From owner-biophysics@net.bio.net Mon Nov 23 22:00:00 1998 Path: biosci!news.stanford.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!ix.netcom.com!news From: flefever@ix.netcom.com(F. Frank LeFever) Newsgroups: bionet.biophysics,bionet.microbiology,bionet.neuroscience Subject: Re: Testability and crossposting Date: 24 Nov 1998 03:56:34 GMT Organization: ICGNetcom Lines: 39 Message-ID: <73dapi$9ha@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com> References: <721spg$cr7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36449D67.378533CC@pop3.concentric.net> <36449FE2.313F8F3@pop3.concentric.net> <36477CA4.D2FED10@pop3.concentric.net> <3647B373.953F0A70@pop3.concentric.net> <3649B0AF.E720E242@psci.net> <364AAB63.C5056FB9@pop3.concentric.net> <364B5C6D.75E14B08@indiana.edu> <72s7c5$1mt@apple.telalink.net> <36532160.4995D522@indiana.edu> <73b09n$9r8$1@usc.edu> <3659B800.AD2F4594@indiana.edu> <73d56s$4dl$1@usc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: nyc-ny101-55.ix.netcom.com X-NETCOM-Date: Mon Nov 23 7:56:34 PM PST 1998 Xref: biosci bionet.biophysics:4568 bionet.microbiology:15128 bionet.neuroscience:25935 wrong newsgroup In <73d56s$4dl$1@usc.edu> "Dane Myers" writes: > >>Let me point out the flaw in your reasoning. > > >Ironically in attempting this, you have perfectly illustrated the flaw in >yours. While faith-healers and missionaries and the like may cling to the >"faith requires no proof" dogma to defend their doctrines from the >dissecting scrutiny of the scientific method, I would argue that they, nor >you, has any valid argument whatsoever in saying that the foundations of >religion can not some day be tested. And as you pointed out, my argument >might be idiotic, but yours is plainly blind. Idiots can be taught, but the >blind are utterly helpless (euphemistically, of course). > >> >>Darwin's original hypothesis was untestable in his time, but it is >>certainly testable (and has been tested) today. The difference >>between his hypothesis and the hypothesis of Creation of God's >>existence is that the latter CANNOT be tested for verification/ >>falsification. > > > .