Because it says so...
 

"X ` Man" wrote in message
m...

On 7/17/12 8:53 PM, Tim wrote:
On Jul 17, 6:35 pm, X ` Man dump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:
On 7/17/12 7:08 PM, Tim wrote:

On Jul 17, 10:48 am, thumper wrote:
On 7/17/2012 5:45 AM, Tim wrote:

And what marvels me is those who feel that if science can't
prove it,
then there is (nor can not be ) any other explanation.

Undoubtedly there are *many* things that science will never
"prove".
That doesn't make supernatural explanations valid.

You're right. but "supernatural explanations" shouldn't be
discounted
because of such.

Goodness...and I thought you were at least near rational.

I am. Why should I not be? I'm not discounting science, but I'm
also
not discounting anything supernatural or divine. No Harry, I'm not a
close minded person as you seem to like to paint Christians to be.
in
fact, I'd think I'd ;like to be considered open-minded. Not choosing
only one side.

That to me is irrational.




There isn't even the slightest bit of serious evidence to support "the
supernatural" or "the divine." Nothing, nada, zilch, zip.

--------------------------------------------------------

There is, Harry and it's very serious. There are millions and
millions of
people who support and demonstrate it everyday. It can be summed
up in a single word.

Faith.

Not all have it. You obviously don't. I don't. But that doesn't
mean
it doesn't exist.

Because it says so...
 

On 7/18/12 1:57 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"X ` Man" wrote in message
m...

On 7/17/12 8:53 PM, Tim wrote:
On Jul 17, 6:35 pm, X ` Man dump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:
On 7/17/12 7:08 PM, Tim wrote:

On Jul 17, 10:48 am, thumper wrote:
On 7/17/2012 5:45 AM, Tim wrote:

And what marvels me is those who feel that if science can't prove it,
then there is (nor can not be ) any other explanation.

Undoubtedly there are *many* things that science will never "prove".
That doesn't make supernatural explanations valid.

You're right. but "supernatural explanations" shouldn't be discounted
because of such.

Goodness...and I thought you were at least near rational.

I am. Why should I not be? I'm not discounting science, but I'm also
not discounting anything supernatural or divine. No Harry, I'm not a
close minded person as you seem to like to paint Christians to be. in
fact, I'd think I'd ;like to be considered open-minded. Not choosing
only one side.

That to me is irrational.




There isn't even the slightest bit of serious evidence to support "the
supernatural" or "the divine." Nothing, nada, zilch, zip.

--------------------------------------------------------

There is, Harry and it's very serious. There are millions and millions of
people who support and demonstrate it everyday. It can be summed
up in a single word.

Faith.

Not all have it. You obviously don't. I don't. But that doesn't mean
it doesn't exist.


"Faith" isn't serious evidence.

Because it says so...
 

On 7/17/12 10:12 PM, Tim wrote:
On Jul 17, 8:02 pm, X ` Man dump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:
On 7/17/12 8:53 PM, Tim wrote:









On Jul 17, 6:35 pm, X ` Man dump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:
On 7/17/12 7:08 PM, Tim wrote:

On Jul 17, 10:48 am, thumper wrote:
On 7/17/2012 5:45 AM, Tim wrote:

And what marvels me is those who feel that if science can't prove it,
then there is (nor can not be ) any other explanation.

Undoubtedly there are *many* things that science will never "prove".
That doesn't make supernatural explanations valid.

You're right. but "supernatural explanations" shouldn't be discounted
because of such.

Goodness...and I thought you were at least near rational.

I am. Why should I not be? I'm not discounting science, but I'm also
not discounting anything supernatural or divine. No Harry, I'm not a
close minded person as you seem to like to paint Christians to be. in
fact, I'd think I'd ;like to be considered open-minded. Not choosing
only one side.

That to me is irrational.

There isn't even the slightest bit of serious evidence to support "the
supernatural" or "the divine." Nothing, nada, zilch, zip.

Does there have to be?


I don't put "Faith" in the constructs man creates to help him understand
what he doesn't yet know. There isn't the slightest bit of serious
evidence to prove the existence of a creator.

