Foundations of the present official (orthodox) human science are
entirely based on proofs for the non-existence of various phenomena,
objects, and physical quantities. In fact, scientists compete with
each other in indicating items of evidence which suggest that
something supposedly does NOT exist in the universe. Let us provide
here several illustrative examples. In the official human science
theories of Albert Einstein are indicated as the proof for the non-
existence of speeds in excess of the speed of light. Findings of Lord
Kelvin are considered to be a proof that the temperature below
"absolute zero" does NOT exist. The experiment of Michelson-Morley of
1887 is acknowledged as the proof that the substance in past called
the "ether" (now it is called the "counter-matter") does NOT exist.
Laws of thermodynamics supposedly prove that principles and phenomena
on the basis of which we could build so-called "perpetual motion"
devices, are also non-existent. The so-called "red shift" in light
from stars is supposedly a proof that at some stage the entire
universe was non-existent. The definition and descriptions of the idea
of "time" used by present official science are supposedly a proof that
the possibility to shift time back does NOT exist as well. Etc., etc.
These scientific claims about the non-existence of various fundamental ...

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 19:14:26 -0700 (PDT), janpajak@gmail.com wrote:

I've fixed your post so that it makes more sense. No charge this time.

Seriously, you do realize that you're barking mad, right?

On Apr 10, 12:14 pm, janpa...@gmail.com wrote:

No, actually.
First comes observation of some phenomenon - some regularity in
nature.The proposal of hypothesis and the testing of those hypothesis
comes next.
If the hypothesis is falsified this can constitute the proof of non
existence of the proposed mechanism or process of the hypothesis - but
the observational facts don't "go away".

They compete with each other to show that a proposed mechanism fails -
this sometimes results in the disproof of the existence of some
substance (eg phlostigen aether) - but not usually.

On Apr 10, 1:47 pm, raven1 nevermore.com> wrote:

It *is* much prettier now.

The thing about being barking mad is it makes it rather difficult for
the afflicted to judge.
Megalomania and delusions of adequacy are common in the Truly Barking
Insane.
Tis a phenomenon I have observed.
8-)

Cheers, Mark.
--------------------------------------------
Mark Richardson. m.richardson61 AT gmail.com

On Apr 9, 8:57 pm, Richo gmail.com> wrote:

Doesn't science still function pretty much as Mill's methods have and
do? If so you are correct but there are some more options available;

Mill's Methods

raven1 wrote:

I think your translation still left one or two points to be clarified
further. Hopefully my translation will help:

Croak croak croak croak croak (croak) croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak-croak croak croak croak,
croak, croak croak croak. Croak croak, croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak...

You could've done that much shorter, like "all scientists are eeeevil
atheists!!!1!!!".

Just as idiotic and can be read in one second. Well, at least by a person
with some decent education... don't know about you.

--
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove, and gifts with gifts requite;
But men shall mocking with mockery answer, and fraud with falsehood meet."
(The Poetic Edda)
Must have been written with fundies in mind...

My personal judgment of monotheism:
http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus

Certainly there is a wealth of scientific evidence to demonstrate different
levels of reality, previously undiscovered.

To connect such findings to a human concept of God has no validity, any more
than when the ancients used to worship the sun because of its life giving
energy.

BOfL

On Apr 9, 11:52 pm, SeppoP xyahoox.com> wrote: