Because it says so...
 

"Tim" wrote in message
...

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 first aerodynamics of the bumblebee was using fixed wing and not a
moveable wing. So there was a bad engineering study. ;)

Because it says so...
 

On Jul 16, 6:40*am, X ` Man dump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:
On 7/16/12 7:38 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 bumblebee drinks a lot of ethanol.

LOL! Could be.

Because it says so...
 

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.

Because it says so...
 

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.

Because it says so...
 

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.

Because it says so...
 

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.

Because it says so...
 

On Jul 17, 5:57*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.

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.

Because it says so...
 

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)

?;^ )

Because it says so...
 

On 7/17/2012 8:45 AM, Tim wrote:
On Jul 17, 5:57 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.

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.

Krause is misusing the word science. Science is a tool used by man to
discover the truth and explore the unknown. Although man has learned a
lot God will never let man know everything.

Because it says so...
 

Tim wrote:
On Jul 17, 5:57 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 hypothesisthat 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.

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.

You mean like magic or religious superstition?

Because it says so...
 

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.

Because it says so...
 

On 7/17/2012 9:19 AM, x'man wrote:
Tim wrote:
On Jul 17, 5:57 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 hypothesisthat 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.

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.

You mean like magic or religious superstition?

You are such a boxed thinker and it shows.

Because it says so...
 

On 7/17/2012 9:40 AM, X ` Man wrote:
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.

It's obvious that you just don't get it.

Because it says so...
 

On 7/17/2012 10:50 AM, Meyer wrote:
On 7/17/2012 9:19 AM, x'man wrote:
Tim wrote:
On Jul 17, 5:57 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 hypothesisthat 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.

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.

You mean like magic or religious superstition?

You are such a boxed thinker and it shows.


He is not a thinker at all, more of a slug, reacting to each and every
stimuli..

Because it says so...
 

On 7/17/12 11:11 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 7/17/2012 10:50 AM, Meyer wrote:
On 7/17/2012 9:19 AM, x'man wrote:
Tim wrote:
On Jul 17, 5:57 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 hypothesisthat 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.

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.

You mean like magic or religious superstition?

You are such a boxed thinker and it shows.


He is not a thinker at all, more of a slug, reacting to each and every
stimuli..



Stop projecting, LittleSnot...it just makes you look even dumber.

If "science" can't prove something or other in the realm of scientific
inquiry, it simply means science has to advance more, as it has for
thousands of years. It doesn't mean what cannot yet be explained
satisfactorily is due to magic or religion.

Scientific inquiry is both evolutionary and revolutionary. Religious
belief is based upon mythology. Zeus, for example, mated many times with
"earth women" and produced demigods. Guess what that myth grew into?

Because it says so...
 

On 7/17/2012 11:25 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 7/17/12 11:11 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 7/17/2012 10:50 AM, Meyer wrote:
On 7/17/2012 9:19 AM, x'man wrote:
Tim wrote:
On Jul 17, 5:57 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 hypothesisthat 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.

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.

You mean like magic or religious superstition?

You are such a boxed thinker and it shows.


He is not a thinker at all, more of a slug, reacting to each and every
stimuli..



Stop projecting, LittleSnot...it just makes you look even dumber.

If "science" can't prove something or other in the realm of scientific
inquiry, it simply means science has to advance more, as it has for
thousands of years. It doesn't mean what cannot yet be explained
satisfactorily is due to magic or religion.


Time is running out Ex-man. When will you have all the answers?

Because it says so...
 

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.

Because it says so...
 

On 7/17/2012 11:48 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.


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

Because it says so...
 

On 7/17/2012 9:16 AM, Meyer wrote:
On 7/17/2012 11:48 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.


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


You're shifting the burden of proof. Show one demonstrated supernatural
phenomenon.

Because it says so...
 

On 7/17/2012 3:57 AM, Tim wrote:
On Jul 17, 1:13 am, thumper wrote:
On 7/16/2012 5:05 PM, Tim wrote:

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.

Of course, and they're not claiming omniscience. I'll go with their
track record however.

Because it says so...
 

