From: LARRY KLAES (ljk4_at_msn.com)
Date: Wed Oct 05 2005 - 15:29:42 UTC
>From: "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury_at_aeiveos.com>
>To: LARRY KLAES <ljk4_at_msn.com>
>CC: bioastro_at_setileague.org
>Subject: Re: Creationists using SETI to support ID
>Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 08:10:48 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
>On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, LARRY KLAES wrote:
>
> > Which is doubly ironic, since I have talked to fundamentalists who KNOW
>that
> > we are the only intelligent life in the whole Universe.
>
>Of course this carries the same authority as my standing on
>a stage and dropping a ball while having stated beforehand
>that it will fall "up". Anyone can "KNOW" something the question
>is does it satisfy the laws of proof required by science. If
>not it is a simple fantasy.
>
>I believe Scotty said it best... "I can't change the laws of physics" [1].
>
>If one believes that life develops (as does the rest of the universe)
>as a result of the laws of physics than any such claims are silly.
>
>If one refuses to rely on the laws of physics then one can make up
>anything one wants to challenge people who are arguing "faith" based
>perpectives. Because my "faith" is equivalent to your "faith".
>If they argue the Bible as an authoritative document it is easy
>to take apart on the basis of when the bible was actually written,
>who wrote it, who selected what is contained in it, etc. Finally
>it is easy to argue that Christ was an "alien" who came to Earth
>to argue a philosophy that might help to preserve or advance the
>human race. I don't see significant barriers to attributing all
>"miracles", if they actually happened, including the resurrection,
>to a use of advanced alien nanotechnology.
>
>Its a simple process. Ask "Do you believe that it is possible
>to 'rise from the dead'?" Then ask "Do you understand nanotechnology
>and information science sufficiently to recognize that this is a
>feasible physical process that we ourselves (with sufficient technology)
>could engineer?"
>
>The arguments go on from there but they end up with the recognition
>that there is no valid reason to assert that Christ was the
>"son of god" (unless one is operating entirely on "faith" and
>then one is a questionably rational individual).
>
>Robert
>
>1. http://tvsothertenpercent.tripod.com/startrek/scotty.html
> http://tvsothertenpercent.tripod.com/sounds/chanphys.wav
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Wed Oct 05 2005 - 15:36:34 UTC