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.