On 9/7/2011 9:24 AM, John Mikes wrote:
Interesting discourse, indeed. Brent, I would add to:
/*"usually believers cannot say what evidence they would accept that this belief of theirs is wrong."*/
the *_scientific BELIEF _(sic!) which is* also a belief, based on prerequisite evidences BELIEVED to be TRUE. Those precursors of such evidences, however, come from the human mind's sweat(?) to explain what has been misunderstood if at all. (Then, later, changed - if...). This is the millennial-old mental 'evolution' leading to our conventional sciences (including IMO - sorry!) math and QM as well). We know only part of the TOTAL and pretend that it is *_A L L_* . That leads to arguments between soul and mind etc. Between the 'bible-truth' and calculated 'evidence' with constants invented to make it a match. The Physical World figment. We do not have the details and mechanism of the infinite complexity of the WORLD, we work in models formulated from the little we know of (topically).
We BELIEVE they are true and 'evidenced'.

Evidenced, sure. That doesn't mean I *believe* them. But just because there are gaps (chasms?) in our models of the world that does not constitute evidence for bronze age myths that sheep herders told around the campfire.


As Copernicus could not know about distant galaxies' supernovae or genetics, etc., we cannot predict what will be the image of the average teenagers about the world 500 years hence. May I refer to the great Cohen-Stewart book's (Chaos) aliens (Zarathustrans?) with a different math and logic from ours? It is an excellent try.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to