From owner-biophys@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk Sun Apr 29 17:58:01 2001 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC28817A75 for ; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 17:57:59 +0100 (BST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA00717AD1 for ; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 17:57:57 +0100 (BST) Received: from niobium.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (niobium [193.62.192.41]) by mercury.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 833B917ACD for ; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 17:57:54 +0100 (BST) Received: (from news@localhost) by niobium.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.8.8) id RAA11118 for biophys-list@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 17:57:54 +0100 (BST) X-Authentication-Warning: niobium.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk: news set sender to using -f From: Mr J R N Austin X-Newsgroups: alt.agnosticism,alt.astronomy,alt.atheism,alt.athiesm,alt.sci.natural.phenomena.unusual,alt.sci.physics,alt.talk.creationism,bionet.biophysics,harvard.course.physics11a.q-a,sci.bio.paleontology,sci.geo.geology,sci.physics,talk.atheism Subject: Re: The "Science" of John Boatwright Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 17:57:13 +0100 Organization: University of Warwick, UK Lines: 57 Message-ID: References: <3ae7e476_2@news01.one.net.au> <3AE81A39.DCB403E7@mediaone.net> <3AE84A63.91AF7B61@ozone.ch> <3AE879D7.DE3494E1@mediaone.net> <3ae8b06a.109420557@nntp.we.mediaone.net> <3AE8B9E2.A73DB51B@mediaone.net> <1127_988344536@GANDALF> <3AE9B280.8406B3B2@mediaone.net> <3AEADE18.6CDCEC04@mediaone.net> <3aeafab8.259537105@nntp.we.mediaone.net> <3AEB1B0F.5D8C32D3@mediaone.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Complaints-To: news@csv.warwick.ac.uk In-Reply-To: <3AEB1B0F.5D8C32D3@mediaone.net> X-X-Sender: mauyr@mail.csv.warwick.ac.uk To: biophys@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk Sender: owner-biophys@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk Precedence: bulk On Sat, 28 Apr 2001, George Hammond wrote: > Von Bailey wrote: > > > > On Sat, 28 Apr 2001 15:03:46 GMT, George Hammond > > wrote: > > > > >Eros wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > I went to the web site to. It's garbage > > >> and unless you already assume there is a god it proves nothing. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > [Hammond] > > >> > > > You aren't scientifically qualifed to repair automobiles > > >> > > > much less evaluate a scientific proof of God based on > > >> > > > Factor Analysis and Relativity. You're a pile of puke, > > >> > > > nevermind garbage. > > >> > > > > >> > > Nice ad hominems and insults George. What part of the scientific method > > >> > > are you applying here? > > >> > > > >> > [Hammond] > > >> > Moral superiority, General intelligence, human experience > > >> > and greater learning. In short, a knowledge of the scientific > > >> > explanation of God. > > >> > > >> Really! I'm glad you said "general" intelligence. Since you are so learned > > >> and experienced in this so-called "knowledge of the scientific explanation > > >> of God", perhaps you'll be able to answer this simple question;- > > >> Without refering to the Bible, what is the single most compelling piece of > > >> evidence that DIRECTLY supports the hypothesis of Divine Creation? > > > > > >[Hammond] > > >No problem: > > >The fact that if all men died tomorrow the Universe > > >as we know it, would cease to exist. > > > > > Did you ever consider the fact that there were no 'men' at the time of > > the dinosaur and granting this (if of course you do) did the universe > > exist then? > > [Hammond] > The "world as Dinosaurs knew it" existed. To them God > looked like a Dinosaur. In fact the Dinosaur Bible said > "God created Dinosaur in his image, and he also created > the fowls of the air, and the fish of the Sea, and the > creeping things of the earth". You see, this kind of responce is more useful. It tells me that this God you talk about is a construct in the mind of the believer (be they human or dinosaur), ie not anything I need concern myself with in the least. Jez. .