At 07:08 AM 10/14/98 EDT, RDehaan237@aol.com wrote:
>To compare Darwin's "theory" with Newton's laws of gravity or laws of motion
>is a bit of a stretch, IMHO. Where is the mathematics underlying Darwinian
>theory? Where are the precise predictions that are at all comparable to what
>can be made from Newton's laws?
In complex systems, prediction is impossible. It is impossible to
accurately predict where the sun will be on its next orbit around the
galaxy because of the vast number (billions) of stellar gravitational
fields that the sun will encounter on the next orbit. Thus, Newtonian
gravitation (and indeed General Relativity) is unable to make predictions
about complex systems. So are we to conclude from this that gravity
doesn't exist?
>
>Darwin had an important concept, but hardly a theory. There is enough wiggle
>room and stretch in it, that no matter what observations one brings to it, an
>evolutionist can assert, 'It's consistent with the Darwin's theory.'"
I think one could say that Newton had an important concept, but hardly a
theory. There is enough wiggle room and stretch in it, that no matter what
observations one brings to it, a committed gravitationalist can assert
"It's consistent with the Newtonian (or Einsteinian) theory."
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm