Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uwmacc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: The Keebler Chronicles (2 of 7) Message-ID: <935@uwmacc.UUCP> Date: Fri, 19-Apr-85 16:03:01 EST Article-I.D.: uwmacc.935 Posted: Fri Apr 19 16:03:01 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 22-Apr-85 01:25:58 EST Distribution: net Organization: UW-Madison Primate Center Lines: 60 >> [Mike Johnston] >> But all theories have their assumptions. Evolution bases quite a bit on >> fossil records and the age there of. Those ages, for the most part are >> based on radioactive dating techniques which assume that radioactive >> elements decayed in the same mannner that they do now. > [Ernest Hua / Keebler] > Of course! But ALL of science assume that the same processes and laws > the apply today have always applied and always will! How else could > science work?! If F=ma changes to F=2ma every once in a while, could > you imagine the havoc that would cause in physics?! The consistency > of nature is a foundation in science! It is perfectly OK to assume > that in any SCIENTIFIC context! > However, we come to the question of God. God is NOT scientific. How > could entities that can supposedly override natural laws be scientific?! > SO HOW IN THE WORLD DO YOU JUSTIFY ASSUMING GOD?! I think you ought to ask the question, not about God-assumptions in particular, but about assumptions in general: How in the world do you justify assuming your OWN assumptions (in the last paragraph)? As an assumption is a premise accepted without proof, no attempt is made to justify assumptions. One just makes them. (Otherwise they're not assumptions, they're propositions to be proved.) Of course, it is best to demonstrate that the evidence may be construed to be consistent with the assumptions. That's where your real argument with Mike lies. Several times you've indicated that you think creationists (myself in particular) are avoiding the real questions and sidetracking. That's true to some extent, but is in the main a misperception. As shown by your two paragraphs above, it is clear that there is a faulty conception of what the real questions are, or what it is you think you're arguing about. So who can answer you? >> Proof doesn't even pertain to the origins question. No proof is possible >> that something that happened in the past, before records, happened a >> certain way. All we can do is develop theories and see how the evidence >> matches those theories. > Excuse me, but I think proof is rather essential to any scientific > research. Isn't it, Mike?! Or did you just change science for your > benefit?! One may not be able to prove absolutely. But scientific > proof is NOT absolute. You cannot prove historical events. Even if the processes can be shown that seem to mimic what we find as the historical evidence, all that is shown is that things COULD have happened that way, not that they in fact did. > Understand science before you criticize it! Especially if you > pretend to be scientific! Good advice. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "Danger signs, a creeping independence" |