From: Lucien Carroll (ucarrl01@umail.ucsb.edu)
Date: Fri Dec 20 2002 - 03:16:51 EST
I think the problem here is different understanding of what the word
science means. I tend to look at a science as something one _does_, as
it appears Michael does. But the word is also used to mean knowledge of
the natural world, and sometimes merely potentially apprehensible
knowledge as it appears you, Rich, mean. The two of you are talking
about entirely different things, both called science.
RFaussette@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 12/19/02 1:16:46 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk writes:
>
>> Science continually changes. I have nothing more to say. I am afraid to say
>> that to look for science in the bible is the height of folly and reduces
>> the Bible to drosnin's code.
>
> no - science does not change - your apprehension changes - maybe there's
> something new out there you have not previously apprehended. I have nothing
> more to say.
> rich
>
-- Lucien S Carroll ucarrl01@umail.ucsb.edu "All mankind is stupid, devoid of knowledge." -Jeremiah 51:17a
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Dec 20 2002 - 10:54:26 EST