Re: serious

From: wallyshoes <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
Date: Thu Jan 08 2004 - 16:01:09 EST

In order to conserve postings, I'll respond to several.

"Howard J. Van Till" wrote:

>
> 1. Oops, your hostility is showing.

Yes! I am hostile towards people who say I must be fearful of you (You
were not the one who said it.)
,

>
>
> 2. I have no expectation or desire that you experience fear of
> anything that I write. Yes, as a general rule I do express myself very
> candidly, and I also believe that a number of beliefs and
> presuppositions that are commonly held in the Christian community need
> to be thoroughly re-examined. But neither of those practices should
> instill fear in anyone except those persons who are devoted to the
> perpetuation of unexamined traditions (and I presume that you have no
> wish to be counted as one of those).

Well, if you think that would make me fear you, then I may want to be
counted in what you think are "unexamined" traditions ----- for no
better reason that the fact that I know you are wrong about the
intelligence of those who disagree with your evaluations.

>
>
> 3. Am I, as you suggest, "completely naive with respect to any REAL
> science (i.e. physics)."? I suppose that's possible, but in light of
> both my training and my career, not very likely. Here's a brief bio
> that is often used to inform my audiences when I lecture.

3 things:

1.) I am impressed. I just would not have guessed that from your writing
in the "Evolving Creation" which is the only thing that I have read by
you. As Burgy says, that shows something wrong with me and not with you.

2.) I apologize!

3.) I am delighted because I know that you will slap me down when I say
something wrong about physical theories or principles.

Michael Roberts said:

> Walt, what do you mean by real science i.e physics? Do you deny the status
> of biology geology chemistry etc as real science?
>
> Can you explain what you mean so I can respond, please?
>
>
>

Hi Michael.

On this list, some hyperbole is not unusual and it serves to emphasize a
point.

Actually, that was kinder than what Lord Kelvin said. At least I did not
call it "stamp collecting".

What I actually wanted to convey was that Physics defines the universal
laws that God created. I include things like: gravity, quantum
mechanics, relativity, thermodynamics, etc. I would group fields that
derive from these (at least in principle) as more like engineering than
like the discovery of new physical laws. I got my Ph.D. degree in plasma
physics (fusion) and I consider that to more like engineering than true
physics. I don't mean to belittle the fields you mention above but I put
them in the same class as my dissertation work in plasma physics..

Don winterstein:

wrote a number of things that I cannot get from my netscape email. If
someone who got his email could forward it to me as a text file, I would
appreciate it.

Walt

===================================
Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>

In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
(Godel's Theorem)

You can only find the truth with logic
If you have already found the truth
without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
===================================
Received on Thu Jan 8 16:01:53 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jan 08 2004 - 16:01:54 EST