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