From: Walter Hicks (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Sep 17 2003 - 21:20:42 EDT
Some people think that I am just a rabble rouser and. that is not true at
I think that you know better and that I only raise valid questions --
whether for me or for others that I know.
I have a very firm foundation (and credentials) in fundamental Physics and I
question many aspects of the "soft sciences" presented by the "ARM WAVERS"
in those areas who do not understand the basic limitations of Physical
laws-- but like to boast a lot.
I try to talk to them "offline" but the more arrogant ones are the least
likely to defend a position.
I give thanks for you , and the others on this list.
> Note that if one assumes Gosse's arguments, there is no need to appeal to
> "science" to support it. It is 100% in conformance with all scientific
> data, past, present and future.
And nothing can be done to refine it!!!
> There are several reasons it is not believable.
> 1. Instead of arguing "4004 B.C.E." the argument is equally accurate in
> arguing "last Thursday."
So what does that prove? The argument is for what the Bible supports. -- not
your (Burgy) made up time scale. The Bible speaks of something several
thousand years ago -- not last tuesday. (Let's stop this silly made up time
> 2. From the standpoint of philosophy, it is known as Russell's Paradox.
> How do you know you are not dreaming? How do you REALLY know you are not
> a "brain in a vat?" You don't. But you cannot live life with that
How do you know anything, Burgy. This is a totally specious outlook as they
come for an argument -- and it is no more than that (AN ARGUMENT) -- not
any reasonable proposition
> 3. Others argue that it makes God a liar. I don't buy this one, but most
> folks, including several on this list, do.
I do not accept that .It is a specious argument.. I am glad that you do
> 4. There is no program of scientific research that can be deduced from
> it. That is, whether it is true or not, future research programs are
That is true either way
> 5. It is, of course, unfalsifiable, which makes it a piece of philosophy,
> not science. There is no way to test it.
AHA -- BUT THERE IS A WAY TO FALSIFY IT - the one about which the majority
of Christians believe! . And that is what we scientists are supposed to in
our propositions. It is as follows:
If the universe was constructed for other than us (humans) then there should
be other forms of life in the universe.
Now Carl Sagan was one who bet on this and we are yet to find any sign of
life beyond ours of our on
(AFTER MANY GIGABUCKS BEEN SPENT!)
This is a prediction which can be falsified -- and so far it has not been
So far it has been falsified!
How about that?
The time has come to consider Sagan's idea to be falsified.
For those who believe in a universe with history -- built for us -- then a
falsifiable thing has been presented and confirmed in the sense of Popper
The opposite is true for the plain vanilla scientist on this list!
Does the "opposition" (ASA members) have anything better thing to offer?
> None of the above 5 reasons are "ridicule" in any way, only sobor
> Personally, I look forward to chatting with Gosse in the next life -- I
> think he thought (and wrote about) something new (in his time) and ought
> to be commended for that work.
> If you've never read his book, OMPHALOS, you have missed a great reading
> The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
> Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
> Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <firstname.lastname@example.org>
In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Sep 17 2003 - 21:20:02 EDT