Message from discussion The Theory of Everything!
Received: by 10.68.230.98 with SMTP id sx2mr9057723pbc.1.1336239859163;
Sat, 05 May 2012 10:44:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
Subject: Re: The Theory of Everything!
Date: Sat, 05 May 2012 10:39:53 -0700
Organization: University of Ediacara
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <16571211.1101.1335714071898.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbsw19> <email@example.com> <14808061.780.1335751368461.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbnh4> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <98ydnSjGDe6gUD_SnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@giganews.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <proto-C15A6C.email@example.com>
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1336240562 62148 18.104.22.168 (5 May 2012 17:56:02 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 5 May 2012 17:56:02 +0000 (UTC)
X-Authentication-Warning: serv4.gc.dca.giganews.com: news set sender to pos...@giganews.com using -f
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 6.00/32.1186
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Sat, 05 May 2012 08:51:04 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
>In article <2248q71lpc2jcea60cg2o87be9hlar6...@4ax.com>,
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Thu, 03 May 2012 13:23:57 -0500, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Louann Miller
>> >Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in
>> >> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 11:55:57 -0700, the following appeared
>> >> in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>> >>>On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 19:02:48 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> >>>appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Mr.Dunsapy"
>> >>>>> Still waiting for those observable design criteria...
>> >>>>You have to take the blinders off Bob
>> >>>Still waiting for those observable design criteria...
>> >> Waiting...
>> >"You have to take the blinders off" is all he's got. He means by it, of
>> >course, that you have to Have Faith and assume his conclusion is correct.
>> >Then you will have assumed his conclusion is correct, which to him is
>> >equivalent to having actual evidence, and he gets to win the argument.
>> That does seem to be the case.
>> >I know we're short on Black Knights at the moment, but this one is deeply
>> >disappointing to me.
>> Oh, I dunno; we have Tony, Kalkidas and prawnster, and now
>> "Mr. Dunsapy", all of whom are expert at declaring victory
>> and running away. How many Black Knights can we expect at
>> any given time?
>One black knight is about 2 too many.
Depends. The movie, for instance, would have been poorer
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."