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 ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005