Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Not Having Fun

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on May 9, 2003 14:26:02 UTC


Until you define your terms, how in the heck are we even supposed to take any meaning from what you are talking about? You talk about 'prove', what kind of proof do you mean? Do you mean 'sufficient evidence from science kind of proof'? Certainly not, since your paper scoofs at that kind of proof. When you talk in terms of 'knowable data', are you talking about data that we know is true from our senses? Certainly not since you scoof at sense data as being knowable. When you talk about 'true', do you mean experimentalists have accurately predicted such values in observations according to the theoretical predictions of established scientific theories? The answer is obviously not since you scoof at such things being considered true.

This is nothing but failing to define what you mean, and confusion is the result. I'm not having fun at this point because you like basking in confusion and glorifying in your own ignorance. When will that symmetry in your head by broken? That's what I want to know.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2023 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins