>
>Richard Meic wrote to Mark Bloss about Creationism
 
 RT>> That isn't evidence.
 
 MB> Because you say it isn't evidence by NO MEANS makes it no evidence
 MB> TO ME.
 RM> Besides this is philosophy, where we can discuss and explore what ever
 RM> and where ever we please.  If this was science or theories fine, detail
 RM> the evidence, but this is not.
 Thanks, Richard - this is certainly a valid point, and I fully agree that
 within the scientific scope, my evidence does not meet the requirments of
 science, even the science of which I am considered expert. 
 On the other hand, detailing my evidence would not pose a particular 
 difficulty, since I consider all of nature, all the evidence I need.
 I have a nagging suspicion that "science" never sees the forest for 
 the trees.  But rightly so, because the forest is a formal system,
 and cannot prove itself.
 
 
... Don't anthropomorphize computers. They hate that.
--- GEcho 1.11++TAG 2.7c
---------------