Follow up Alright, All You Dashing, Swaggering Bush Pilots

"Eric Miller" wrote in message t...
"Corrie" wrote:
"Eric Miller" wrote:
Again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Nothing could be more extraordinary, so it doesn't have to be proven
false,
it's assumed to be false.
Claimants have to prove it's true beyond a shadow a doubt.

Sorry, Eric, that's simply a cop-out.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is certainly *not* a
cop-out.
The patent office won't accept submissions for perpetual motion machines
unless they can be demonstrated.
Pons and Fleischmann claimed to have discovered cold fusion. An
extraordinary claim which, lacking evidence, was necessarily rejected.

Apples and oranges. A patentable invention has to be replicatable.
Pons and Fleischman's experiment should have been replicatable.


But back to the investigation, you're going at things backwards again.
Explain the empty tomb. That's not an extraordinary claim. It's a
puzzling phenomenon.


A resurrection is only a puzzling phenomena and not an extraordinary claim?
And while I'm not suggesting the empty tomb was "staged", are you suggesting
people of the time were unaware of how to create a martyr, make him (no pun
intended) larger than life, and had no motivation to do so?

Which people? The semi-literate fishermen with the hick accents who
followed him around, or the politically-connected, wealthy Pharisees
that he insulted at every opportunity? Those with means had no
motive, and vice versa. Further, his followers had no idea that Jesus
planned to get himself crucified. "Martyrdom" is not a Jewish idea.
(Masada doesn't count. The Maccabin had lost and knew it. The Romans
would have killed them all anyway, slowly and painfully. They chose a
less painful death. They didn't choose death over life.) The whole
notion of "Messiah" in period Jewish thought was of a conquering king,
not a suffering servant. That's how the Sanhedrin got Pilate to
condemn him - as a political subversive.

If you're going to hypothesize a conspiracy, it has to match the
established facts. So far, you're batting zero.

Eyewitness accounts? I wouldn't trust an eyewitness if they said the sun
rose in the East, that the sky was blue and that water was wet!

Hey, there's still hope for you. I understand that there ARE in fact
churches in Missouri. :-)

Sheesh, we
have eyewitness accounts of flying saucers and alien kidnappings. (True
fact: most UFOs are spotted at night... near airports!)

No argument there. I met a fellow who claims to have been abducted by
aliens. A deucedly odd fellow - the abduction could explain a lot!
:-) Or vice versa. There are also some sightings that have NOT been
explained. AFAIC, the jury is out.

(To steal liberally from my own email

Cheater! ;-^

Deductive reasoning moves from the general to the specific while inductive
reasoning moves from the specific to the general.
The benefit of deduction is that you can't reach a false (logical)
conclusion, however, the conclusions you can make are limited to your
premises. Induction has the benefit of being able to reach new conclusions
and generate new ideas, but at the cost that false conclusions can be reached.

While deduction has it's limitations, being governed by your assumptions
isn't the same thing as circular logic... unless your conclusion is one of
your assumptions.

And that is EXACTLY the point that I'm making. When you say, "A
resurrection is impossible unless proven otherewise" that is exactly
what you are doing! Don't you see that?


A valid argument by induction, starting with no assumptions and simply
looking at the evidence, is:
It rained today. It rained yesterday. It rained the day before. Therefore it
will rain tomorrow. Logically correct and consistent... and demonstrably
false (unless you live in Seattle).

As an aside, WWII pilots in the Pacific used that exact method to
predict the weather. It was at least as accurate as the
government-issue met forcasts.

But in the present discussion, your example doesn't examp. One, it's
not demonstrably false until it doesn't rain tomorrow (but will
Schroedinger's cat get wet insude the box? :-p) Two (related to
one), you're using past events to predict the future. That's not what
we're doing. We're using historical documents (and modern science) to
decide whether a reported event occurred or not.


Now, here's my beef with Holmes. The author called his method deduction,
most people think it was induction, but what the famous "when you disprove
everything else, whatever remains, no matter how implausible, must be true"
really was is called abduction. The problem being that there are an infinite
number of explanations for anything, so it's not possible to disprove
everything else. (And come on, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was taken in by the
Cottingley Fairies!)

