Glassberg's books

[Ron Gatrelle]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stanley A. Gorodenski" <stanlep at extremezone.com>
Cc: <LEPS-L at lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 8:06 PM
Subject: Re: Glassberg's books


> It is unfortunate that creationism is an integrated part of leps-talk.
> Early on I had joined the list, but the list owner, you Ron, started
> interjecting your own religion of creationism. For that reason I
> unsubscribed. I had hoped the introduction of creationism was an early
> aberration that had disappeared, and so I was considering
> re-subscribing. My hope did not bear fruit. Because of principle I
> cannot associate myself with something that is the antithesis of my view
> of the world and universe.
>
> It may be that leps-l will wither away, but for me it represents science
> and the joy of a hobby that is not tainted with religious views, and for
> that reason I will continue to subscribe to it. I hope other individuals
> of like mind will do so also.
>
> Stan

This of course is your prerogative.  It is always mysterious to me though
that some "evolutionists" get so worked up over something they don't even
think exists.  Most just laugh it off - especially since it comes up so
seldom here - and if left alone will just as quickly go away.   (I would
not even be writing this post if you had not brought it up or at the
least - kept the thread alive.  You have now brought me and this subject
over here. Did you really expect me to let this slide?  Am I supposed to be
any less pashionate about my convictions?    If you had sent this to me
privately I would have let it pass and respect your right to believe and do
whatever you want.  But since you want to talk at me in front of the
stands, so be it.)

Unlike some evolutionists, creationists on these list serves (and there are
plenty of them) seem to be far more able to take stuff in stride.  We get
hit with that which is "the antithesis of my [our] view of the world and
universe" every week on these lists.  Further, we not only have subject
matter presented that we do not entirely agree with - but if we do post a
contrary theory, we end up sooner of later having to endure personal
ridicule often times.

The theory of creation has nothing to do with religion.   Religions are
faith systems of communion between humans and the spirit realm.  Creation
is an intellectual position on origins.  The evidence of Creation as a
plausible reality is an ever increasing likelihood based on our increasing
scientific knowledge of molecular intricacies, mathematic probabilities,
and other hard science.  I have never injected my personal religious views
into this issue here.  I even go against my own "beliefs" by referring to
the potential Creator as he/she/them/it - even mere extraterrestrials who
are far advanced from where we are today.

Virtually every evolutionists I know "believes" in other highly advanced
cognisenct beings elsewhere in this universe who are far superior to
ourselves.  Many believe in parallel universes and many far out things.
They point to "Star Treck" technology are acheivable.  Yet, at the same
time are vehement that there is no "God" or "Angelic" beings - intellegent
entities so old and so technologically  advanced that a "Matrix" or
"Holodeck" has actually been made and we are in it.  This is just jabber
and philosophy at this point.

I had another paragraph but I deleted it -  I got preachy.  I shall once
again leave list serve as it and I do not mix.  Thank you, thank you. I
hear that applause :-)

Cheers
Ron Gatrelle






 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl