong" to anyone. jwm@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu - or - meritt%aplvm.BITNET