[geocentrism] Re: Absolute vs probable
- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:45:17 +0000 (GMT)
Philip M
I'll interpolate comments in maroon. (We still have a few readable colours
left).
Further discussion at the bottom.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yep, here is my response. in blue as before to your teal.. It was hurried, I
did not think about it but let it rip straight from ye old brainbox. So forgive
the typos, and spelling. Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 3:42 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Absolute vs probable
Philip M
I've gathered together here small and large excerpts of your recent posts which
appear to me to be good illustrations of what I've referred to recently under
the absolute vs relative banner. I've come to regret the choice of the term
'relative' here because what I'm really commenting upon is 'absolutely true' vs
'probably true'. My position is that the religious side of the debate claims
for itself absolute truth while the scientific side claims for itself only
probability. Further, the religious side claims that the scientific side falsly
claims the absolutes 'truth' and 'proof'.
I'll make interspersions in these excerpts in olive which will, I hope, help
you to further understand my point of view.
Except Paul, you must accept that the religious side only refers to absolutism
in matters of faith. We do not extend those absolutes to the physical sciences
we put forward. We examine cosmology from the premise that the world is
stationary, and theorise from there. ( I have declared this elsewhere)
The religious absolutes we adhere to must, to us, be a guide to the direction
of our research. We could never claim that our research results are absolute
truth. We merely claim they are the more probable, which is exactly the same
condition you claim for science, except your research is not guided by any
religious absolutes. Actually, more than that, your science has to reject any
PROBABILITY that stems from any research based upon a religious conviction, We
might claim you have an anti-religious conviction.
From philip madsen Sat Mar 10 23:52:54 2007 [ Why Geocentric Research ]
When observational data arises which appears to contradict or "falsify" a given
scientific paradigm, scientists within that paradigm have not, historically,
immediately rejected the paradigm in question (as Sir Karl Popper's
philosophical theory of falsificationism would have them do) but have gone to
considerable lengths to resolve the apparent conflict without rejecting the
paradigm, through ad hoc variations to the theory, sympathetic interpretations
of the data which allow for assimilation, determination that the "conundrum"
the data was obtained to explain in the first place is misconceived, or in
extreme cases simply ignoring the data altogether (for example, on the basis of
the lack of scientific credentials of its source).
A commentator I once heard on late night ABC made a similar point. He said that
what generally happens is that elderly scientists don't generally change their
minds, but rather, they die. The younger, more open minded people coming up,
are more able to accept new ideas and they become the new generation of
scientists. The same process applies in other fields including theology.
This sample was not my work but from Wekipaedia. ? But this, The same process
applies in other fields including theology., is not true for TRUE theology.
Seeing as you bought into an argument on theology, let me answer. But who is to
decide what is TRUE theology? Safer to consider all schools of thought. You
know, I think a good case can be made for the view that the greatest short term
strength of a given theology is the insistance upon orthodoxy and that it is
its greatest long term weakness.
It is true that modern theologians act in the way of everchanging progress
similar to the physical sciences, but these are heretics espousing the heresy
of Modernism. Modernism has been defined as the synthesis of all heresies.
Religious truth which is GOD is the same unchanging and unchangeable truth
yesterday today and tomorrow.
As an aside, Jesus Christ Himself prophesied this eventually, called loosely
the Great apostasy of scripture, which was given more detail by Christopher
Ferrara in another post I sent.
==================================================
From philip madsen Sat Mar 10 22:19:38 2007 [ Why Geocentric Research ]
What if we left Scripture out of the debate and asked our scientific questions
concerning reality of what is happening? Why cannot we just just stick to
proving over and over , what Bernies post is saying, that not a single
assumption upon which Newtonian science rests can be proven? That not a single
presumption or assumption upon which heliocentric theory of the universe can be
proven?
But Philip, the same applies to the geocentric position -- you can't prove
Earth is stationary either. And the same applies to scripture by the way. But
that won't help you you know, because science is about probability, not
certainty. Of course we cannot prove it, but whilst you admit both views are on
equal footing as regards the right to claim probability, you refuse to allow
for any possibility on our side. And I have to question yours,
science is about probability, not certainty. How can you say such a thing? True
science must look for truth, not for uncertainty, which mere probability can
only provide.??? As a scientist, I would want to know the truth of a matter,
not a probability. And to find out a truth, I must include EVERY POSSIBILITY
for consideration, excluding none. This latter is quite impossible. The last
time I looked, I found an estimate of ~33,000 religious schools of thought and
I can't recall whether this was just Christian or all faiths (which would
include reading the divinations in an owl's entrails).
