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

["Brandon Chisham" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

I took a look at the source and thought that this was interesting!

<META name="generator" content="Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who hath generated
all">

brandon

----- Original Message -----
From: "Spurling, Shannon" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
To: <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 11:58 AM
Subject: RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Fw: Apple computers run on satanism (fwd)


> Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of DVD's. :-)
> I think that you might want to read the site that was cited earlier as a
debunking of the original hoax that started this thread. That guy had a
fairly good handle on things. What saddens me more than seeing people like
Dr. Dino making un-based jumps in deduction is when actual scientists do it,
and base their work on it. Then others base their work on the previous
scientists work. Pretty soon the original flawed jump becomes so ingrained
in that "Science" that it has been accepted as infallible and
unquestionable... Hmmm, starts to sound familiar, eh? They are doing the
same thing you have a problem with, aren't they?
> Point is, there is no unified science. A questioning of the age of the
earth or if humans evolved or were created is not going to change our
understanding of physics and the engineering based on that. We may not even
know the true nature of physics, but we explain it the best we can. We
should never hold our understanding of it as infallible, that is petty and
vain. But that is what biologists are holding to. What would happen if they
found fossil evidence that countered every thing they hold dear? Would they
proudly display it and be called a heretic and a crank, become discredited?
Or would they hide it or destroy it, and try to establish their position in
the status quo? You think they would not be discredited? They are held to
peer review, and their peers reputations and ego's are built on their
acceptance of what that person would be challenging. They make fun of people
who follow the heard, but they have formed one of their own. And these
academic types are a prideful !
> bunch. Let me tell you.
> So, even if Dr Dino were the most meticulous and through person in the
world, people would still dismiss any real evidence he came up with as no
evidence. That's just the sad nature of people and their pride. I don't
think it was the church that persecuted Galileo, I think it was the status
quo, in the guise of the church. Just because the church was the point of
enforcement at the time, doesn't mean that some other group would not have
done the same. It all has to do with people and their traditions, and how
they don't want to change them.
>
> Shannon Spurling
> WAN Engineer -Specialist
>
> MOREnet, Network Services, Core Network
> 3212 LeMone Industrial Blvd.
> Columbia, MO 65201
>
> Main:(573) 884-7200   Fax:(573)884-6673
>
> EMAIL:PROTECTED
> EMAIL:PROTECTED
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: King, Jonathan W.
> Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 11:17 AM
> To: EMAIL:PROTECTED
> Subject: RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Fw: Apple computers run on satanism
> (fwd)
>
>
>
> On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Ross, Matt wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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).
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> > Interesting reading, even if you don't agree with it.
>
> No, it isn't interesting.  It is merely sad.  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.
>
> jking
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, go to http://mlug.missouri.edu/members/edit.php
>
> Archives are available at http://mlug.missouri.edu/list-archives/
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, go to http://mlug.missouri.edu/members/edit.php
>
> Archives are available at http://mlug.missouri.edu/list-archives/

--
To unsubscribe, go to http://mlug.missouri.edu/members/edit.php

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