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!linus!philabs!jah
From: jah@philabs.UUCP (Julie Harazduk)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Is General Goodness just a moral principle? Is paleontology?
Message-ID: <414@philabs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 14-Aug-85 14:00:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: philabs.414
Posted: Wed Aug 14 14:00:00 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 18-Aug-85 20:53:54 EDT
References: <852@umcp-cs.UUCP> <360@utastro.UUCP>
Organization: Philips Labs, Briarcliff Manor, NY
Lines: 31

>>>It is also supported by archaeology, paleontology, cosmology, ...  Not an
>>>assumption, no, it is the converse (that it DID [yes, it DID, DID, DID and
>>>DID!] ), that a creator deliberately caused it to exist, that is the
>>>assumption. [RR]
>  
>> Archeology winds up supporting Biblical accounts.  Cosmology doesn't pose
>> too many definite answers as to the origins of things (from nothing...BANG...
>> dream on!!!!)  [HARAZDUK]
  
> You left out paleontology.  Of course.  Archaelogy merely shows that the
> civilizations described in the Bible existed around the times and places
> described therein.  Archaeology certainly offers no support to the notions
> of divine acts also described therein.  And as for cosmology, well, this
> just sounds like "Ah, you don't know the ultimate truth, therefor MY wishful
> speculations MUST be right".

Paleontology just collects evidence also.  The evidence for an old earth looks
pretty good, but is not conclusive (and probably never will be).  I won't
argue any old earth theory, because I'd have to show Carbon 14 dating to be
inaccurate and I can't do that.  Besides, I'm expecting Carbon 14 dating to
be crucial to the Shroud of Turin investigation.  Besides, this discussion
should be in net.origins.

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?

Julie A. Harazduk (just trying to split this discussion into arguable parts)