Because it says so...
 

On 7/17/12 10:58 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 7/17/2012 10:12 PM, Tim wrote:
On Jul 17, 8:02 pm, X ` Man dump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:
On 7/17/12 8:53 PM, Tim wrote:









On Jul 17, 6:35 pm, X ` Man dump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:
On 7/17/12 7:08 PM, Tim wrote:

On Jul 17, 10:48 am, thumper wrote:
On 7/17/2012 5:45 AM, Tim wrote:

And what marvels me is those who feel that if science can't
prove it,
then there is (nor can not be ) any other explanation.

Undoubtedly there are *many* things that science will never "prove".
That doesn't make supernatural explanations valid.

You're right. but "supernatural explanations" shouldn't be discounted
because of such.

Goodness...and I thought you were at least near rational.

I am. Why should I not be? I'm not discounting science, but I'm also
not discounting anything supernatural or divine. No Harry, I'm not a
close minded person as you seem to like to paint Christians to be. in
fact, I'd think I'd ;like to be considered open-minded. Not choosing
only one side.

That to me is irrational.

There isn't even the slightest bit of serious evidence to support "the
supernatural" or "the divine." Nothing, nada, zilch, zip.

Does there have to be?


I guess the above "opinion" is one progressives theory... I have seen
things that to me do support "the divine"... I don't expect everyone to
understand but I know I can count on the haters here, to well, hate...



But you are exactly the sort of person who believes in the supernatural.
It's not a matter of hate, it's a matter of being "guided" by rational
behavior, and *you* are the least rational poster in rec.boats.

Because it says so...
 

On Jul 18, 5:44*am, X ` Man wrote:
On 7/17/12 10:12 PM, Tim wrote:









On Jul 17, 8:02 pm, X ` Man dump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:
On 7/17/12 8:53 PM, Tim wrote:

On Jul 17, 6:35 pm, X ` Man dump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:
On 7/17/12 7:08 PM, Tim wrote:

On Jul 17, 10:48 am, thumper wrote:
On 7/17/2012 5:45 AM, Tim wrote:

And what marvels me is those who feel that if science can't prove it,
then there is (nor can not be ) any other explanation.

Undoubtedly there are *many* things that science will never "prove".
That doesn't make supernatural explanations valid.

You're right. but "supernatural explanations" shouldn't be discounted
because of such.

Goodness...and I thought you were at least near rational.

I am. Why should I not be? * I'm not discounting science, but I'm also
not discounting anything supernatural or divine. No Harry, I'm not a
close minded person as you seem to like to paint Christians to be. in
fact, I'd think I'd ;like to be considered open-minded. Not choosing
only one side.

That to me is irrational.

There isn't even the slightest bit of serious evidence to support "the
supernatural" or "the divine." Nothing, nada, zilch, zip.

Does there have to be?

I don't put "Faith" in the constructs man creates to help him understand
what he doesn't yet know. There isn't the slightest bit of serious
evidence to prove the existence of a creator.

You don't have to, Harry. Just because you don't doesn't mean the
extra ordinary doesn't exist..

Just because you don't , doesn't make it wrong or ridiculous if
others do.

Because it says so...
 

On 7/18/12 7:46 AM, Tim wrote:
On Jul 18, 5:44 am, X ` Man wrote:
On 7/17/12 10:12 PM, Tim wrote:









On Jul 17, 8:02 pm, X ` Man dump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:
On 7/17/12 8:53 PM, Tim wrote:

On Jul 17, 6:35 pm, X ` Man dump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:
On 7/17/12 7:08 PM, Tim wrote:

On Jul 17, 10:48 am, thumper wrote:
On 7/17/2012 5:45 AM, Tim wrote:

And what marvels me is those who feel that if science can't prove it,
then there is (nor can not be ) any other explanation.

Undoubtedly there are *many* things that science will never "prove".
That doesn't make supernatural explanations valid.

You're right. but "supernatural explanations" shouldn't be discounted
because of such.

Goodness...and I thought you were at least near rational.

