Hmmm - a robust arguement?

Hello everybody,

Last week I was wandering the shops during my office lunch break when
I was harassed by a religeous zealot selling magazines and CDS.

Feeling argumentative I asked him whether he was (1) a creationalist
and (2) a "Young Universe" creationalist - i.e. one who believes that
dinosaurs etc didnt exist and that the universe is about 4,500 years
old...

When he replied that, yes, he didnt believe in evolution, dinosaurs
(and women's rights I assume) I suggested that he was a little
misguided.

In evidence I said "how come you can see all of the stars at night
then? After all, many of them are clearly more than 4,500 light years
away?"

He told me that "astronomy is a souless science - they lie to you".

Hmmph. He was obviously a ****, but is my line of arguemnt sound -
i.e. that you can see (or even detect) stars more than say 10,000
lightyears away a robust argument against a "young" view of
creation/existance?

Cheers!

Rob
Sheffield

Who are you working for, Rob?!
You're on MY turf, hear?
Be warned.

Job? Office break?
Who are YOU kidding?
_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo"http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo/A

dleiffehs!
bor!

=7^

\+8=^0`

Serves you right.

_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo"http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo/A

In sci.physics Murf wrote:
Hello everybody,

Last week I was wandering the shops during my office lunch break when
I was harassed by a religeous zealot selling magazines and CDS.

Feeling argumentative I asked him whether he was (1) a creationalist
and (2) a "Young Universe" creationalist - i.e. one who believes that
dinosaurs etc didnt exist and that the universe is about 4,500 years
old...

When he replied that, yes, he didnt believe in evolution, dinosaurs
(and women's rights I assume) I suggested that he was a little
misguided.

In evidence I said "how come you can see all of the stars at night
then? After all, many of them are clearly more than 4,500 light years
away?"

He told me that "astronomy is a souless science - they lie to you".

Hmmph. He was obviously a ****, but is my line of arguemnt sound -
i.e. that you can see (or even detect) stars more than say 10,000
lightyears away a robust argument against a "young" view of
creation/existance?

Cheers!

Rob
Sheffield

If you posit an infinitely powerful god, he could blink the stars,
light, and dinosaur bones into existence at any time with any
characteristics he chooses.

So no, there is no possible argument other than such a being doesn't
exist or this god wouldn't do that, so you are back to belief.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

So no, there is no possible argument other than such a being doesn't
exist or this god wouldn't do that, so you are back to belief.

Okey dokey.
Whatever.

[Hey!]

~ waves ~
_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo"http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo/A

When ever you try to combin science and religion it never seems to work out.
But there are some ways in which I think you can believe in both. The Bible
was written for the most part by man, Save a few parts which are direct
words from God. Because of this man is not perfect so how can we create a
perfect book? we can't, but we tried.

How can the bible explain all the stars? it says God created the Heavens and
the Earth but lacks the meaning of each. Since the bible was written by man
we know that we would only have knowledge of this planet and not others.

In the end it creates alot of questions that are not easily answered. But to
get back on track, anyone that says the world is only 4500 years old is
false. Sumer was around 4000bce, meaning 6000 years ago. And we have dated
objects back to about 8000 and 9000 bce, meaning just as the last ice age
ended at about 12000bce.

Whats interesting is that in Sumer texts they talk of a great flood story
that destroyed all the lands and that one man was chosen to save animals and
his family. Sounds like another story I know of about a man called Noah. But
the sumer story was written around 2700bce, about 4700 years ago. Far to
early for the bible to have been written.

When you look at the bible then, I think they were taking these histories
and trying to put it into the views of God. After all if he was around now
he would have been around then?

Being a historian and haveing a strong faith is hard.

Allen Whittaker

"Murf" wrote in message
om...
Hello everybody,

Last week I was wandering the shops during my office lunch break when
I was harassed by a religeous zealot selling magazines and CDS.