And Piltdown Man, IIRC. Excellent hoaxes that were eventually
uncovered. (See the connection?) There may be an infinite number of
explanations, but most of them are patently absurd. "The body of Jesus
was stolen by the Cottingley Fairies" "The body of Jesus was eaten by
Piltdown Man." etc. Now then, it would be PERFECTLY appropriate to
lump the Resurrection in with those. A dead man coming to life is a
fantastic explanation. EXCEPT that we have evidence that a
resurrection actually occured: Documented eyewitness.

If you're going to be an honest skeptic (not that I'm suggesting that
you're being deliberately dishonest; I suspect you just haven't
considered the case) you can't just dismiss those eyewitness accounts
out-of-hand. If you do that, you're in league with the British
scientists who rejected accounts of large apes in the mountains of
Africa and Borneo. You're also intellectually aligned with Quen
Victoria, who refused to pass laws outlawing lesbianism (though she
did outlaw male homosexuality), because she simply didn't belive such
a thing existed.

You have to look at the evidence honestly, using the same tools you'd
use if you were investigating any other ancient event. How many
different texts do we have describing or referring to the event? How
close in time are they to the event? How many copies of each do we
have? How old is the oldest copy? Does the content match the
literary style?

With most ancient writers such as Plato and Aristophanes, we have at
most a few dozen copies of their work. The oldest copies are
centuries newer than the events they describe. Scholars are delighted
with this situation. No one doubts the historical authenticity of
classical Greek writers.

With the Gospels, Acts, and Paul's letters, we have an entirely
different situation. About 90% of the text of the NT can be
reconstructed entirely from quotes in the writings of first and
second-century church leaders. We have THOUSANDS of copies of the
texts. The oldest copies are within living memory of the autographs -
IOW, while we don't have Paul's "look how large I'm writing these
letters" statement in his own hand, the copy we do have could well
have been copied from that original. The autographs were written
within living memory of the events: Paul, Luke, and John all wrote in
first person. Mark's gospel clearly draws on still-older (that is,
closer to the events) sources. The many copies we have correspond
remarkably well - evidence that copyist errors are minimal. In fact,
no point of Christian doctrine is called into question by textual
variance.

According to the rules of historical-document analysis, that qualifies
as "extraordinary evidence".

In a nutshell, if we have:
(1) All planes have wings.
(2) The RV-6 is a plane.
(3) The RV-6 has wings.

Deduction lets us infer (3) from (1) and (2).
Induction allows us conclude (1) from (2) and (3).
Abduction gives us (2) from (1) and (3).

Your example doesn't examp. All three statements are independently
verifiable as true.

But they all have their place; stating you have to choose one over the
others is itself a logical "either/or" fallacy!

Point. But to refer back to your earlier statment, each of them has
strengths and weaknesses.

After all, the general premises used in deduction are usually the result of
(or are at least suggested by) induction and abduction.
In any case, an argument can be logically true and still be false if the
premises are garbage.

Correct. GIGO, to quote my IBM-engineer father. And concluding in
advance of investigation that a premise is "garbage" is itself a
logical fallacy, don't you agree?

To pull the other thread in he Regarding Elvis sightings, I've got
two responses. One. How many Elvis fans are willing to be tortured
and killed rather than recant their belief that Elvis is still alive?
(My guess, zero.) Two. Do you think it would be possible to
reconstruct an accurate account of Elvis' life today solely by
interviewing living witnesses, or by reference to the recorded
recollections of recently-deceased witnesses such as Sam Phillips?
(My guess, almost certainly.)

Re the thief on the cross, his partner-in-crime chose to die cursing
God. Foxhole conversions aren't guaranteed, merely permissable. See
the Parable of the Workers in the Vinyard, Matthew 20:1-16.

Re snake-old salesman in white suits, please READ mt 7-21 and then we
can talk about it. It doesn't look like you actually know what it
says. Also see Matthew 18:6 about people who preach under false
pretenses, or deliberately mislead their followers.

Corrie

onloser (Building The Perfect Beast) wrote
And I have to take all this abuse and defend myself just because I asked if you
were a Traveling Man. Sheesh.

No, you don't take any abuse at all because you're aren't a real man
with a name. You're the only one in this thread that is too yellow to
post who he is somewhere in the header or in past posts so the
majority will know who you are. What is Building a perfect beast?
Some kind of loonie-tune revelations reference? You may really have
reasons, but that does not change your cowardace followed by a
non-participating intrusion asking if pilots travel. That marks you as
a useless troll.
That is the kind of thing only a trouble-making anonymous dickhead
would post. Everyone else involved in the discussion is known to all
of us by his real name, and though all have convictions, can discuss
it without it threatening their manhood or their belief in their
particular faith (Hense, the freemason reference.)
Corrie, Eric, Oldcop, Bob and others for example, are one-hundred
times the man you are, and though they may have taken the oposing view
in this thread, they are valued participants.
You have decided to be a disruptive troll, and you deserve my
criticism. If you ever grow a pair, let me know. Then I will engage
you as an equal until you screw that up with more of your disingenuous
posting. Bob may know who you are, but I don't. Until then you're
zero.

pacplyer

On 29 Aug 2003 11:59 PM, pac plyer posted the following:
onloser (Building The Perfect Beast) wrote
And I have to take all this abuse and defend myself just because I
asked if you were a Traveling Man. Sheesh.

No, you don't take any abuse at all because you're aren't a real man
with a name. You're the only one in this thread that is too yellow to
post who he is somewhere in the header or in past posts so the
majority will know who you are.

That's sort of the pot calling the kettle black.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

Some of you guys post very interesting angles in this thread, and I
have enjoyed them imensely. Corrie's faith in his religion and
willingness to debate is admirable, Eric's excellent logic is
stunning. Old Cop hit the nail on the head pointing out that religion
does indeed serve an important tranqualizing purpose in life; indeed
it has withstood the test of time. All human races partake in worship
of some sort.

But let me develope my "double-sided" coin theory a little further.
Inevitably, a discussion like this always includes elements of
life-after-death. Life, again to me, is a very relative thing. My
animals have brains and feelings and moods... Does my dog go to a
heaven? How about my really retarded nieghbor? How about a co-joined
at the head infant that dies in the seperation attempt? The
difference between all of these is primarily body to brain weight
ratio, and interactive developement of same. (other evolutionary
factors, dna, etc also play in too.)

I agree with Eric that everything in this universe, no matter how
complex, can be distilled down to simple physics, chemistry, etc;
elementary elements with complex relationships that if we had enough
time and money, could be described and demistified. I mean if I had
enough time and money, I could build a practical mach.80, pressurized
single engine jet in my hangar. So what is love, death, faith, etc.
I believe these are complex chemical reactions within your brain that
give you your being; your soul; your conscience. This beleif, while
sophisticated, does not contradict the original dead sea scrolls, or
any other faith for that matter.

Let me tell you why I believe this is true. All life forms measure
time differently. To a mayfly, who lives out his whole life in a
single day, 24 hours is a lifetime. But to me there aren't enough
minutes in the day to get anything done on my airplane. A day is
nothing. To my computer, (granted never will be an intelligent life
form since it runs MS products) nanoseconds are a lot of time to
carry out instructions in the CPU. Einstien's relativity in a
biochemical application. And then it seems, that the measurement of
time can change within the same organism. During a checkride or
harrowing event, I can attest, time slows way down for me. It seems
like it takes forever.

I suspect that when we die, the mechanism that measures time is
altered. As your brain decomposes, seconds turn to years, minutes
turn to infinity. You indeed do suffer in a hell of guilt if you've
been a telemarketer or lawyer all your life. OTH if you are happy
with who you were in life, and how you treated others, and how they
viewed you, and only believe in a fantasic afterlife.... you decay in
bliss. It lasts forever to you, because time keeps slowing down as
measured by your O2 starved brain, so your "soul" never even makes it
to the funeral. It's stuck without sensory or time input in a coma
forever. (but I'll have to ask Dead Ed about this theory to confirm
its plausibility. ;-)

