hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (03/03/85)
______________________________________________________________________________ > { from: michab@aecom } ... > > Now on to something relevent... How can you claim that evolution > is a scientific theory? I grant that it may be possable (though > highly improbable), I thought that science was based upon the > possability of doing a repeatable experiment. Unfortunately, evo- > lution on earth leading to our existance has happened already, > and can never happen again. Although you *may* be able to dupli- > cate evolution, you can never repeat the original. Evolution is a process of nature. It is a very broad and general view of what nature tends to do. Biological evolution is only a small part of it. Scientists are not concerned about what steps evolution took a few million years ago. Scientists are concerned about its mechanism. The evidence shown by various studies, such as the study of fossils, is too convincing to be ignored. (They are something which creationists try to attack by grossly distortions and pseudo-debunking.) If you go the library, you can find all the books you need to learn about some of these evidences so I won't waste my time listing them. The GROSS ERROR here is your lack of understanding of science. Obviously, you only have a mistconception at best. Science is not based solely on trying to repeat processes. After all, the police trust scientists to play detective in solving crimes. If you must use your pseudoargument, then *NO ONE* can ever be convicted of a crime in the absence of direct eyewitness testimony, which can also be misleading. Repeating the past processes does NOT prove that it ever happened. It only proves that it COULD have happened that way. I do recall several good posts in the past discussing what science is about, so PLEASE, refer to them or a few books on science. Sometimes, writers tend to romanticize their writing through eloquent phrasing and pictureque words. You should be able to distinguish between this type of characterization of science and an actually technical description of it. It is certainly not as simple as repeating processes. > I have a couple of questions... How valid is carbon dating? I > beleive it is based on the ASSumption that the percentage of car- > bon that is radioactive to carbon that isn't. I won't swear by > it. Remember when someone claimed to have found Noah's ark? It > was carbon dated to be 4,500 years old. It was later proven to be > a midievel monastary. Do you know that Plutonium dating, (a > meathod not based on a similar assumption) proved that a batch of > iron ore (which can only be formed by the heat of formation of a > planet - or it's equivalent) was no more than 10,000 years old. I wouldn't swear by carbon dating alone, either. However, you seem to be suggesting that carbon dating is the final word. This is certainly not the case. There are many other methods of dating. A more recent method that is highly accurate and highly consistent with other methods is called the `decay track` dating, which does not assume any `original` composition. I do not know where you got the iron ore example. I would like to see you post the actual data/experiment/article/whatever that specifically describes it. There is another GROSS ERROR here. You seem to suggest that only one batch of iron ore dated at < 10,000 years will outweigh all other dating methods that show the earth to be several billion years old. This is an inexcusable error in logic that many creationists use. They prefer to use the exception rather that the general trend to deter- mine some approximation of reality. > About us closed minded, anti-progress religionists... Do you know > that amoung Columbus' papers was a copy of Maimonides' "Guide to > the Perplexed(13 cent.) which said that the world is round. You > see Maimonides' saw the horizon. Or that according to the Ba- > bylonian Talmud, Tractate Eruvin Rabbi Gamliel (1st century BC - > 1st century AD) had A tube he used for measuring distances. > Rashi, a midievil commentary, writes on this "one would look > through it. It could be extected to see objects further away, and > collapsed to see closer ones"(translation mine). What was the point of this paragraph? It is confusingly worded, and I cannot really decypher your point. I am guessing that you want to give religionists some credit for historic discoveries. So what does THAT prove for creationism? I believe it was a monk that brought into light the idea of inheriting traits. This is neither support for evolution nor special creation. So my mentioning it, and your paragraph above, is totally worthless to the mainstream of the discussion. > Just in case anyone out there is curious, I personally beleive in > creation. ... My condolences. ______________________________________________________________________________ Keebler