"Bob White" wrote in message news:xEBRa.82631$N7.11056@sccrnsc03...
"Jeff Utz" wrote in message
...
X-A-Notice: References line has been trimmed due to 512 byte
limitationAbuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper postings
NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library2.airnews.net
NNTP-Posting-Time: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 08:16:35 -0500 (CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Host: ![$;F1k-Y'hiac\&8#rjC`%+^ (Encoded at Airnews!)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165


"Richard Alexander" wrote in message
om...
root wrote in message
...
Richard Alexander wrote:
Historical events are--surprise!--History, not Science, and History
is
distinct from Science.

But it might take science to reveal history. The distinction isn't
as clear as you suggest.

There is a difference between science involvement and being a science.
Many church auditoriums are designed through the science of acoustics,
but that doesn't mean that religion is a science.

Certain terms have taken on a life of their own. A "quantum leap" or
"quantum advance" is used where we would normally say a "huge leap" or
a "huge advance." Of course, a true quantum leap is an extremely small
thing, the difference, say, in electron orbits. Likewise, saying that
something is not scientific has become akin to saying that something
is erroneous.

I disagree. I would argue that creationism is not scientific, because the
hypothesis that creation exists is not testable. That does not mean the
creationism does not exist, only that science cannot answer the question
whether or not creationism is true.


What prevents us from using the logical, systematic, scientific method of
investigation to investigate any proposition at all,

Like the proposition "God does not exist"? Doh! Another Septical
self-refutation.

Septic remains the completely self-refuting, mendacious, and
discredited old idiot fool liar of alt.atheism.

Jeff