I think we're just dickering on semantics. ************************************************* 1/20/2013 Eviction Notice
http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingmike/6169336 --- On Fri, 1/30/09, Nicholas Geti <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Nicholas Geti <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [OT] Chaves warms to Obama after character reference from Castro > To: "ProFox Email List" <[email protected]> > Date: Friday, January 30, 2009, 5:34 PM > When scientists investigate the quantum behavior of matter > and energy, they > don't think of it as supernatural no matter how bizarre > it may be. And > believe some of the stuff I have been reading lately about > quantum behavior > is beyond the realm of imagination. Nevertheless, they > don't call it > supernatural; they are creating experiments to test > theories that try to > explain. > > The supernatural, as Ed says, does not lend itself to > testing or theorizing. > In fact supernatural events that you see on the TV shows > cannot be > reproduced or studied. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ed Leafe" <[email protected]> > To: "ProFox Email List" <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 5:00 PM > Subject: Re: [OT] Chaves warms to Obama after character > reference from > Castro > > > On Jan 30, 2009, at 3:47 PM, Geoff Flight wrote: > > > What total rubbish! > > Right back at you! > > > Even the term 'supernatural' is a primitive > one. 'super > > natural' means that someone behaves outside the > laws of the universe > > which > > actually means the KNOWN laws of the universe. > > No, it also means something that cannot be measured or > observed > independently. > > > The subatomic behaves in a > > way contrary to many of the established laws of > Newtonian physics. > > We don’t > > call it supernatural, we assume our 'laws' are > inadequate - which > > they are. > > 4+ dimensional theory (which clearly you have no idea > of) formulates > > a model > > of the universe that makes much of the > 'supernatural' part of the > > base > > model. And yes, it does provide a theoretical > construct for both > > heaven and > > God although that is not its intent. > > You are confusing current limits of knowledge with things > that never > able to be known, only believed. > > > If you faith and belief extends only as far as science > tells you and > > that > > which you can prove you will live a limited existence. > > What condescending crap: "what science tells > you". As if we are > passive consumers of some questionable source called > "science". > > If you cannot accept that others can enjoy their lives > without > believing in the things that you believe in, I would > suggest that your > beliefs may not be as strong as you'd like to think. > > > -- Ed Leafe > > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
