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 : Matt Osborn
Date : Thu Sep 29 2005 18:01:07

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

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 14:45:32 -0400, Michael Coslo
<mjc5@enoughalready.psu.edu> wrote:

>
>
>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 -

I'm afraid you're still working with assumptions.  You believe your
assumptions of gravity are accurate, but for all we know they may be
entirely incorrect.




-- msosborn at msosborn dot com

.