Re: preposterous

From: M.B.Roberts (
Date: Tue Apr 03 2001 - 09:27:19 EDT

  • Next message: Gregory P. Kerr: "RE: Why?/Re: Answersingenesis"


    Your statemnets are amazing! But is this an example of what may be "very
    speculative and may border on bad science."? In c1860 James Clerk Maxwell
    suggested there was a material ether in space to provide a material medium
    for Electromag waves to propagate. That ether does not exist. As Clerk
    Maxwell was one of the greatest physicists ever am I to consider physics as
    bad science? After all it was pure speculation and wrong.

    Unlike Jon Clarke who does historical geology I do history of geology and
    find it enthralling how the early geologists worked out the Geol column and
    the age of the earth. Mistakes there were but some brilliant science.

    I say no more before I say the wrong thing.

    Some ignorance is invinciible


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Jonathan Clarke" <>
    Cc: <>
    Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 8:00 AM
    Subject: Re: preposterous

    > Moorad
    > 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
    > physics?
    > 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, and
    > 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
    > 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.
    > Jon

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 03 2001 - 09:28:26 EDT