Re: Pentecost responses

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