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?

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.

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.

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.

"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. "

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.