Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Rich Child: "Re: If god exists, what created god?"
• Previous message: Patti Rebecca King: "Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory""

In article <668@landmark.iinet.net.au>,
Gil Hardwick <gil@landmark.iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
>In article <3nud0o$8ig@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, Phil A. Willems (paw@cco.caltech.edu) writes:
>
>> Nothing exists without an underlying set of assumptions
>>which are untestable. But to continually draw attention to that
>>fact is boring, leads nowhere, and ignores important differences
>>between opposing viewpoints.
>
>Look, get clear finally will you? Whatever exists exists without
>humans being around to construct their assumptions, testable or
>otherwise.
>

Give it up, Gil. Reposting my older contributions and
pretending that I am obstinately repeating myself is nothing more
than building a straw man.

-Phil

• Next message: Rich Child: "Re: If god exists, what created god?"
• Previous message: Patti Rebecca King: "Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory""