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.