In article <47575d93$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> Jim Henderson wrote:
> > I might go as far as saying "This drug has not been proven to cause 
> > cancer", but I don't know that "This drug does not cause cancer" is 
> > something that would not be disproven over time.
> 
> We're speaking scientific proof here, which is always open to revision.
 
> You can certainly prove that to a statistical degree, certain things 
> don't have certain properties.
> 
> > In a purely logical sense, 
> 
> Sure. And in a purely logical sense, you can prove a negative also. 
> There exists no integer X such that X = X + 1. Easy to prove. Axiomatic
, 
> almost. Or, for example, the halting problem describes a 
> universally-quantified negative that can be proven.
> 
> > Moving into the realm of religious debate, then, can we prove (logicall
y 
> > and/or scientifically) that Jesus did not regularly talk to God?  Or th
at 
> > Moses didn't?  I don't believe we can prove it - just because we can't
 
> > fathom how such an event would take place does not constitute proof (as
 I 
> > know you know).
> 
> I also don't believe you can prove that even if they did, they 
> truthfully related what they heard, so I'm not sure what the point is.
> 
> > The "burning bush" that Moses saw could have been anything - it could'v
e 
> > been something red and glowing that, I don't know, aliens used as a 
> > communications device.
> 
> I saw a web site that made a fairly convincing argument it was actually
 
> satan. For example, satan lives in the fire that burns without 
> consuming, just like the fire of the bush. :-)
> 
> > Personally, I don't believe any of it, but can I (or anyone) prove it
 
> > didn't happen?  Not really, no.
> 
> That *what* didn't happen? Yes, it can be proven scientifically that 
> things didn't happen the way they're described in genesis. For example,
 
> it's pretty easy to prove that birds came after fish, unlike what 
> genesis says (iirc).
> 
You don't even need to do that. All you have to do is read the bloody 
thing and realize that, much like some of the events in the later 
supposed resurrection nonsense, there are **3** distinctly different 
explanation of how it all started in there, which things got created 
first, second, etc., including when man showed up in the story. When you 
can't even derive *one* consistent time line from the work, it hardly 
matters if **all** of the time lines you might derive from it are 
gibberish.

-- 
void main () {

    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message