This would mean that both camps are partly correct in their "faiths."
The athiest is right that all things are physical, and the devote
religious follower is right to want "last rights" from a priest to
get his mind right before he gets stuck into low gear nano-second
time.

pac "lie in a box" plyer
(email and spellchecker are inop. Thanks Bill Gates.)

pacplyer wrote:

No, you don't take any abuse at all because you're aren't a real man
with a name.


pacplyer,

You know, I posted a humdinger of a comeback to you. But I'm gonna nuke it as
soon as it comes through. I really see no need to answer your name calling. I
plan on asking for help here on occasion and I'd rather not be seen as a
crackpot. Besides that, I really don't care if you know who I am or not. The
important thing is I know who I am. And what kind of a person I choose to be.


However before I wash my hands of all this, I'd like to clear up a few
misconceptions on your part.

..What is Building a perfect beast?
Some kind of loonie-tune revelations reference?

No, it is the name of a Don Henley (drummer for the Eagles) album. I found it
fitting considering the fast, very unconventional aircraft which I plan on
building. When I get finished building it it will be a "Beast".

You may really have
reasons, but that does not change your cowardace followed by a
non-participating intrusion asking if pilots travel. That marks you as
a useless troll.

No pac, it marks you as a hot-head who jumps to conclusions. Notice how I
capitalized "Traveling Man". This is an old slang term which Freemasons have
called themselves for years. When I asked if you were a Traveling Man I was
discreetly asking if you were a Freemason. It's not commonly known, and
there's really no reason a non-Mason would know it, so that's why I made the
statement that I knew the answer to my question after you blew up at me. You
obviously had no idea what I meant. So I knew you weren't a Mason. I must
admit though, I certainly saw no harm, and really can't see why you took such
offense at it. It's not like I called you one of the myriad of names which you
have bestowed on me. And as far as "non-participating intrusion" you better
wake up and smell the coffee. This is Usenet buddy. And, for the record, I
felt my "non-participating intrusion" necessary. Your assertions about the
Patriot Freemasons was correct. However I felt that more needed to be written.
It is vitally important when discussing Freemasons and the Separation of
Church and State that the point is made that Freemasons are NOT anti-religious.
On the contrary, the Fraternity believes in tolerance and acceptance of all
religions. Freemasons are made up of every major religion in the world, and
these men meet together in peace and harmony.

I am a Freemason. I've been a Freemason for over twenty years. I'm from a
family of Freemasons, and my dad will be the head of the Freemasons in my state
in five years. That's one of the reasons that I'm nuking my old post and
answering instead with this more subdued one. My passions get the best of me
at times. But it would appear that I'm not the only one. And I certainly
would not want the Fraternity to get a black eye because of my lack of
restraint.


You have decided to be a disruptive troll, and you deserve my
criticism. If you ever grow a pair, let me know. Then I will engage
you as an equal until you screw that up with more of your disingenuous
posting. Bob may know who you are, but I don't. Until then you're
zero.

I am certainly NOT deserving of your criticism or your lack of self-control.
Once again, I can assure you that I am in no way cowardly. But that is all I
will write on the matter. I have nothing to prove to anyone here. I know in
my heart what I am and what I want to be, and I'll be damned if I'm going to
lower myself to your level. There's enough noise in Usenet as it is and I have
no desire to be labeled as one of the reasons.

So you think what you will. You see, it's not what you think, it's what I
know.

Good day mturner, whoever in the hell you are.

onloser (Building The Perfect Beast) wrote
.What is Building a perfect beast?
Some kind of loonie-tune revelations reference?

No, it is the name of a Don Henley (drummer for the Eagles) album. I found it
fitting considering the fast, very unconventional aircraft which I plan on
building. When I get finished building it it will be a "Beast".

You may really have
reasons, but that does not change your cowardace followed by a
non-participating intrusion asking if pilots travel. That marks you as
a useless troll.

No pac, it marks you as a hot-head who jumps to conclusions. Notice how I
capitalized "Traveling Man". This is an old slang term which Freemasons have
called themselves for years. When I asked if you were a Traveling Man I was
discreetly asking if you were a Freemason. It's not commonly known, and
there's really no reason a non-Mason would know it, so that's why I made the
statement that I knew the answer to my question after you blew up at me.

Pac sezs, Fair enough.

Just how in the hell could I know about your freemason secret
handshake? I thought you were a fundamentalist crackpot "doomsday
prophet" threatening my career with the insinuation that a
professional pilot can not have a religious opinion. I was not the
only one who felt that's what you meant. Finally, you post something
germane to the discussion. O.K. you can stay. :-) I take back the
dickhead part. But if you're going to remain anonymous your going to
have to be happy as a second class citizen around here.


You
obviously had no idea what I meant. So I knew you weren't a Mason. I must
admit though, I certainly saw no harm, and really can't see why you took such
offense at it.

It's not like I called you one of the myriad of names which you
have bestowed on me. And as far as "non-participating intrusion" you better
wake up and smell the coffee. This is Usenet buddy. And, for the record, I
felt my "non-participating intrusion" necessary. Your assertions about the
Patriot Freemasons was correct. However I felt that more needed to be written.
It is vitally important when discussing Freemasons and the Separation of
Church and State that the point is made that Freemasons are NOT anti-religious.
On the contrary, the Fraternity believes in tolerance and acceptance of all
religions. Freemasons are made up of every major religion in the world, and
these men meet together in peace and harmony.

I am a Freemason. I've been a Freemason for over twenty years. I'm from a
family of Freemasons, and my dad will be the head of the Freemasons in my state
in five years. That's one of the reasons that I'm nuking my old post and
answering instead with this more subdued one. My passions get the best of me
at times. But it would appear that I'm not the only one. And I certainly
would not want the Fraternity to get a black eye because of my lack of
restraint.

I've admired you guys for a lot of years. But why in the hell didn't
you just come out and say it? I'm a freemason. I guess that's part
of the thing. You don't attempt to convert others. I like it a lot.

So what, I bit your legg off. I'm a cranky old cargo dog. It's not
going to be the last time either. Good post by the way. (glad I
didn't have to read the other one.)

pacplyer

But if you're going to remain anonymous your going to
have to be happy as a second class citizen around here.

Dude, I'm NOT anonymous! I've made it clear, anyone who wants to know my name,
rank and serial number need only ask in a private email. As long as they
identify themselves properly I will gladly reciprocate.

Just how in the hell could I know about your freemason secret
handshake?

Well, it's not a secret! If it were secret I wouldn't share it with my own
mother, much less air it on Usenet. But that is the whole point of the term.
It is (to most people anyway) an unoffensive question which, at worst, might
seem a bit odd. To another Mason, the question is usually immediately
understood.

I thought you were a fundamentalist crackpot "doomsday
prophet"

Hehe, that reminds me of a great story. Back twenty years ago this year when I
was in high school a good buddy of mine fell asleep smoking in bed at his mom
and dad's house. He woke up to find his mattress smoldering. He ran into the
bathroom and threw several cups of water on it and dowsed the fire. He then
realized that his whole room was filled with smoke. He knew the proverbial
creek he'd be up if his mom or dad found out, so he lit a bunch of candles in
his room to mask the odor and opened the window to let the smoke out. His mom
had heard the commotion so she comes upstairs and opens his door. She looks
in, sees all the smoke and the candles burning everywhere. And there's Chris,
kneeling on the floor in front of the window waving a pillowcase up and down
trying to blow fan the smoke out the window. His mom just started screaming
and ran out of the room and down the stairs to the telephone. Being the good
Catholic family that they were she frantically called the local priest at 2AM
and told him to get over there immediately because her son Chris had become a
Satanist and was practicing black magic in his room! Hehe, I still give him a
hard time about that!

In article , Barnyard BOb -- says...

I was there ,I saw it ,I helped with the funeral services and I saw Unka Bob
rise from the dead.....Believe it...

Chuck (if Unka Bob wouldn't have rised ,I'd be a murderer) S




Yep......
With me rising from the dead at the RAH fly-in.

Lotsa' eye witnesses.


MUZZLELOADED BOb --