AW: [meteorite-list] Fwd: More on the creationists at theMeteoriteFestival
From: Martin Altmann <altmann_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon Jul 10 07:54:11 2006 Message-ID: <015801c6a417$8b6f7b60$4f41fea9_at_name86d88d87e2> Hi Rob, And Einstein said smth about relativity... There exist a quote, in various versions, of Einstein: "Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute." Religion is a matter of faith and not of science, unfortunately science itself often enough too... So leave the creationists alone, you can't convince them and honestly, the question whether the Earth has an age of 6000 or 4.6billion years has no effects of our day-by-day-life, nor wether someone is a good or bad boy. I see the problem in another way, fanatics exist on both sides, if they could learn a little bit more tolerance, things would be easier... If I would be condemned to watch the Italian soccer team play for 6000 years, it would be like 4.6 billion years for me, if I would have to watch the German team playing for 4.6billion years, it would seem to me to be 6000 years. So there the meteoricists can meet with the creationists. If they are buying their Brenhams and believe that they are only a few years old, I guess then Mr.Stimpson or the real Steve Arnold, wouldn't try to convince them, that they are older than their Earth, hehe. Buckleboo! Martin -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: meteorite-list-bounces_at_meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces_at_meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von Rob McCafferty Gesendet: Montag, 10. Juli 2006 12:44 An: meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com Betreff: RE: [meteorite-list] Fwd: More on the creationists at theMeteoriteFestival There are more than one "branch"-or-whatever-it's-called- of creationist. Some acknowledge that the time period for creation is not literally 7 days accept evolution and say that the only important thing is that it was all begun by God. There are some who hold a far more fundamental view which says that everything in the bible must be taken literally. This is difficult to have sympathy with for anyone who's familiar with the concept of "chinese whispers". Even if God Himself were to give a full and frank account of creation at the dawn of humanity -which i doubt- it'd inevitably change over the millenia as it is writte, re-written, told, retold and translated. I suppose it is just possible that everything was created 4000 years ago or something and all the evidence to the contrary is a fabrication created by God to test our faith. (Now that's what I call clutching at straws) Surely a God who created a universe 13.7bn ya with such intricacy, subtlty and let it run its course to the present while we struggle to undertand it...well that's not only more likely, but cleverer more beautiful and simple. (The word simple is not meant to be taken literally). Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Einstein, was a firm believer is creation, that physics is an attempt to see how God put everything together. Must be careful. This is a sensitive subject for people on both sides of the argument. I hope I didn't offend anyone as it was not my intention. Just my thoughts on the matter. Rob McCafferty --- MARK BOSTICK <thebigcollector_at_msn.com> wrote: > Hello All, > > The Creation Research Society.....is different, or > least was at the > festival. > > I did not look into them to know exactly where they > stand on everything. It > was obvious their thoughts on the origin of man, but > age....such as the > writer is talking about....it was less clear. > > It does not appear the writer looked into exactly > where they stand either, > as their displays acknowledged evolution. There was > models of several of > different periods of human skulls. I thought I > would see the ages on them > spaced neatly into a 5,000 year period...or the > like, but interestingly, the > oldest they had dated was 1.9 million years old. I > did not look at them > close enough to see if that was what they thought as > the earliest man or > not. (Such was not my goal at the festival). > > It appeared to me, they had their own definition of > creationism. Or it was > one I had never seen before. To bad the writer > didn't contact the source he > has wrote so much about on his website. Would have > liked to have seen > exactly where the Creation Research Society lies. I > will note I do agree > with most of the writers blogging. > > Clear Skies, > Mark Bostick > Kansas Meteorite Society > > > ______________________________________________ > Meteorite-list mailing list > Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ______________________________________________ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list Received on Mon 10 Jul 2006 07:54:00 AM PDT |
StumbleUpon del.icio.us Yahoo MyWeb |