Your problem is that you say a thing is more probable based upon a faith in a
sequence of assumed probabilities, that is no more than a consensus of like
minded anti-God vocal majority. Come now, such a thought is unworthy of you.
And it's untrue to boot.
"you can't prove Earth is stationary either. And the same applies to scripture
by the way." That last is an opinion, by the way, which can easily be disproven
to any who is honest about wanting to learn. I realise the evidence is, as
called in law, circumstantial, but isn't scientific evidence mostly
circumstantial? To the latter, possibly. Concerning scripture, no, I have seen
reference to many serious texts which take this view. It is more than my
opinion.
==================================================
From philip madsen Sat Mar 10 21:43:33 2007 [ bad Catholics v Good guy ]
I just dug up a few points out of another file called Canonised Heresies, by
Paula Haigh, which discusses what we are talking about, that is the science
which calls evolution and gheliocentric cosmology fact. My selections I labled
good and bad guys.
Bad Catholic
5.The Church will neither affirm nor deny evolution, as it is not her business
to do so.Father Ernest Messenger .
Good Guy:
St. Thomas Aquinas represented the tradition of the Church when he said in his
Summa (ST, I, 1, a 6, ad 2) that Theology has no concern to prove the
principles of other sciences, but only to judge them. Whatsoever is found in
other sciences contrary to any truth of this science (i.e., of theology) must
be condemned as false: Destroying counsels and every height that exalts itself
against the knowledge of God. (2 Cor. X: 4, 5)
A presumption of infallibility -- an absolute. Yes ! as a theological statement
for the faithful. It does not presume to prove the principles of other
sciences, but only to judge them. Scientists not theologians, of the faith
will, or must then re-examine the science in question, which after all is not
claimed as a certainty, to try to arrive at a different possibility. NB The
same theology states elsewhere, that should a proof , an absolute certainty
proof be given to show the earth moved, then theology would be obliged to
re-examine its theology. That could hardly be called absolutism. But so far
this certainty of proof has not been forthcoming. It is a feasable theory, but
not absolute. and could be completely reversed without undoing any mathmatical
laws. Likewise geocentricity. Yes but Philip, so long as theology claims
infallibility unto itself, and retains the right to judge that which it judges
as threatening to itself, it will never yield. No 'proof' will ever
suffice. A case in point. A case has been made that it is impossible today,
let alone in the '60s, for man to have walked on the Moon. If an experiment of
this enormous magnitude, conducted in the full glare of public scrutiny, over a
period of ~10 years, is insufficient to support the claim, just what would
suffice to convince you?
Bad Catholic Father Ernest Messenger
4. There is nothing in the theory of evolution intrinsically repugnant to
either Scripture or faith.
Good Guy:
He Father Ernest Messenger is a prime example of both the cause and the effects
of the loss of Thomistic metaphysics and the Catholic Theology that builds on
self-evident A presumption surely! and necessary principles What is the source
of this necessity? of natural reason. But this is theology Paul. Metaphysics.
not the science of physics. In metaphysics Gods word cannot be taken as a
presumption. and the source of the necessity is God, who desires our salvation.
See below in green -- I submit the commentator is talking about physics.
For just as Grace builds on nature, so does a sound Theology build on a sound
cosmology Geocentric? This too is a presumption. and physics with all the other
lower Elitism. natural sciences. It is a presumption in the science of physics
, but not in theology. And yes, theology is based upon God which is elitist and
hierarchial. We are still not in the science of physics, but merely laying down
the terms of reference for scientists who are Christian.
This can only happen when the hierarchical nature of knowledge and the sciences
is observed. Again that presumption of superiority. And yes, theology is based
upon God which is elitist and hierarchial. For as St. Thomas says, it belongs
to Theology ? not to prove the principles of the lower sciences ? but to judge
their truth or falsity in accordance with the Truths of Faith A contradiction
of terms surely. that are the object of Theology.
