Re: Hmmm - a robust arguement?
From: Pierre (fake_at_fake.com)
Date: 10/17/04
- Next message: Double-A: "Re: Hmmm - a robust arguement?"
- Previous message: Michael Davis: "Re: WORST CASE SCENARIO"
- In reply to: Morituri-Max: "Re: Hmmm - a robust arguement?"
- Next in thread: Morituri-Max: "Re: Hmmm - a robust arguement?"
- Reply: Morituri-Max: "Re: Hmmm - a robust arguement?"
- Reply: Victor: "Kerry 1 NASA 0 was Re: Hmmm - a robust arguement?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 20:40:56 -0400
Don't forget Bush wants the end of Hubble and want s to deicde what's
good in science...
Morituri-Max a écrit:
> Murf wrote:
>
>> Hello everybody,
>>
>> Last week I was wandering the shops during my office lunch break when
>> I was harassed by a religeous zealot selling magazines and CDS.
>>
>> Feeling argumentative I asked him whether he was (1) a creationalist
>> and (2) a "Young Universe" creationalist - i.e. one who believes that
>> dinosaurs etc didnt exist and that the universe is about 4,500 years
>> old...
>>
>> When he replied that, yes, he didnt believe in evolution, dinosaurs
>> (and women's rights I assume) I suggested that he was a little
>> misguided.
>>
>> In evidence I said "how come you can see all of the stars at night
>> then? After all, many of them are clearly more than 4,500 light years
>> away?"
>>
>> He told me that "astronomy is a souless science - they lie to you".
>>
>> Hmmph. He was obviously a twat, but is my line of arguemnt sound -
>> i.e. that you can see (or even detect) stars more than say 10,000
>> lightyears away a robust argument against a "young" view of
>> creation/existance?
>
>
> They're like Kerry strategists.. case in point.. Bush is responsible for
> the Nigerians making the oil prices go up. Bush never served in the
> military. Bush will start the draft again.. Bush is responsible for
> the bad flu vaccines in Britain. Oh yeah and the best one.. Bush should
> go out in the field personally to verify each and every piece of
> intelligence he gets from the CIA.
>
> That's what you're dealing with.. better to just smile and move on.
>
- Next message: Double-A: "Re: Hmmm - a robust arguement?"
- Previous message: Michael Davis: "Re: WORST CASE SCENARIO"
- In reply to: Morituri-Max: "Re: Hmmm - a robust arguement?"
- Next in thread: Morituri-Max: "Re: Hmmm - a robust arguement?"
- Reply: Morituri-Max: "Re: Hmmm - a robust arguement?"
- Reply: Victor: "Kerry 1 NASA 0 was Re: Hmmm - a robust arguement?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|