Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site philabs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!philabs!jah From: jah@philabs.UUCP (Julie Harazduk) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: Re: Re: Is General Goodness just a moral principle? Is paleontology? Message-ID: <428@philabs.UUCP> Date: Fri, 23-Aug-85 11:11:23 EDT Article-I.D.: philabs.428 Posted: Fri Aug 23 11:11:23 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 25-Aug-85 01:25:49 EDT References: <852@umcp-cs.UUCP> <360@utastro.UUCP> Organization: Philips Labs, Briarcliff Manor, NY Lines: 32 > > I just love the way you explain cosmology, "The study of a self-perpetuating, > > self-induced Universe, especially without a God because we know there isn't > > any such thing." That's not even wishful thinking, it's more like curve > > fitting. Let's see if we can get the results to match our predetermined con- > > clusions. Let's find some way to explain it all away with science. Isn't > > it the same thing? > > What's the "it" that's being "explained away"? Has the "it" been shown > demonstrably, or is it just believed by some people because it makes > them more comfortable? That is the question at hand. You can only make > attempts to "explain away" things that have been proven. There is no need > to "explain away" that which has not been. Curve fitting, Julie? The curve > already fits pretty well. It's you who seems to be plotting points at random. The "it" is the Universe and its creation! That's what the "it" is. This state- ment was a Julie Harazduk paraphrase of the Rich Rosen version of creation (calling it that for lack of a better word--not to imply any theories discussed in net.origin). There has not been a theory that you have suggested that has been proven. By the way, science is empirical study of things. Mathematics models science and the rest is all conjecture. We build a story based on what is available and what we think makes sense. It's not a bad idea and the story may turn out to be right, but stop acting like these things are proven beyond any doubt because another story may come about with the next newest discovery. Also, by saying "explain it all away with science", I refer to the science that you profess (archaeology, cosmology, ....) the science you talk about is not science at all but educated guessing. When taking an educated guess, the quesser can be wrong, even though he is less likely to be. (throw in paleontology...why not? It's also just conjecture.) Julie A. Harazduk