Re: Re: Coconino - Evidence for a flood?
John Neal (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Wed, 18 Mar 1998 23:51:42 -0500
Well, for one, your reading of this post is indicative of the so-called
"science" that is taught and promulgated, i.e., an incorrect reading. It's
like the wide receiver who turns to run up-field before he catches the
ball - he's already got a pre-conceived notion as to what he wants to do,
and it is so strong that he lets his actions reflect his thoughts before his
thoughts are verified by the actual circumstances. It's just the exact same
with what people usually refer to as "science." Which, by the way, is
falsely so called. And as far as evidence, well, just look at how
influential Bertrand Russel, Isaac Asimov, Thomas Huxley, Carl Sagan,
Charles Darwin, etc... have been. Do you see an anti-God predisposition in
their teachings? Definitely, yes you do. So, if the leaders of the misty
paradigm of "science" are given over to this anti-God and certainly
anti-Christ foolishness, what more proof do you need of their disciples'
From: RDehaan237@aol.com <RDehaan237@aol.com>
To: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>;
email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>; email@example.com
<firstname.lastname@example.org>; email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Saturday, February 21, 1998 7:13 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Coconino - Evidence for a flood?
><<At 01:27 AM 2/20/98 -0500, Joe Neal wrote:
>>"I get suspicious when I see someone trying to make a radical
>>something in science in such a way that it would apparently support their
>>Why? Most of "science" is interpreted through an anti-God predisposition
>>place. You call that objective?
>If you have some factual basis for your vague "suspicions" let's hear it.
>Otherwise voicing some unspecified suspicion as you did only serves to cast
>pall of suspicion over all committed Christians who are working in science.
>That's grossly unfair. As far as I know there is no Biblical or
>principle that condones what you have done.