Still in theology?.. Good going Paul.. Perhaps this is your road to Damascus.
Given that MS is committed within its terms of reference to deny Theology,
Whoah! MS is NOT committed within its terms of reference to deny Theology. It
is simply apathetic. Theology is deemed to be outside science. There are more
than two degrees of freedom here. which is but to judge their truth or falsity
, it has to be a contradiction. Not with true science, but with those whose aim
is antichrist and exclusive. Knowingly or unknowingly. Many freemasons on the
bottom rung do not know the prime objectives of that order.
This is the duty of the Church, using Her Theology, that all science may
achieve the end of all creation which is the Glory of God. Finally, So really,
if the church had had its way, we'd all still be sheep hearders, tillers of the
soil, hewers of wood and drawers of water (if you are black), devoting all our
spare time to glorifying God? Actually that sounds like a good idea. Adam who
suddenly became aware of all truth of good and evil, chose that lifestyle. His
rebellious sons are the reason we are having this talk. They chose to use the
knowledge (science), which probably had more certainty than what todays science
of probabilities have, to build amazing civilisations, all pagan. This is just
another age more degenerated than those, and due for the same extinction, only
worse, "such as the world has never seen before..."
But God did not tell Adam or us we must exclude science, or all the nice things
we treasure, but Adam having fed from the tree of knowledge knew all things,
and so knowing, realised which life style had the most value, and which would
help to ensure the greatest reward ever. History throughout has shown that
civilisations collapsed due to the moral collapse consequent to the easy life
style, the things we treasure. About these riches Jesus said, 'It is easier for
a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get to
heaven.' Does not the depth and richness of this Mans teachings not sometimes
amaze you? He cannot be faulted. Others who copy some of His wisdom always
stuff up somewhere. I sometimes get the impression that you believe that I am
ignorant of the basic tenets of Christianity. (I'm certainly not a scholar of
the Judeo-Christian scriptures). But I had more than 40 years experience at
mass each week, of sermons, readings from the old and new
testaments, the catechism, communion and confirmation classes and a bit of
reading on the side. But then I've read many things in my life, and one day I
began to read The Last Days of Socrates. And the more I read, the more I
realised that this pious pagan was privy to truths which my upbringing
encouraged me to believe were the exclusive preserve of the one true church --
Catholicism. I've read further and learned more since then. It's amazing what
you can learn when you are no longer surrounded by a wall of coercive
information but free to learn from all sources. I recall that you have
indicated in other places the need to consider all things, to exclude nothing.
Do you still hold to these views?
Paul merely refusing to consider a God, does not, and cannot make Him
nonexistent. I'm aware of that. Your reasoning is dangerous, because your soul
is eternal, and an eternity of hell fire, cannot be evaded after death.. Its
forever. Your science cannot disprove Him. Nor your theology prove Him. I've
asked several times whether "We know that God is true because the Bible tells
us so. And we know the Bible tells the truth because it is God's word." is an
example of circular logic but no one will touch it. Can any soul gamble his
eternal life on probabilities? Is it worth such a risk? If God truly exists, I
feel He will reward honesty and integrity.
Selected quotes showing the errors of science when it excludes the discipline
of theological judgement.
Presumptive Words
The major rhetorical device used by Father Zahm is that of the presumptive
word. This is but a concise form of circular reasoning, begging the question,
of assuming as self-evident See above for example of 'self-evident' used by the
theological side. and proven what is really but an unproven hypothesis or mere
prejudice with no basis in reality. Closely aligned with this device is that of
the false cause which often ridicules an opponent on false premises.
An example of both these fallacies in one sentence is the following:
Many causes might be assigned for the interest that has been manifested in this
question [of the antiquity of man] ? an interest which, far from subsiding,
seems to enhance as time rolls on ? but not the least potent has been, no
doubt, the antagonism that by many was imagined to exist between the teachings
of Scriptural chronology and the findings of modern science. (Bible, Science
and Faith, p. 177-8)
The presumptive words here are "imagined", "findings" and "modern science".
