Moorad wrote:
>One must distinguish the past evolution of the characteristics of the
>moon from that of its original creation. Evolutionary theory deals
>with the appearance of new complex forms of life from simpler ones.
Pedantic aside:
There is no good measure of complexity that distinguishes among
vertebrate forms of life and there is some question that even the
metazoans can be distinguished without controversy (I think they might).
On the basis of your suggested criterion -- complexity -- could we put
you in with the group of scientists that thinks lampreys and humans
evolved naturally from a common ancestor?
>The analogous statement for the moon would be to find a simpler moon to
>which the present more complex moon evolved from.
That's not the impression I've had reading your posts.
The actual statement I feel you've been defending is that events which
happened unobserved in the past are not valid scientific subjects.
After all, we could never have predicted the specific pattern of craters
that appear on the moon, let alone whether a moon would have formed
to orbit the earth. And we certainly can't jump into the "way-back
machine" and see it all happen again.
>It is the problem of origins that I strong believe is not a scientific
>question. Moorad
I'm aware of your beliefs. But let me ask you something that you
once considered in an earlier post:
What role do you think pre-existing religious convictions play in
forming such a belief about what constitutes "true science"(tm).
Regards,
Tim Ikeda
tikeda@sprintmail.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 08 2001 - 18:17:58 EST