Subject: Re: Hmmm - a robust arguement?
From: "Morituri-Max" <newage@sendarico.net>
Date: 17/10/2004, 01:04
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,alt.sci.seti,sci.astro.seti,sci.physics

Murf wrote:
Hello everybody,

Last week I was wandering the shops during my office lunch break when
I was harassed by a religeous zealot selling magazines and CDS.

Feeling argumentative I asked him whether he was (1) a creationalist
and (2) a "Young Universe" creationalist - i.e. one who believes that
dinosaurs etc didnt exist and that the universe is about 4,500 years
old...

When he replied that, yes, he didnt believe in evolution, dinosaurs
(and women's rights I assume) I suggested that he was a little
misguided.

In evidence I said "how come you can see all of the stars at night
then? After all, many of them are clearly more than 4,500 light years
away?"

He told me that "astronomy is a souless science - they lie to you".

Hmmph. He was obviously a twat, but is my line of arguemnt sound -
i.e. that you can see (or even detect) stars more than say 10,000
lightyears away a robust argument against a "young" view of
creation/existance?

They're like Kerry strategists.. case in point.. Bush is responsible for the Nigerians making the oil prices go up.  Bush never served in the military.  Bush will start the draft again..  Bush is responsible for the bad flu vaccines in Britain.  Oh yeah and the best one.. Bush should go out in the field personally to verify each and every piece of intelligence he gets from the CIA.

That's what you're dealing with.. better to just smile and move on.