Posted by WW [WW] on April 09, 1999 at 16:28:48 {qzNMJDwJ.2OfSZqlzZ0Um1EPSMpKF.}:
In Reply to: Collected posts for WW posted by Al; on April 09, 1999 at 08:47:30:
Hi Al,
Which book did you read?
>My point is that you must concede the validity of science.
Sure it is valid, it also gravitates toward mediocrity and it seems as if few braves souls challenge established thought, despite evidence that the thought may be in doubt. This whole thing of 'reputation' that Jan and AF keep saying.
> no one could live at that altitude, and a mediocre little encyclopedia refutes
them? ??????
My point was not that they could not live
at that altitude. It was that hoisting 100-200 ton blocks into place would be accomplished much easier at lower heights than 12,500 feet.
Why build a city on a plain that has bitter water, plus the huge problems with growing food to
feed the populace? How did the residents get washed into gullies and ravines then covered with silt?
Where did the salt domes come from?
This city was a graveyard BEFORE any Inca or Mayan culture existed. Who built it? Science can
not answer.
>There are other people here who believe in various aspects of what seems to be your faith. They do not seem to need to
debunk mainstream science to have their faith. You really don't need to either, and that's really
convenient since you can�t, and
of course, neither can we.
Why is it 'debunking science' to give people something different to consider? I am just not any more trustful of science than any other profession. You, however, seem to take it as dogma at times.
>Whatever is behind the myths, especially the Sumerian ones to which you refer, we can hardly base precise moral decisions and
other major life policies on such rumored approximations. Aren�t you even slightly
suspicious of people who push inerrancy and
"setting things straight" with a reference with such a background?????
You are reading way too much into this. I base absolutely nothing regarding morals on anyone's religion or lack of it. I also don't believe the Bible or any other work is inerrant. I take this much less literally than I used to.
> How can we come at science, looking for every chink in the armor, then blow off the
absolutely ridiculous and astronomical
controversies, contradictions, and conflicts that are associate with religion and The
Bible??????
You have ones here who promote their views as absolute and irrefutable. They are wrong and the 'chinks in their armor' will be exposed. I consider it laughable for someone who has done some homemade research to critique a physicist who promotes a view that they don't agree with(for example).
>Then we need to figure all the areas
that have never had a flood. Isn't it
amazing how we explain away these and all the things that
should have been destroyed by such a flood and were not?????
How do you know this? Because they say so is not enough for me. 10,000 years is a long time for us, is it not?
Scientists in ancient times thought they had all things figured out then.
Just because we have not observed great catastrophies does not make catastrophism unscientific. This very thing could explain many unusual myths from may
DIFFERENT and distanced cultures.
No one really provided me with answers to most of my points. Oh, except to 'blow them off'.
WW