I am. Why should I not be? I'm not discounting science, but I'm also
not discounting anything supernatural or divine. No Harry, I'm not a
close minded person as you seem to like to paint Christians to be. in
fact, I'd think I'd ;like to be considered open-minded. Not choosing
only one side.

That to me is irrational.

There isn't even the slightest bit of serious evidence to support "the
supernatural" or "the divine." Nothing, nada, zilch, zip.

Does there have to be?

I don't put "Faith" in the constructs man creates to help him understand
what he doesn't yet know. There isn't the slightest bit of serious
evidence to prove the existence of a creator.

You don't have to, Harry. Just because you don't doesn't mean the
extra ordinary doesn't exist..

Just because you don't , doesn't make it wrong or ridiculous if
others do.


My point, which I repeated several times, was that belief in the
supernatural or divine was *irrational.* Such beliefs have nothing to do
with reason. Oh, and I don't see "extraordinary" as a synonym for
supernatural or divine.

I also didn't say belief in the supernatural or divine was wrong. Once
again, I said it was *irrational.* Belief in demigods is also
irrational. I can believe in the existence of Heracles as an
extraordinarily strong man, but that doesn't mean I have to believe he
was the son of Alcmene, probably an actual woman, and Zeus, who the
Greeks believed to be their "chief" god. Religion is full of demigods.

Because it says so...
 

On 7/18/2012 1:26 AM, thumper wrote:
On 7/17/2012 8:12 PM, Meyer wrote:
On 7/17/2012 9:47 PM, thumper wrote:
On 7/17/2012 9:16 AM, Meyer wrote:
On 7/17/2012 11:48 AM, thumper wrote:

Undoubtedly there are *many* things that science will never "prove".
That doesn't make supernatural explanations valid.

As valid as anything else until it's ruled out.

After re-reading this I have to comment on your logic, it's really
bad... Do you literally believe that "anything" is possible until
proven wrong?

I'll stick to what I actually said rather than what you thought I said.

Many seemingly impossible things have been proven otherwise.

That's not what you said.

There is no scientific evidence that suggests the supernatural is
impossible.

Nor is there any suggesting it possible. Assigning equal probability is
unjustified.

I'm thankful that Jonas Salk's mind wasn't as restricted as yours.

Because it says so...
 

In article ,
says...

"X ` Man" wrote in message
...

On 7/17/12 1:32 PM, Califbill wrote:
"X ` Man" wrote in message
...

On 7/17/12 8:47 AM, Tim wrote:
On Jul 17, 6:31 am, X ` Man dump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:
On 7/17/12 6:57 AM, Tim wrote:









On Jul 17, 1:13 am, thumper wrote:
On 7/16/2012 5:05 PM, Tim wrote:

On Jul 16, 10:44 am, thumper wrote:
On 7/16/2012 4:38 AM, Tim wrote:
On Jul 16, 1:33 am, thumper wrote:
On 7/15/2012 2:47 PM, Tim wrote:

Definite articles of faith. Like the absurdity of Bumblebees
flying
(they ain't supposed to, y'know)...
That's a fallacy Tim.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...odynamically-i...

But, even that explanation has been held in question.
http://plus.maths.org/content/buzz-bumblebees
"Based on these experiments we concluded that the [Cambridge]
hypothesis cannot explain the attachment of the vortex
throughout the
stroke," said Professor Dickinson. So how does the bumblebee
fly? "We
still don't know for sure" - and the bumblebee flies anyway.
"The data support an alternative hypothesis?that downward flow
induced
by tip vortices limits the growth of the leading-edge vortex."
James M. Birch & Michael H. Dickinson

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../412729a0.html
Oh I know they can fly, but there seems to be just as much study
data
supporting the unknown as there is supportive proof.

IMHO it's up for grabs.

Bumblebee flight is hardly an article of faith... IMHO. ;)

My only objection is the allusion to a false equivalence with the
apparent purpose to discredit science. As if, since science can't
explain everything perfectly without controversy, it is no better than
mythology in describing reality.

Dude, I'm not discrediting science at all, but you gotta admit there's
a lot that science can't explain.

