Salutatio Mark!
04-Apr-98, Mark Bloss wrote to Richard Meic
          Subject: Creationism
 RT>>> That isn't evidence.
 MB>> Because you say it isn't evidence by NO MEANS makes it no
 MB>> evidence TO ME.
 RM>> Besides this is philosophy, where we can discuss and explore what
 RM>> ever and where ever we please.  If this was science or theories
 RM>> fine, detail the evidence, but this is not.
 MB> Thanks, Richard - this is certainly a valid point, and I fully
 MB> agree that within the scientific scope, my evidence does not meet
 MB> the requirments of science, even the science of which I am
 MB> considered expert.
That shows that you are an honest thinker.
 MB> On the other hand, detailing my evidence would not pose a
 MB> particular difficulty, since I consider all of nature, all the
 MB> evidence I need. 
     
If that is all you need that is absolutely wonderful.  But, also 
remember that some of us are a little more skeptical about this subject 
than you are, and that too is wonderful.  I think part of the human 
thirst for information arises from some healthy skepticism.
 MB> I have a nagging suspicion that "science" never
 MB> sees the forest for the trees.  But rightly so, because the forest
 MB> is a formal system, and cannot prove itself.
Hmmm... I am not sure what you mean here.
 Dicere...
 email address (vrmeic@nucleus.com) 
Richard Meic
--- Terminate 5.00/Pro 
---------------