<OT> <TID> Re: Noteworthy News Item

[Lee]

On Tuesday 25 June 2002 15:12, you wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jun 2002 13:18:10 -0400
>
> "Lee" <rathaus at gtcom.net> wrote:
> > Later, we had John Calvin, who preached "never mind what Christ said
> > about the rich not getting into paradise." The real truth is that God
> > already knows who will be saved and who will not. Therefore it is only
> > logical to believe that God pours his blessings on those predestined few
> > and the mark of God's favor was riches. A real double banger. No thought
> > required and God's blessings on riches swindled from the undestined.
>
> Now here's a slant I'm not quite sure I've heard before...  I know that
> the church screwed up the Irish when the Potato-famine hit and they were
> told that it was God's will for them to die... but I'm fairly certain John
> Calvin wasn't ever quoted as saying that.  If he was, I'd be interested in
> seeing it, since I'm quite sure (IIRC) that he said quite the opposite...
>
> > You're confusing John Knox with John Calven .
>
> Interesting opinion...  I agree that there is a lot of "work ethic" issues
> in the world, though I'm not sure they are tied to protestants more than
> other folk.  Creationism is a belief, as is Evolotion, The Big Bang, and
> any other myth about how and why we came to be.  Truth is (if you do your
> homework beyond those lying high-school textbooks which show the
> "evolutionary path" from a museum, failing to include the wall-caption
> which reads "Many of these skelletons are artists' creations and are not
> supported by the fossil record.") that there isn't much science supporting
> the "Scientific" explanation of the world.  I'd like to allow the
> inclusion of Carbon Dating to the discussion, but in reality, we only know
> what Carbon-14 has done in the last what, couple decades?  To say nothing
> of our complete lack of historical knowledge prior to 6000 years ago (too
> bad Adam and Eve didn't write down how Carbon-14 broke down back then...
> At least 6000 years is better than 15 or 20).  You will also find several
> books which disect the non-christian "Scientific" methods of coming up
> with outright lies which support whatever the popular evolutionary
> theory-of-the-month was.  These accounts are really quite fascinating.
> One of them details how a non-scientist Satanist (I'm not bashing him,
> this was the fact) was "lofted" into a highly respected "research"
> position... and happened to be the leader of the research which "proved"
> that homosexuality is inborn...  The really sick part was that his work
> was later debunked, but nobody wanted to hear it so the media didn't make
> a big deal about it.

Now you're playing on my ballfield. I happen to be a biologist with a six 
year college degree. A little beyond high school textbook stage. One of the 
reasons that high school text books do such a lousey job is because of 
watering down of evolutionary theory to be least objectionable to the Book 
Thumpers.

Evolution is not a weekly changing fad. The central core as explained by 
Charles Darwin and Henery Wallace, in 1854, is still intact. New discoveries 
simply add onto it and fill out more of the puzzle of existence. Evolution, 
unlike Creationism is a proper scientific theory in accordance with the 
Philosphy of Science and formulated by the Scientific Method. The Philiosphy 
of Science holds that the natural sciences are the observation and 
explanation of the process of the natural world i.e. the world as preceived 
by the five senses. The study of first causes (creators) is more properly in 
the fields of study of philiosphy and theology. So Creation fails the 
Philiosophy of Science test as it relys on supernatural (not of the natural 
world) creator. It also fails the test of the scientific method. A scientific 
theory to be accepted must follow the following process. First observation of 
an occuance i.e. different species that seem to be related. Two: formulation 
of a possible explanation based on observation - a hypothesis. The next step 
is where Creationis fails - testing of the hypothesis. Followed by evaluation 
of the hypothesis in regard to test data. Then either disgard the hypothesis 
or further testing. Formulation as a theory and publishing for peer review. 
If accepted by peer review, acceptance as a scientific theory with the 
understanding that it is only an incomplete explanation main difference 
between theory and Natural Law) which can be amended or discarded if later 
evidence shows it to be false. Creationism starts with I. The Book and 
everything in it is the revealed word of God. It is true and need not comply 
with the same rules that science applies to other theories. It must be 
accepted because I belive it. Therefore biology is a lie. Astronomy that 
claims that the universe is 15 billion years old is a lie. Physics that 
claims that universe is older than 6,000 yrs old is a lie. Geology that is 
based on a two to five billion year old Earth is a lie. All science is a lie 
only the Book of Thump is true. Shut down the schools and send the students 
to church to study Thumpology. Because I believe it. Also there are those who 
believe the Earth is flat teach that in geography. Some believe astrology 
teach that along with real science in astronomy and the Earth Centered solor 
system of the Book.. There are those who believe in white witchcraft teach 
that in physics class.

That 's where is the worship of the Book leads us into ignorance. For 300 
years the Book and its thumpers stifled science. Our graveyards are full of 
people who have died in agony from diseases like cancer, tb, smallpox and 
others because of the religion of the Literial Book. And now they have stem 
cell research to shoot at. It doesn't matter that a cure for cancer may be 
found, or damaged organs and nerves repaired. No, what matters is the belief 
that forcing the world to conform to my religious beliefs will ensure my 
eternal existance - to do what? Walk around in a bath robe and flip flops 
singing Gregorian Chant in Latin, waiting for a call to come to earth and 
show someone that his being born does matter, or maybe lay around in mansions 
served by servants who come from where? rich people who have been let in on 
some sort minority quota. ?

Lee
> >