Science doesn't have all the answers yet, but that doesn't mean those
answers lie within the realm of religious superstition.

Like I told "thumper"

'And what marvels me is those who feel that if science can't prove it,
then there is (nor can be ) any other explanation. None!'

(I did correct my sentence)

?;^ )



The rational answer is, "Science hasn't been able to prove "X" *yet*.
The irrational answer: god did it.
-------------------------------------------
Authur C. Clarke
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. "



The irrational answer: god did it.


---------------------------------
The rational answer. Gods did it, alien's did it, F'n magic did it. Any
answer fits.

And we're all going to Golob!

Because it says so...
 

In article , says...

On 7/17/2012 10:12 PM, Tim wrote:
On Jul 17, 8:02 pm, X ` Man dump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:
On 7/17/12 8:53 PM, Tim wrote:









On Jul 17, 6:35 pm, X ` Man dump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:
On 7/17/12 7:08 PM, Tim wrote:

On Jul 17, 10:48 am, thumper wrote:
On 7/17/2012 5:45 AM, Tim wrote:

And what marvels me is those who feel that if science can't prove it,
then there is (nor can not be ) any other explanation.

Undoubtedly there are *many* things that science will never "prove".
That doesn't make supernatural explanations valid.

You're right. but "supernatural explanations" shouldn't be discounted
because of such.

Goodness...and I thought you were at least near rational.

I am. Why should I not be? I'm not discounting science, but I'm also
not discounting anything supernatural or divine. No Harry, I'm not a
close minded person as you seem to like to paint Christians to be. in
fact, I'd think I'd ;like to be considered open-minded. Not choosing
only one side.

That to me is irrational.

There isn't even the slightest bit of serious evidence to support "the
supernatural" or "the divine." Nothing, nada, zilch, zip.

Does there have to be?


I guess the above "opinion" is one progressives theory... I have seen
things that to me do support "the divine"... I don't expect everyone to
understand but I know I can count on the haters here, to well, hate...

Please tell us, just what have you seen that "supports the divine"?

Because it says so...
 

"X ` Man" wrote in message
...

On 7/18/12 1:57 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"X ` Man" wrote in message
m...

On 7/17/12 8:53 PM, Tim wrote:
On Jul 17, 6:35 pm, X ` Man dump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:
On 7/17/12 7:08 PM, Tim wrote:

On Jul 17, 10:48 am, thumper wrote:
On 7/17/2012 5:45 AM, Tim wrote:

And what marvels me is those who feel that if science can't
prove it,
then there is (nor can not be ) any other explanation.

Undoubtedly there are *many* things that science will never
"prove".
That doesn't make supernatural explanations valid.

You're right. but "supernatural explanations" shouldn't be
discounted
because of such.

Goodness...and I thought you were at least near rational.

I am. Why should I not be? I'm not discounting science, but I'm
also
not discounting anything supernatural or divine. No Harry, I'm not
a
close minded person as you seem to like to paint Christians to be.
in
fact, I'd think I'd ;like to be considered open-minded. Not
choosing
only one side.

That to me is irrational.




There isn't even the slightest bit of serious evidence to support
"the
supernatural" or "the divine." Nothing, nada, zilch, zip.

--------------------------------------------------------

There is, Harry and it's very serious. There are millions and
millions of
people who support and demonstrate it everyday. It can be summed
up in a single word.

Faith.

Not all have it. You obviously don't. I don't. But that doesn't
mean
it doesn't exist.


"Faith" isn't serious evidence.

------------------------------------------------

If "Faith" isn't serious evidence of something, what are you
complaining about?
For those who have embraced it, it is the most significant cause of
millions upon
millions of other people's lifestyles, views on controversial issues
and even
why we are all here in the first place. "Faith" has an enormous
affect on how
people think and act world wide . If that isn't serious evidence of
something,
I don't know what is.

For those of us that lack it, we may not understand it. Doesn't mean
it doesn't
exist. I tend not to ridicule or attempt to destroy in others
something that I don't
have or understand. You tend to demonstrate otherwise.