File spoon-archives/phillitcrit.archive/phillitcrit_2000/phillitcrit.0007, message 164


From: zatavu-AT-excite.com
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 18:19:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: VS: PLC: Marxist Propaganda



On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 20:59:06 -0400, phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
wrote:

>  On 7/16/00 10:00 PM zatavu-AT-excite.com wrote:
>  
>  > I'm not saying scientists don't perform bad science. Some certainly do.
But
>  > science itself does work the way I have stated, or we would still be in
the
>  > stone age - or at least the pre-scientific age.
>  
>  Today's enlightenment is tomorrow's dark age.

You won't find me disagreeing with that. Knowledge keeps improving and
moving forward, after all...
>  
>  > You just pointed out that
>  > you have proven evolution to happen yourself in the lab with
microorganisms.
>  
>  Troy, please, stay with me here. I get it. Microbes evolve. My point, and
>  I'll say this slowly, you can't generalize what happens to all life forms
>  based on microbes. That's all I was saying. This is the type of
scientific
>  hard-headedness I'm talking about. This is what evolutionists do.
>  Extrapolating what microbes do, how creatures are catagorized
taxonomically,
>  how they change embryonically, how their comparative anatomy is similar
ALL
>  make good sense. They are all true but the relationship between these
>  observations and what ACTUALLY happened have not been scientifically
>  (exposed to the experimental model) proven. Yet we accept it as so; do we
>  not?

No, you cannot necessarily generalize to all life forms, but you can use
what you learn in one branch of biology to extrapolate elsewhere and set up
the apporpriate experiments to find out if you are wrong. Just because I
accept all those observations does not mean I accept things blindly that has
not been definitively scientifically proven. Nor have most other scientists
I have known. Most biologists do accept evolution because at the moment it
is the theory that best explains biology, and its questions have given rise
to the most answers. If another theory comes along that works as well or
better, there will be little doubt that scientists will embrace it.
>  
>  > Ever heard of Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle? It's never going to
>  > happen. If you stop an electron to tell where it is, then it's really
no
>  > longer orbitting. Besides, as a scientist, you should
know...................
>  
>  Yadda, yadda yadda. That was, of course, my whole point Troy. Science is
>  limited. That, in fact, was my WHOLE point. Science is limited. Man is
>  limited. Science is thought to be boundless. It isn't. Finally we agree.

Of course man is limited. BUt does that mean we would give up on knowledge
or make use of science, which is the best way we have come up with to learn
things? I think not.

Troy Camplin
>  
>  
>  
>       --- from list phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---





_______________________________________________________
Say Bye to Slow Internet!
http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html



     --- from list phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005