origin of life

Paul Arveson (arveson@oasys.dt.navy.mil)
Wed, 12 Nov 1997 15:58:54 -0400

> This contains "we can't see the past" argument, the use of which
> is _prima facie_ evidence of incompetence.

It's not that "we can't see the past", but that we prefer to leave our
options open as to the interpretation of data buried under "millions of
years." Are you saying that you have absolute truth as to the origin of
life, such that it should be presented to children as fact? If so, what
is your definition of a scientific "fact"? Is your level of competence
such that your facts are not subject to revision? Precisely what are
the facts relative to the origin of life?

Bill Payne


Bill: You are correct that the problem of the origin of life has no
certain solution. But I think George was objecting to the sweeping
critique against any kind of prehistoric knowledge in general, not just the
problem of the origin of life. This critique has no merit, and it is
pathetic to see the desperate lengths to which some people will go into
skepticism and irrationalism in order to defend faith. Use some other
argument if you wish; there are plenty. But not this one.

Paul Arveson, Code 724, Research Physicist
Signatures Directorate, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Div.
arveson@oasys.dt.navy.mil bridges@his.com
(301) 227-3831 (301) 227-4511 (FAX)