Stephen yen Bushwah writes:
Have demons been proved to exist? Of course not. If that's what one means by evidence, one is not a scientist. One is a dogmatist.
Mammuthus, you're not being very scientific about Steve-O here. You have to frame an H-D hypothesis like "Stephen Fretwell is a complete raving lunatic," since raving lunacy has low plausibilty. Or is that probability? Oh well.
Then, we have to pray on the hypothesis: Lord, if Stephen Fretwell is a complete raving lunatic, please drop Tera Patrick in my lap right now or in the next ten seconds. The failure of said porn star to appear tells us nothing. Perhaps she fell into someone's lap(which has high probability), or some other female will fall into my lap soon (which has low plausibility). I will accept my four-year-old daughter's sitting on my lap as a verification of the criteria. Our hypothesis has passed the initial test, or test pattern. This does not prove our hypothesis to be true, or valid, or vanilla, but it increases the plausibility of the H-D hypothesis. Stephen Fretwell can be said to be a lunatic of at least some kind (jabbering? frothing?), unless the Bible has failed as our materials and methods manual. The probability of that is low. I mean the possibility, sorry.
It could be, however, that Stephen Fretwell is a raving lunatic, but not a
complete raving lunatic. His typing alone is enough to lead us to the conclusion that he is functional in some ways, whereas Brad either uses the shift key too much or dictates his posts to someone who does. When will the completion of Stephen Fretwell's raving lunacy be achieved? Since his mind is open to literally any preposterous notion whatsoever (except evolutionary theory, which evidently depends on not-crackpot-enough evidence), we may predict with low plaus-, probab- or poss-ibilty that it will be very, very soon. We'll ask Jehovah again after lunch.
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall
™ Version 4.2