From: "Paul S. Penrod" <furballs@netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 19:54:26 +0800
To: Alan Olsen <alano@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: [Noise] Re: Missionaries (was: "Mormon Asshole?" re: GAK)
In-Reply-To: <3.0b33.32.19961009000340.00bf73ac@mail.teleport.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9610090030.A10891-0100000@netcom>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




On Wed, 9 Oct 1996, Alan Olsen wrote:

> At 11:08 PM 10/8/96 -0700, Paul S. Penrod wrote:
> 
> >On Tue, 8 Oct 1996, Stephen Humble wrote:
> 
> >> Biblical creationism is "wrong": there's ample evidence that the Earth
> >> is *much* more than 6000 years old.  Yet lots of seemingly rational
> >> people believe biblical creationism.
> >> 
> >
> >The "evidence" is based upon the belief that such techniques as carbon 
> >dating and statistical radio active half life bearing rocks give an 
> >accurate measurement of time as we know it. Geologically speaking, we are 
> >just pissing in the fan to see which way it blows and calling it good. 
> >And, considering the number of text books and egos to be restrung if it 
> >was ever conclusively proven wrong would be devastating to say the least to 
> >the current crop of scientists.
> 
> I suggest you take your beliefs to talk.origins.  I am sure that there are
> a great number of people who will be willing to explain just *WHY*
> creationism is no longer accepted as a rational belief.  
> 
> The current line of thought in evolutionary science is not just a whim or
> "pissing in the wind", it is based on WHAT WORKS.  Creationists have spent
> alot of time making claims as to why the earth was created by God, but none
> of them has come up with the slightest shread of EVIDENCE as to it actually
> being done that way.  What passes for "Creation Science" is alot of
> nitpicking about evolutionary theory.  (As if somehow "disproving"
> evolution will somehow "prove" creationism.)  Most of the so-called
> "proofs" for Creationism are based on ignorance of what evolutionary theory
> actually consists of.
> 
> I suggest that you actually read the talk.origins FAQs.  They might teach
> you something about real science instead of that pretend science you have
> been getting at church.
> 
> As for what this whole thread has to do with crypto, i have no idea...
> ---

I suggest you RTFM again. It was a commentary on the sad state of 
scientific practice as germain to today's egomanical pirannah who inhabit 
the domain of the "scientist". To publish is to exist, and the first rule 
is "draw your curves, then plot your points." The second is "Thou shalt 
not critisize your mentor."

Save the anti-religion rhetoric for someone who gives a damn.

...Paul