Re: preposterous

From: Moorad Alexanian (
Date: Tue Apr 03 2001 - 09:21:39 EDT

  • Next message: M.B.Roberts: "Re: preposterous"

    What I wrote and what you say I said are totally different. That is the type
    of rigorous thinking that is lacking in the speculative areas that deal with
    questions of origins. You "summarize" what I said with the phrase "How many
    times do you need to be told that there is more to science than physics?"
    Please explain to me, how does that logically follows from what I said?
    Chemistry, biology, microbiology, etc. are sciences and I can assure you
    that every person that practices such disciples wants to do his/her science
    they way physicist do theirs!! In fact, some will even say that those
    disciplines can be eventually reduced to physics. Did O.J. killed Nicole
    and her friend? Forensics science may say yes, but the answer may be no.
    How many shooters killed president Kennedy? So we really know!! Those are
    the sort of questions asked in historical sciences. Are the answers to these
    questions conclusive? You tell me. Moorad

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Jonathan Clarke <>
    Cc: <>
    Date: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 2:55 AM
    Subject: Re: preposterous

    >You have displayed your prejudices regarding historical science before.
    >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
    >> the earth if I were
    >> not a Christian. But I judge the work in that area and compare it with
    >> 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
    >with out a physics like rigour (what ever that is)?
    >How much work in historical geology have you actually done and how much
    >you reviewed for you to make this judgment?
    >I suggest you actually read some historical geology, select a paper or two,
    >critique them. Here are two for starters.
    >CLARKE, J. D. A. 1990. An Early Cambrian Carbonate Platform at
    >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
    >Eocene paleoestuary, Norseman Formation, Western Australia. Sedimentary
    >Geology 101: 213-226.
    >Show why these papers are lacking in rigour, speculative, and bordering on
    >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
    >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,
    >apologies. But you should justify such sweeping statements.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 03 2001 - 09:21:53 EDT