Subj : Re: "Hams to the Rescue After Katrina" MSNBC News Article
To   : alt.ham-radio.vhf-uhf,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.dx,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.policy
From : Michael Coslo
Date : Thu Sep 29 2005 15:45:32

From Newsgroup: alt.ham-radio.vhf-uhf



Zoran Brlecic wrote:

> Matt Osborn wrote:
> 
>> You're walking on an assumption that is called gravity.  Just like
>> G-d, plenty of evidence but no proof.
> 
> 
> What pisses me off about your posts is this almost deliberate attempt to 
> obfuscate by equivocating, word playing and substituting terms which are 
> incompatible. You keep doing it in almost every post and it gets tired 
> fast.
> Like, for instance, in the example above: "plenty of evidence but no 
> proof" is meaningless drivel. Of all the scientific disciplines, only 
> mathematics deals with proof. Others, physics included, deal with 
> evidence which is derived from a direct or indirect observation of 
> certain phenomena and is the basis for a theory, such as the 
> gravitational theory, for example.
> Therefore, to say that there is "no proof" for gravity is gibberish, 
> even in the solipsist sense.


	Actually, something that we call gravity undeniably exists. While our 
understanding of it is incomplete, there is no doubt that it exists. It 
is there, we see what happens if we drop someting in an area where 
"gravity" is strong, and in areas where it is virtually nonexistant.

	The "proof" if you will, is in the explanation and understanding of 
what we call gravity, not it's existance.

	Now God on the other hand, gives no real evidence at all for existence. 
Miracles are manifestations of chance, and many things that were once 
attributed to divine intervention have found ready explanations after we 
learn more about the universe.

	So the statement was incorrect in the first place.

	- Mike KB3EIA -

.