On 7/17/12 12:28 PM, thumper wrote:
On 7/17/2012 3:57 AM, Tim wrote:
On Jul 17, 1:13 am, thumper wrote:
On 7/16/2012 5:05 PM, Tim wrote:

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.

Of course, and they're not claiming omniscience. I'll go with their
track record however.


Why assign religious or supernatural causes to what we yet cannot
explain via science?

Because it says so...
 

On 7/17/2012 12:23 PM, thumper wrote:
On 7/17/2012 9:16 AM, Meyer wrote:
On 7/17/2012 11:48 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.


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


You're shifting the burden of proof. Show one demonstrated supernatural
phenomenon.

David Copperfield could probably make you a believer. Or at the very
worst, a skeptic.

Because it says so...
 

On 7/17/2012 12:28 PM, thumper wrote:
On 7/17/2012 3:57 AM, Tim wrote:
On Jul 17, 1:13 am, thumper wrote:
On 7/16/2012 5:05 PM, Tim wrote:

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.

Of course, and they're not claiming omniscience. I'll go with their
track record however.


So a little bit of knowledge goes a long way to putting your Faith in
Scientists. Got it.

Because it says so...
 

On 7/17/2012 12:50 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 7/17/12 12:28 PM, thumper wrote:
On 7/17/2012 3:57 AM, Tim wrote:
On Jul 17, 1:13 am, thumper wrote:
On 7/16/2012 5:05 PM, Tim wrote:

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.

Of course, and they're not claiming omniscience. I'll go with their
track record however.


Why assign religious or supernatural causes to what we yet cannot
explain via science?


Just to keep things organized. Folks like you can't stand to have any
loose ends.

Because it says so...
 

"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. "

Because it says so...
 

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.

Because it says so...
 

On 7/17/2012 1:36 PM, X ` Man wrote:
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.



And you're certain he didn't do it? You're not agnostic; you're full
blown athiest.

Because it says so...
 

In article om,
says...

On 7/17/2012 12:23 PM, thumper wrote:
On 7/17/2012 9:16 AM, Meyer wrote:
On 7/17/2012 11:48 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.


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


You're shifting the burden of proof. Show one demonstrated supernatural
phenomenon.

David Copperfield could probably make you a believer. Or at the very
worst, a skeptic.

Slight of hand doesn't scientifically interest me.

Because it says so...
 

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.

Because it says so...
 

"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.

Because it says so...
 

"Meyer" wrote in message
eb.com...

On 7/17/2012 1:36 PM, X ` Man wrote:
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.



And you're certain he didn't do it? You're not agnostic; you're full
blown athiest.


----------------------------
No, he is one with no imagination. Probably why he was an English major in
college. No real creativity.

Because it says so...
 

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.

Because it says so...
 

On 7/17/12 7:17 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Meyer" wrote in message
eb.com...

On 7/17/2012 1:36 PM, X ` Man wrote:
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.



And you're certain he didn't do it? You're not agnostic; you're full
blown athiest.


----------------------------
No, he is one with no imagination. Probably why he was an English major
in college. No real creativity.



I'm rational. People who really believe in the supernatural are not.

Because it says so...
 

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.

Because it says so...
 

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.

Because it says so...
 

On 7/17/2012 4:08 PM, Tim wrote:
On Jul 17, 10:48 am, thumper wrote:

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.

If one had *ever* been verified I would consider it.

Because it says so...
 

On 7/17/2012 10:18 AM, Meyer wrote:
On 7/17/2012 12:28 PM, thumper wrote:

Of course, and they're not claiming omniscience. I'll go with their
track record however.

So a little bit of knowledge goes a long way to putting your Faith in
Scientists. Got it.

No, you don't.

Because it says so...
 

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?

Because it says so...
 

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?

Because it says so...
 

On Jul 17, 8:41*pm, thumper wrote:
On 7/17/2012 4:08 PM, Tim wrote:

On Jul 17, 10:48 am, thumper wrote:
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.

If one had *ever* been verified I would consider it.

I'm sure you would consider it. Maybe not believe it, but yes, you'd
consider it.