In the News: Class Questioned (Letter to the Editor)
Elf M. Sternberg
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, April 20, 2007
Furthermore, the writer's assertion that Creation Science is not a
serious scientific alternative to the theory of evolution is again
faulty. Creation Science is an independent theory of its own that can
compete favorably with evolution and even help explain its
gaps. Creation Science has much to offer to science and
scientists. Actually, many of the things evolution claims it knows and
discovers are found to be faulty and baseless. The recent Newsweek of
March 19, 2007 The Evolution Revolution writes,
"If you had asked paleoanthropologists a generation ago what lice
(human hair lice) DNA might reveal about how we became human, they
would have laughed you out of the room. But research into our origins
and evolution has come a long way. Starting with the first discovery
of a fossil suggesting that a different sort of human once lived on
this planet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at:
http://www.mccookgazette.com/story/1199865.html
Elf M. Sternberg
Free Lunch
"Elf M. Sternberg" <e...@drizzle.com> wrote in
<874pn97...@drizzle.com>:
Father Lawrence Ejiofo of St. Patrick Catholic Church, McCook should
know better and stop misrepresenting both science and his own religion.
--
"Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel
to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy
Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should
take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in
which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh
it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis
MitchAlsup
> From the article:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Friday, April 20, 2007
>
> Furthermore, the writer's assertion that Creation Science is not a
> serious scientific alternative to the theory of evolution is again
> faulty.
Ok, I'll play along. What is Creation Science? What theories has it
posited? What eveidence has it supplied? ANd what conclusions has it
made that stand the test of time?
> Creation Science is an independent theory of its own that can
> compete favorably with evolution and even help explain its
> gaps.
Right now, at best, creation science is mearly a conjecture. To
advance form a conjecture to an hypothesis, evidence must be presented
that agrees with the hypothesis. To advance to a science the evidence
and the underlying theory have to explain something that the other
competing theories cannot.
> Creation Science has much to offer to science and
> scientists.
Creation Science is the abdication of science, not an advancement
thereof.
loua...@yahoo.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Friday, April 20, 2007
>
> Furthermore, the writer's assertion that Creation Science is not a
> serious scientific alternative to the theory of evolution is again
> faulty. Creation Science is an independent theory of its own that can
> compete favorably with evolution and even help explain its
> gaps.
>
Wasn't "creation science," like, three ICR scams ago?
Pete G.
news:1177176959.012419.79380@
>
> Ok, I'll play along. What is Creation Science?
Creation Science is a way of generating a nice, warm, fuzzy feeling.
> What theories has it
> posited?
What do you mean, 'theories'? Creation Science is a way of generating a
nice, warm, fuzzy feeling. Doesn't that prove anything?
> What eveidence has it supplied?
Why do you need 'evidence'? Creation Science is a way of generating a nice,
warm, fuzzy feeling. Isn't that enough?
> ANd what conclusions has it
> made that stand the test of time?
You mean, you want it to do something in addition to generating a nice,
warm, fuzzy feeling? You are a very unreasonable fellow.
.
>
> Creation Science is the abdication of science, not an advancement
> thereof.
Yes, but in saying that you're ignoring the fact that it's a way of
generating a nice, warm, fuzzy feeling....
P.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> Friday, April 20, 2007
>
> Furthermore, the writer's assertion that Creation Science is not a
> serious scientific alternative to the theory of evolution is again
> faulty. Creation Science is an independent theory of its own that can
> compete favorably with evolution and even help explain its
> gaps. Creation Science has much to offer to science and
> scientists.
Just ask all those Federal Judges.
(snicker) (giggle)
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Author:
"Deception by Design: The Intelligent Design Movement in America"
http://www.redandblackpublishers.com/deceptionbydesign.html
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
Desertphile
<lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 10:06 am, "Elf M. Sternberg" <e...@drizzle.com> wrote:
> > From the article:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Friday, April 20, 2007
> >
> > Furthermore, the writer's assertion that Creation Science is not a
> > serious scientific alternative to the theory of evolution is again
> > faulty. Creation Science is an independent theory of its own that can
> > compete favorably with evolution
Funny, but I for one cannot imagine how any theory can compete
with a phenomena of nature.
> > and even help explain its gaps.
Evolution has "gaps?" Golly, I cannot imagine how a phenomena of
nature can have "gaps." I guess my imagination is not as good as
the author's.
> > Creation Science has much to offer to science and
> > scientists.
Which scientists somehow have failed to notice.
> Just ask all those Federal Judges.
I wonder how a liberal judge (do they even exist?) would have
ruled on the subject.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"I've hired myself out as a tourist attraction." -- Spike
Cemtech
Mitch...@aol.com says...
> On Apr 21, 10:06 am, "Elf M. Sternberg" <e...@drizzle.com> wrote:
> > From the article:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Friday, April 20, 2007
> >
> > Furthermore, the writer's assertion that Creation Science is not a
> > serious scientific alternative to the theory of evolution is again
> > faulty.
>
> Ok, I'll play along. What is Creation Science?
It's the study of making up things.
> What theories has it posited?
It's posited here and there.
> What eveidence has it supplied?
You have to have a Purchase Order first.
Other than that, it's supplied lots of methane.
> ANd what conclusions has it
> made that stand the test of time?
Oh look at that interesting thing in the sky there.
/em runs away.
--
Steve "Chris" Price
Associate Professor of Computational Aesthetics
Amish Chair of Electrical Engineering
University of Ediacara "A fine tradition since 530,000,000 BC"