Glassberg's books

Tue Oct 22 13:02:54 EDT 2002

Ron,
My comments really were not intended to harass you or to get you off the
list. I had a strong opinion and I expressed it, although it may be I
could have worded it better. Note also that I had not publicly stated my
reason for having left leps-talk (what is it, a year now?) because your
list was just starting and I did not want to hurt your efforts. However,
things have evolved (not in a creationist sense (-: ) to a different
situation now and so I felt it necessary to stand up a little for
leps-l. 

I always find your posts very good and enjoy reading them. I hope you
will not leave the list on my account. With respect to your ideas on
creationism, whenever anyone mentions creationism it usually is in a
religious context. I, like you and others, at times muse speculatively
about the possibility that life may have been brought here by other
alien creatures. However, it probably would have had to been more along
the lines of contamination, such as viral or bacterial, considering the
nearly universal DNA basis of life on earth. However, these are musings,
as I say, and I would never take these serious enough to enter into a
debate about them. 

I also feel some people may be living in a fantasy world if they take
star trek stuff so seriously. I myself question whether creatures far
far far advanced over us, as some people would like to think (I
sometimes wonder if the seeds for such thoughts originate from a
comforting idea that there is someone-something out there that will save
us from our foolishness), can exist in our universe. It takes time for
natural evolution. However, before that can happen, the universe has to
have reached the stage of being able to form planets on which life could
originate and evolve. For example, Our sun is not made from the
primordial elements of the universe. It was formed from some heavy
elements from other nova and supernova explosions. This 'star stuff' is
also what makes up our planets and us. When you consider everything (and
I am far from knowledgeable on this), I think it likely that other life
forms, if they exist, are not much further developed than we are - in a
'natural' evolutionary sense.

Anyway, I hope you do not leave the list. 

Stan

Ron Gatrelle wrote:
> 
> ----- 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 