Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rti-sel.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!rti-sel!rcb
From: rcb@rti-sel.UUCP (Randy Buckland)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Sargent's lack of scientific knowledge
Message-ID: <29@rti-sel.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 3-Dec-84 10:21:29 EST
Article-I.D.: rti-sel.29
Posted: Mon Dec  3 10:21:29 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 5-Dec-84 00:16:50 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: Research Triangle Institute, RTP, NC
Lines: 25

> 
> The last sentence is the real key.  Your standard of proof is limited, being
> relative *only* to the physically perceptible world.  When we start talking
> about God, things don't always work according to humanity's standards of
> proof or logic.  (Both Testaments are full of examples.)
> 

	YOUR last sentence is the real key.  If you open up the "standards
of proof" to things that cannot be perceived physically, any form of
metaphhyical garbage can be "proved". This is not the scientific method.
The limiting of methods of proof to the physically perceivable and 
reproducable events is what has advanced science from the superstitious
dark ages. Your arguments threaten to bring back superstition, witch hunts
and church domination of all aspects of life. I personally plan to
resist a move in this direction with all the resources at my disposal.

					Randy Buckland
					...!mcnc!rti-sel!rcb
					Research Triangle Institute

p.s. I also have never seen any proof that the events related in 
the old and new testaments ever occured so any arguments that are
based on the events in the bible will not be scientifically valid.