From: "Paul S. Penrod" <furballs@netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 16:19:51 +0800
To: Stephen Humble <deeb@x.org>
Subject: Re: Missionaries (was: "Mormon Asshole?" re: GAK)
In-Reply-To: <9610081444.AA23161@hydra.cde.x.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9610082242.A15341-0100000@netcom>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




On Tue, 8 Oct 1996, Stephen Humble wrote:

> attila <attila@primenet.com> sez:
> > why would any rational individual espouse ANY cause he thought was
> > wrong!
> 
> 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.

As someone once said (I believe it was Samuel Clemens), "There are lies, 
damn lies, and statistics."

> Newtonian mechanics is "wrong".  Even an tiny velocity causes space-
> and time-dilation, even a vanishingly small mass distorts spacetime,
> and Heisenberg's principle applies to macroscopic objects too - it's
> just hard to detect these effects under the conditions we're used to.
> But you won't catch me using general relativity to calculate catapult
> ranges.
> 

Newtonian mechanics is not "wrong", just an obeservation of mechanical 
behavior at a macro level of abstraction. Newton built on Keppler's work, 
and Eienstein upon Newton's, each refining the other's observation 
towards the true nature of matter and it's behavior in this realm.

Eienstein was nothing more than a clever observer, and QED is workable 
bullshit based upon those operations. Ever wonder why we have fudge 
factors in our calculations? We don't why they work, they just do. This 
tells me we ain't home yet.

> Humans only have 2 kinds of colors receptors, so artists can mix
> colors and get seemingly new colors.  That doesn't mean that blue and
> yellow paint mixed together will reflect monochromatic green.  People
> who try to transfer images from one medium to another suddenly have to
> confront the more complicated reality.  Surely that doean't make my
> kindergarten art teacher irrational for telling me about color mixing.
> 
> Or maybe it does.  Excuse me, I need to find my crayons...
> 

MIxing too many metaphors. All is see is gray...:-)

...Paul