Re: Burkhard's Post-of-th-Month nomination shows a jaded and mistaken

On Mar 8, 7:44 pm, Nashton <n...@xxxxx> wrote:
On 3/8/11 9:44 AM, Burkhard wrote:

On Mar 8, 1:12 pm, Nashton<n...@xxxxx>  wrote:
On 3/8/11 8:01 AM, Burkhard wrote:

On 08/03/2011 11:35, Nashton wrote:
On 3/7/11 3:15 PM, Burkhard wrote:
On Mar 7, 3:10 pm, j...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
Burkhard<b.scha...@xxxxxxxx>  wrote:
The specific approach I outlined briefly in my post goes back to
Lakatos, and was developed further by my teachers, Stemueller and
Moulines (who also happen, by coincidence, to be/have been staunch

I am fully aware of the type of "catholics" you're referring to. The
type that profess deep devotion to God and then support abortion to
garner some votes.

Amazing power of mind reading you have there - and the usual written
exemption from the 9th commandment,

Is this the only commandment you are aware of as you seem to repeat it
ad nauseam?
Christians that accept evolution as compatible with Christian doctrine
and theology are the types that interpret the Bible in their own
special, liberal and contemporary way.

The authors I cited are theorist of science, not theologians, and
they  have written about the formal structure of empirical theories.

You made a claim about them - back it up or apologies.

The claim that I made holds true.

Your "claim" was about people you obviously never head about, and you
have very obviously no ideawho they are and what their work is. In a
discussion with Pagano, I listed some theorists of science who offer
an alternative between verificationism and (naive, Popperian)
falsificationism. None of this was directly about the ToE, and to the
best of my knowledge neither of them has written about it. They did
write however extensively about the topics I listed. But you jumped
in and accused them of everything from being faux Christians to
support of abortion. So, where is your evidence, or does lying about
people come so casually to you that you don't even bother to make an
attempt, however feeble?

Evolution is not in accordance with Christian doctrine and whoever tries
to reconcile random creation>evolution of life and simultaneously claims
to be a devout Christian, is nuts.

Well, we already know that you are the only true Christian (TM), and
that the mainstream Catholic Church including the Pope, the Church of
England including Archbishop Rowan Williams , the Church of Scotland
and its last 20 or so moderators, the united Protestant Churches of
Germany etc etc are heretics and nuts. Third parties may perceive
this as fascinating mixture of hubris and insanity, but it was really
not the topic this time.

I will apologize to nobody but I will give you a chance to comment on
this. Please don't mention the Catholic Church or the Pope, as I
subscribe to Sola Scriptura as Apostolic Succession means nothing to me.

   I gather? Otherwise, feel free to

point out where in his writings on say, oh, set theoretical
reconstruction of Newtonian physics and their transition to relativity,

I'm really impressed. Good attempt at showing off your copying and
pasting skills.

the analysis of t-theoretical terms or his papers on multi-modal logic,

Multi-modal logic, eh? Now that sounds impressive!

anything that would conflict with religious precepts, and support for
abortion in principle, is expressed.

Whatever you say. Perhaps a few days away from this ng?

Wolfgang Stegmueller? I read him as an undergrad. Still have his book.

Yep, that would be him - it's where I picked up my structuralist

The cult of personality emerges again. replace one true God, with
another that maybe, holds the answers to the secrets of nature.