Throughout his books, on almost every page, Fr. Zahm uses these and similar
presumptive words. Science is the major one because, with the exception of
certain passages where he distinguishes certain "schools" of scientists, this
one word Science is always used as denoting those discoveries of the various
natural sciences in a way that assumes the interpretations of the data to be
infallibly true. That is to say, they are undeniable "facts" ? another
presumptive word very frequently found in Fr. Zahm?s books. I suspect that
'infallibly' and 'facts' are an interpretation on the part of the commentator.
It is worth noting that this emphasis upon facts goes back to French Catholic
lay scientist Lamarck (1714-1829) who could well be described as the first
Positivist as well as a prominent proto-evolutionist. According to him,
Positive knowledge could not give absolute certainty, but since it was the only
knowledge available, "let us collect with care the facts which we can observe,
let us consult experience wherever we can, and when this experience is
accessible to us, let us assemble all the inductions which observation of facts
analogous to those which escape us can furnish, and let us assert nothing
categorically: in this way, we shall be able little by little to discover the
causes of a multitude of natural phenomena, and perhaps, even of phenomena
which seem the most incomprehensible. (From the Beginning, Vol. 2, page 251-2)
(Emphases added) Lamark starts out saying 'Positive knowledge could not give
absolute certainty' and further states '...let us assert nothing
categorically...'. Surely this qualifies the whole of the paragraph. Just what
word would you use here instead of 'facts'? Would you excise the word 'facts'
from all but theological discourse? As one reader, I have no doubt about
what he means. I would excise the word 'facts' when used as a truth which is a
lie or a presumption in science. To say, ..."let us assert nothing
categorically" and then call a mere probability a "fact" is a contradiction,
and maybe a slippery way out so that he cannot be burned at the stake. Philip,
I'm sorry but I think you are hung up on semantics, overly concerned with
theological legalities. What was it Jesus said -- "These people honour Me with
their lips but their hearts are far from Me"? (Not to be taken as a personal
accusation). But you didn't answer the question -- what word would you
substitute?
Your reading was biased, and seemingly confrontational rather than reasoned.
No matter how much the general public may misuse the word, the exact concise
meaning (excepting new updated dictionaries) for fact is an "axiomatic truth. "
a nonfact is a non truth.
Auguste Comte (1798-1857), the commonly acknowledged founder of Positivism,
could have lifted his ideas on scientific method and epistemology right out of
Lamarck?s Philosophie Zoologique (1809):
Positivism is now a general term for philosophical positions which stress the
factual aspects of knowledge, particularly scientific knowledge, and generally
try to reduce factual statements to some foundation in sensation ... (From the
Beginning, Vol. 2, page 252) (Emphases added)
This care to collect facts which are observable and therefore "positive"
knowledge, nevertheless reduced knowledge to sensation and therefore to the
phenomenal rather than the real, epistemological inheritance from Kant. Fr.
Zahm willingly inherited and made his own this radically deviant epistemology
rather than checking the canonized philosophy of Thomism which would have based
his science as well as his epistemology on sound rather than erroneous grounds.
From what I can gather, the commentator here is suggesting that before stating
that all observations indicate that all white cockatoos are left handed, I
should make an exhaustive search of the Bible, and all its commentaries by
learned (and sanctioned) theologians, so as to ensure that I don't make an
error. What about the observation that possums are both aboreal and nocturnal?
Or that, with rare exceptions, marsupials are native of Australia? How about
the observation that crocodiles are the only reptiles with a four
chambered heart? What about parthenogenetic reproduction within the
(exclusively) female whiptail lizards? Is there indeed, anything which can be
stated, in the opinion of the commentator, without recourse to theology? You
are failing to get it! Most things lizards for example do not concern theology.
Only that science which confronts theology is judged. You personally may go
your own way. Christians of faith must follow the scriptual imperatives. Such
Paul, even though you do not subscribe to Christian beliefs, is their right. As
scientists they are entitled to their thesis. And you cannot prove them any
more wrong than conventional science. Its a matter of two faiths.. One faith in
God.. The other faith in Man. we can easily see where that latter faith is
leading us today. I contest this idea that there are two faiths. Well actually
there are many faiths but man and science are not among them. Self confidence
is not a faith. Science is not a faith, it is a disciplined
explanation of reality -- incomplete certainly, but it still dispells a lot of
fear.
But like the majority of the scientists of his day, and of ours, he had long
ago rejected the metaphysical and theological bases of all reality and
especially, of Biblical exegesis, in exchange for the more sensational
"observation" and "collection" of sensational "facts". In the following pages,
it will become evident just now bizarre the interpretation of the facts can
become when the divine light of Scripture and Tradition is abandoned in favor
of the "findings" and "discoveries" of an atheistic Science.
Today, both heliocentrism and evolution are claimed to be "facts". The late
Stephen Jay Gould, in an article published in Time magazine for August 23,
1999, manifesting his acceptance of Comte?s positivism, said
... evolution is as well documented as any phenomenon in science, as strongly
as the earth?s revolution around the sun rather than vice versa. ... In this
sense, we can call evolution a "fact". (Science does not deal in certainty, so
"fact" can only mean a proposition affirmed to such a high degree that it would
be perverse to withhold one?s provisional assent. You may not agree with him,
but I submit that this is a perfectly reasonable statement. In particular, his
treatment of 'fact' is as I suggested above. And the assent is provisional.Your
submission is illogical .. a fact is not a fact if it is not an absolute
truth.. it is merely a probable possibility. It is illogical to claim a
provisional truth. Thats devious. As I've indicated above, I'm not convinced.
The unmistakable implication is that if you do not accept the two "facts" of
heliocentrism and evolution, at least provisionally ? which provision is
assumed to be the most rational ? you are simply perverse. And we all know that
the perverse person is one who refuses to accept the obvious, the self-evident,
the proven fact. (Incidentally, neither heliocentrism nor evolution has a shred
of real, empirical proof to support it.) However, both Fr. Zahm and Stephen Jay
Gould hedge their scientifically documented facts with disclaimers such as
"Science does not deal in certainty" and "Science cannot contradict the Bible."
Yet in both cases we are perverse or intellectually enslaved if we do not
accept the pronouncements of this infallible Science. Again, perfectly
reasonable statements. I didn't see 'infallible' mentioned! I fear the
commentator is determined to be offended. Becauseyou do not accept the
dictionary true meaning that a fact is a truth, an axiom, A fact or a
truth is an infallibly true. It can be declared a fact infallibly, (thats a
double superlative) that the three internal angles of a triangle add up to 180
degrees. If it is drawn on a plane surface. Sorry, that was a bit mean! That is
a fact. That the world turns is an opinion, even a probability but not yet a
proven fact. But it is highly probable.
=========================================================
From philip madsen Sat Mar 10 22:35:16 2007 [ Why Geocentric Research ]
However one spoiled the objectivity of it. "I am looking for evidence of a
fixed Earth, ... ". He isn't searching for truth, he is seeking evidence which
will support, not just an assumption, but a conviction.
Like Edison, who was certain that he would find the light bulb. Most of MS
treat most assumptions with conviction, do you not also treat the assumption of
evolution with a conviction Paul?
Yes, Edison did find his light bulb. Was he certain that he would? (That's an
absolute you know -- would he have gambolled his life on it do you think?). He
nearly did .By your definition, he could not have been certain, because there
is no Biblical description of a light bulb. obstropolis, and indicative of
sarcasm, or is it real hate for things God and Bible? No Philip -- I do not
hate God or the Bible. And I'm not being sarcastic. Mr. John W. Keely however,
died before his motor performed, and though others still seek to bring his
vision to fruition, it remains immobile. History is replete with people who
were certain that their idea/invention would work but were unable to so
demonstrate. A recent episode of The New Inventors had a hopeful person who had
invented a new form of electric motor which he was certain would revolutionise
industry. It relied for its action upon utilising the magnetic field at the
other end of the poles, in total 50%, which he perceived to be
wasted in current designs. Would a theological search have helped?
obstropolis, and indicative of sarcasm etc. Unlikely, but a quick search of
basic electrical engineering texts would have. .Was all of this diversion
necessary for you to avoid the real question within the same post, "do you not
also treat the assumption of evolution with a conviction Paul?"
I've previously declined to comment on evolution on the grounds that it is not
a part of geocentrism. But for the record, and in response to your specific
question, I would state that the preponderance of evidence would indicate the
validity of such a position. I am not alone in this of course. I wonder if you
have seen this quote? Would you care to guess who is the author?
"Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God":
"While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this
first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among
them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years
ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are
genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have
descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in
the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory
of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on
earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.
While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical
anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the
origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid
population of common genetic lineage."
Is that a "yes" to admission of conviction on evolution, and its co subject
geocentrism, then? Philip, I fear you may seek to trap me here. I suspect that
you will revert to the dictionary if I simply say yes in the matter of
'conviction' of the truth (or probability) of the theory of evolution. Surely
my honest attempt to convey my thoughts on the matter previously expressed are
sufficiently succinct. Concerning geocentrism, now that is a different matter.
It's why I have engaged in debate here for more than a year. No I don't believe
it, but I wanted to discover why others do. And so far I'm still uninformed in
this matter because -- try as I may -- no one will advance any justification
for this belief beyond a minority interpretation of certain unimportant verses
in scripture.
Now that last proof for evolution can easily be negated, but I'll leave it for
another time as it would be rather lengthy and complex to be complete.
Yet the answer was in a simple way written within your small
quotation.....""While there is little consensus among scientists about how the
origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained...." And the
following, "there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt
on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago" Is general agreement a consensus
then? I would judge 'general agreement' as being concensus. Does consensus make
it sufficient for conviction, let alone to be a truth ? How many times has this
general agreement been broken throughout history, in general, and more recently
in particular. Changing one's position in the light of new knowledge is not
breaking an agreement -- it is simply facing reality. And can you guess the
author of the quote yet?
Are you familiar with how much complexity there really is within that first
microscopic life ? No of course not. But I am faintly aware of what one would
need to have mastered in order to begin to understand the process of life.
And what happened to that law of science, that to be impirical, it had to be
able to be duplicated in the laboratory by fellow scientists? Your meaning here
is not clear.
And finally why bother, if the overall urgency was not an insane endeavour to
prove there was no God to create anything. No other reason. Your meaning here
is also not clear.
Phil
=========================================================
Paul D
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Philip, I was going to try to address a few fundamental points but it's now
after 04h00 and I need sleep so I'll just pose a few observations on
geocentrism and perhaps we can look at these items soon.
geocentric philosophy is characterised by (a) a particular, poorly supported
(in the theological arena) interpretation of (exclusively) judeo-christian
scripture (b) widespread and unsubstantiated accusations of lying on the part
of those who fail to support geocentrism (c) Systematic dis-belief of the
results returned from normal scientific investigation and mis-interpretation of
the results of certain key experiments (d) a number of competing, poorly
explained models, not supported by either theoretical explanations,
experimental data or mainstream theology.
I also watched my favourite documentary again because I wanted to copy one of
my favourite statements by RF, but found that I had already transcribed it. It
appears below.
Richard Feynman 'No ordinary Genius'
Nobel Prize for Physics 1965
I had a conversation about flying saucers some years ago with Lehymann (?) 'Cos
I'm scientific I know all about flying saucers! So I said "I don't think there
are flying saucers." So the other ... my antagonist said, "Is it impossible
that there are flying saucers? Can you prove that it's impossible?" I said "No,
I can't prove it's impossible - it's just very unlikely!" "That ... " they say,
" ... you are very unscientific. If you can't prove it impossible, then why ...
how can you say it's likely ... that it's unlikely?" Well that's the way it is
scientific. It is scientific only to say what's more likely and less likely and
not to be proving all the time possible/impossible. To define what I mean, I
finally said to him, "Listen! I mean, that from my knowledge of the world that
I see around, I think that it is much more likely that the reports of flying
saucers are the result of the known irrational characteristics of terrestrial
intelligence rather than the unknown
rational efforts of extraterrestrial intelligence!
I think you'll get what I mean. Have you seen this documentary? I think it is
an excellent explanation of the scientific position. Further, I find it hard to
believe that anyone after seeing it, could come to any conclusion other than
that this man is honest, up front, without guile. If you haven't seen it, and
you'd like to, I'll send you a copy at my expense. Think of it as a birthday
present! What do you say?
Finally, you've used it several times here and previously -- it's spelled
'obstreperous'. Smallest, most inconspicuous font I could find.
Paul D
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
Other related posts:
