RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Fw: Apple computers run on satanism (fwd)

["Ross, Matt" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

> > I note they make reference to drdino, I suppose in an small jab at
> > http://www.drdino.com/, a Christian scientist website.  
> While I don't agree
> > with the priciple of 'Christian Scientists', I do like some 
> of the things
> > "Dr. Dino" puts out there, such as his challenge to 
> evolutionary theory.
> 
> There are times when it pays to be delicate, but other times when
> you really just have to say what you think about something.  I have
> just looked at some of the material in the FAQs at www.drdino.com,
> and I have no qualms whatsoever with declaring it to be a steaming
> heap of manure.

Very scientific terminology :-P
I've said the same thing about many 'scientific' theories that have come out
about evolution.

> Really, this kind of thing saddens me.  Groups that set themselves 
> up to debunk scientific ideas really do have a responsibility to
> understand the ideas they wish to discredit and be intellectually
> honest about what those ideas really imply and predict about the 
> world.  The ideas, in other words, don't just exist in a vacuum but
> gain their power from their use and our ability to understand more
> about the world than what we knew before.

What do we gain if we base all our world views on evolution?  So far, it
looks like a world view dependant on an undersuported theory.  We haven't
predicted accurately what life we'll find in unexplored parts of the globe.
We haven't found life in other parts of the universe, and by statistics, its
very unlikely that we will.  The most we gain by believing in evolution is a
unified theory to bantor back and forth about.  

> Or, let's put it another way.  If there really were a creation
> science worth studying, you need to show how it can explain all of
> the phenomena we have already (predicted and discovered and)
> explained by means of orthodox science.  You should also be able to
> make exact statements about where this creation science differs in
> its assumptions or laws or calculations from contemporary orthodox
> science (and not some cartoonish and highly selected subset of
> factoids taken from the scientific literature).

Where creation science differs is that it is willing to accept God as an
explanation.  Without that willingness, one must grasp at unsupported
theories (again, such as evolution).

> But, hey, I have never seen anybody make a *single* calculation from
> some first principles of creation science and have it match observed
> reality.  In any way.  And it gets just completly painful when you
> have to deal with "young earth" creationists.  Almost nothing in
> real science will give them the answers they want in terms of dates,
> so they basically have to deny the truth of the entire enterprise.
> And then they should have to explain how, if conventional science
> has gone so horribly wrong, how scientific ideas have lead to the 
> development of miracle devices like rewritable CDs, gene therapy,
> magnetic resonance imaging and on and on and on.  And why the only
> thing that creation science can produce is tackily packaged DVDs.

Which truths are they denying?  So far, it seems the 'truth' they deny is
that radiocarbon dating shows the earth to be X million years old (a number
which changes too often for me to keep track of, btw).  I disagree with the
validity of radiocarbon dating at such large ranges, as there is no frame of
reference for them to compare to and validate their results.  I also
disagree with "young earth" though, or more to the point, "young universe",
as various stars we see are too far away for their light to have been sent
out later than several million years back.  Granted, I'm assuming the
physics I grew up learning are true, but I don't see any reason to believe
light travels faster than light...

> And that's the ultimate irony.  To be taken seriously, these folks
> need to be able to use their science to calculate an age for the
> earth of only 6000 years while simultaneously explaining how their
> science can explain the processes involved in the creation of the
> DVDs their unscientific ideas are stamped on.  The more difficult
> creation for them to explain will be the latter one, of course.

Show me exactly where they argue with any theory other than those modern
science has yet to provide a solid backing for.  I disagree with creation
scientists, but I've never known them to be that stupid.

> > Interesting reading, even if you don't agree with it.
> 
> No, it isn't interesting.  It is merely sad. 

Know thine enemy.  If you really think this is all that bad, the reading
should be interesting to you so you can do something about it..

> If you want 
> interesting, give me a physical email address and I'll send you a 
> *free* copy of Feynman's QED, a book discussed previously on this
> list.  After you see and understand that book, I would be completely
> shocked if schlock like the stuff you see on www.drdino.com would
> continue to impress you in any way.

Physical mail, or email?

So this doesn't continue on the list like the last evolution topic did, I'll
make my previous offer again.  Anyone interested in continuing this
discussion, send to EMAIL:PROTECTED and I'll throw together a CC
list of everyone who wants in.

Sorry for even mentioning it....
--
To unsubscribe, go to http://mlug.missouri.edu/members/edit.php

Archives are available at http://mlug.missouri.edu/list-archives/