[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Pentecost responses
-
To: b-greek@virginia.edu
-
Subject: Re: Pentecost responses
-
From: STEVE SCHAPER <STEVE.SCHAPER@cheswicks.toadnet.org>
-
Date: 26 Jul 94 06:48:46 +0000
-
>Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by ns.dknet.dk with SMTP id AA28185 (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for <peb@pine.pine.dk>); Wed, 27 Jul 1994 07:33:07 +0200
-
Organization: Cheswick's International
In a message dated 07-22-94 John Richards wrote to Steve Schaper:
JR> This might JUST be correct IF all the other evidence pointed to an
JR> overwhelming likelihood that the "event" had been carefully observed
JR> and no mistake made in assessing the situation. However, this is
JR> very far from being the case here, and the scientific rule is that
JR> if you can explain something equally well without resorting to an
JR> infringement of the laws of nature, then it is better to do so. In
JR> this case the evidence in the other direction is itself
JR> overwhelming.
Science only deals with repeating occurances in the present. It cannot deal
with the past, that is the provence of the historical-legal method and
professions. Obviously scientific analysis of the make-up of rocks and
artifacts and so forth are accessed, but science is not the discipline suited
to that particular discussion.
-> Alice4Mac 2.4b2 E QWK Eval:01Jun94
--
|toadnet: STEVE SCHAPER 86:8012/9
|internet: STEVE.SCHAPER@cheswicks.toadnet.org
|
|Standard disclaimer: We just deliver it, we don't write it.
|cheswicks.toadnet.org - St. Louis, Missouri