Hi Chris,
I checked and rechecked. What is written below is by you -- and about
someone else!!!! If I were to answer your posts I couldn't have said it
better. Amazing!!! It does seem to support your belief that in nature
everything that is possible happens. In all that verbiage a refutation of
you own position was bound to eventually appear.
Bertvan
>Chris:
>Hi. I visited your sites, and looked at a couple of the pieces. I'm
>impressed with the sheer amount of stuff you have, but not with its claimed
>evidentiary value. This is because this sort of thing can be done with
>almost *anything*. You could easily "prove" the truth of the "Lord of the
>Rings" trilogy by this means, or you could *prove* that the claims of the
>Koran are true by the same method. It's just too easy for a person with a
>little familiarity with mathematics to come up with these kinds of
>"evidence." Since the same method can just as easily be used to "prove"
>things that are clearly false or even nonsensical, as well as things one
>might think true, I conclude that it's not a valid method of proving
>things, or of validating them at all.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Sep 27 2000 - 10:10:17 EDT