Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Rationality Is The Question

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on October 11, 2002 21:49:51 UTC

***I can't believe you are still arguing this big-animal-on-the-ark arguement. I've shown you this one-hundred times.***

You are not arguing rationally. I'm thinking that it is probably a combination of being young, being home schooled, growing up in an environment with like-minded people, taught strict biblical literalism, etc. All I can say is that you perhaps are not capable of the kind of thought necessary to be able to understand the causes of your existence. It's unfortunate since you are intelligent enough, but other factors will prevent you. Don't worry, you'll still be able to get a good job, have a nice home, etc, but you will miss out on one of the delightful intellectual rewards to being interested in science - some of the answers to questions that have pondered our species for eons. Too bad, but look at this way, you see it as no great loss so in a sense what you don't know won't matter.

Would it help you if I made of list of species that should all be included on the Ark? I guess that's not too much work. If I estimated the m^3 size of each animal we could probably calculate the tremendous size of the total M^3 required to hold these creatures, but that's a lot of work. I think the list alone is so daunting that even with your loose conception of rationality you would see inescapable paradoxes to your beliefs.

***This is why creationists (I am making an assumption that all creationist fight evolution an do not contribute diddly-squat to the scientific community) could give a hoot about much of physics.***

You misunderstand my comment. I'm not saying that creationists ignore non-historical sciences, what I'm saying is that they could give a hoot about non-historical sciences in terms of their concerns about what scientists are publishing on the non-historical end. They have no problem in not questioning non-historical science. They simply do not apply the same foolish thought processes to all of science. They only become foolish when they see a contradiction to their beliefs. They simply refuse to allow the scientific method to be applied to historical processes since this obviously contradicts deeply held beliefs that are beyond being seriously questioned (e.g., the geology of the Flood, 6,000 year old universe, etc).

Harv

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2022 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins