You have displayed your prejudices regarding historical science before. Your
most recent statement on this line was at Monday, April 02, 2001 4:06 PM:
> I do not know what I would think of evolutionary theory and the history of
> the earth if I were
> not a Christian. But I judge the work in that area and compare it with the
> rigor that is needed to do good physics and realize that most, if not all, is
> very speculative and may border on bad science.
How many times do you need to be told that there is more to science than
What would it take you to realise that things may be demonstrated to be true
with out a physics like rigour (what ever that is)?
How much work in historical geology have you actually done and how much have
you reviewed for you to make this judgment?
I suggest you actually read some historical geology, select a paper or two, and
critique them. Here are two for starters.
CLARKE, J. D. A. 1990. An Early Cambrian Carbonate Platform at Wilkawillina
Gorge, South Australia. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences 37: 471-484.
CLARKE, J. D. A., BONE, Y. & JAMES, N. P. 1996. Cool-water carbonates in an
Eocene paleoestuary, Norseman Formation, Western Australia. Sedimentary
Geology 101: 213-226.
Show why these papers are lacking in rigour, speculative, and bordering on bad
science and you might convince me that I am guilty of these heinous crimes.
Show that this applies to the majority of papers in historical geology and you
will convince me that perhaps historical geology is not "scientific".
I am sorry if this is sounds harsh, but I think you can take it. If not, my
apologies. But you should justify such sweeping statements.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 03 2001 - 02:55:33 EDT