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" <email@example.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 8:00 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
> > 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
> 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.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 03 2001 - 09:28:26 EDT