hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (02/26/85)
------------------------------------------------------------------------- > But all theories have their assumptions. Evolution bases quite a bit on > fossil records and the age there of. Those ages, for the most part are > based on radioactive dating techniques which assume that radioactive > elements decayed in the same mannner that they do now. Of course! But ALL of science assume that the same processes and laws the apply today have always applied and always will! How else could science work?! If F=ma changes to F=2ma every once in a while, could you imagine the havoc that would cause in physics?! The consistency of nature is a foundation in science! It is perfectly OK to assume that in any SCIENTIFIC context! However, we come to the question of God. God is NOT scientific. How could entities that can supposedly override natural laws be scientific?! SO HOW IN THE WORLD DO YOU JUSTIFY ASSUMING GOD?! > Proof doesn't even pertain to the origins question. No proof is possible > that something that happened in the past, before records, happened a > certain way. All we can do is develop theories and see how the evidence > matches those theories. > > Mike Johnston Excuse me, but I think proof is rather essential to any scientific research. Isn't it, Mike?! Or did you just change science for your benefit?! One may not be able to prove absolutely. But scientific proof is NOT absolute. However, if you want to justify certain assumptions, like GOD, you better come up with something pretty convincing! I hope you are not trying to tell me that God can be assumed, are you?! (If so, on what basis?! <- I am referring to evidence, man!) Understand science before you criticize it! Especially if you pretend to be scientific! ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keebler