[Ham] Apparently you folks get your science education from Wikipedia. [Krimel] While I did not acquire my education there I frequently offer it up as a concise summary. In this instance it seemed a good start and I continue to recommend it. Particularly in light of the article you present. Nowhere in the article does it hint that the big bang was an explosion requiring fuel and heat and energy. While the problems your author speaks about are certainly the subject of debate, they are nothing to compared to the problems with your notion of divine essential absolute whatever.
[Platt] Someone suggested we should inform ourselves by reading the explanation of the Big Bang in Wikipedia. Pirsig's observation above apples in spades to what is written there. Of course, I'll get the usual personal attacks about "not haven't the faintest clue of what you are talking about" and accusations of "quasi- theological nonsense" from those afflicted with creationphobia. But with you, Mr. Pirsig and many others forming a "consensus" at my side, I fear no evil. :-) [Krimel] So you would summarize Pirsig as saying that because regular folks can not understand something it must be wrong? It is one thing to say you disagee and provide a reasoned disagreement. But if in your disagreement you show clear evidence of misunderstanding it is hard to take the disagreement seriously. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