Feeling argumentative I asked him whether he was (1) a creationalist
and (2) a "Young Universe" creationalist - i.e. one who believes that
dinosaurs etc didnt exist and that the universe is about 4,500 years
old...

When he replied that, yes, he didnt believe in evolution, dinosaurs
(and women's rights I assume) I suggested that he was a little
misguided.

In evidence I said "how come you can see all of the stars at night
then? After all, many of them are clearly more than 4,500 light years
away?"

He told me that "astronomy is a souless science - they lie to you".

Hmmph. He was obviously a ****, but is my line of arguemnt sound -
i.e. that you can see (or even detect) stars more than say 10,000
lightyears away a robust argument against a "young" view of
creation/existance?

Cheers!

Rob
Sheffield

In sci.physics Allen Whittaker wrote:
When ever you try to combin science and religion it never seems to work out.
But there are some ways in which I think you can believe in both. The Bible
was written for the most part by man, Save a few parts which are direct
words from God. Because of this man is not perfect so how can we create a
perfect book? we can't, but we tried.

How can the bible explain all the stars? it says God created the Heavens and
the Earth but lacks the meaning of each. Since the bible was written by man
we know that we would only have knowledge of this planet and not others.

In the end it creates alot of questions that are not easily answered. But to
get back on track, anyone that says the world is only 4500 years old is
false. Sumer was around 4000bce, meaning 6000 years ago. And we have dated
objects back to about 8000 and 9000 bce, meaning just as the last ice age
ended at about 12000bce.

Whats interesting is that in Sumer texts they talk of a great flood story
that destroyed all the lands and that one man was chosen to save animals and
his family. Sounds like another story I know of about a man called Noah. But
the sumer story was written around 2700bce, about 4700 years ago. Far to
early for the bible to have been written.

When you look at the bible then, I think they were taking these histories
and trying to put it into the views of God. After all if he was around now
he would have been around then?

Being a historian and haveing a strong faith is hard.

Allen Whittaker

Those that I know that understand science and believe in a religion
generally take the position that such stories are parables.

From that position, a god created the universe; the mechanism he used was
the big bang. Nothing to reconcile there.

Everything becomes intractable and orthogonal from the literal position,
i.e. that the world is only 4500 years old.

My favorite quote on the subject:

"In the beginning the Universe was created.

This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a
bad move."

Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"



--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

The Bible
was written for the most part by man, Save a few parts which are direct
words from God.

Which words?

how can we create a
perfect book?

Sort of like th vanishing point
On the horizon: Aim for it,
Never complete the journey ~
Some terribly good stuff meanwhile!

In the end it creates alot of questions that are not easily answered. But to
get back on track,

Relax ~
Drift, go with the flow....
The train of thought comes back
Around. Just catch that one...

After all if he was around now
he would have been around then?

Pardonez! It's a She.

Being a historian and having a strong faith is hard.

Understood.

_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo"http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo/A

I was harassed by a religeous zealot selling magazines and CDS.

Take the items and tell him you will pay him back in the afterlife.


Not nice.

_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo"http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo/A

"No one should pose themselves as learned who is not expert
in the science of Krsna Consciousness."

"Murf" wrote in message
om...
Hello everybody,

Last week I was wandering the shops during my office lunch break when
I was harassed by a religeous zealot selling magazines and CDS.

Feeling argumentative I asked him whether he was (1) a creationalist
and (2) a "Young Universe" creationalist - i.e. one who believes that
dinosaurs etc didnt exist and that the universe is about 4,500 years
old...

When he replied that, yes, he didnt believe in evolution, dinosaurs
(and women's rights I assume) I suggested that he was a little
misguided.

In evidence I said "how come you can see all of the stars at night
then? After all, many of them are clearly more than 4,500 light years
away?"

He told me that "astronomy is a souless science - they lie to you".

Hmmph. He was obviously a ****, but is my line of arguemnt sound -
i.e. that you can see (or even detect) stars more than say 10,000
lightyears away a robust argument against a "young" view of
creation/existance?

Cheers!

Rob
Sheffield