From owner-biophysics@net.bio.net Wed Nov 25 22:00:00 1998 Path: biosci!news.stanford.edu!su-news-feed2.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail From: Hemidactylus@my-dejanews.com Newsgroups: bionet.biophysics,bionet.microbiology,bionet.neuroscience Subject: Re: Testability and crossposting Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 01:26:05 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 49 Message-ID: <73ian3$t1f$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <721spg$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> <73dapi$9ha@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.240.200.66 X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Nov 26 01:26:05 1998 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/3.0 WebTV/1.2 (compatible; MSIE 2.0) X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x14.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 209.240.200.66 Xref: biosci bionet.biophysics:4571 bionet.microbiology:15159 bionet.neuroscience:25999 In article <73dapi$9ha@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>, flefever@ix.netcom.com(F. Frank LeFever) wrote: > > > wrong newsgroup > I agree with Dr. LeFever here. I think that talk.origins would be the appropriate venue to continue this discussion. > > 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. > > > > > > > > At talk.origins you can discuss these issues til you're blue in the face. -- Scott Chase (note followups at anthym@webtv.net) -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own .