Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
> 
> On 9/19/05, Karl Randolph wrote:
> 
> > That method, as defined by Dr. G.G.
> > Simpson et. al., limited science to the study of observable
> > phenomena where the observations must be repeatable.
> > If a study does not meet both criteria, it cannot be
> > scientific. Then Dr. Simpson defined evolution as the
> > belief that all life descended from simple common
> > ancestors by natural means over long periods of time. By
> > definition, this is inobservable.
> 
> How do you define "observation"?  Is particle physics a
> science because we can't observe the quarks with our
> own eyes?
> 
This is a typical red herring argument that I did not expect 
from a person of your caliber. Anyways, this definition for 
science is not mine, rather one I received from Dr. G.G. 
Simpson and from other scientists.

As far as quarks are concerned, there is a phenomenon 
that is repeatedly being observed, and that phenomenon 
is interpreted as indicating the existence of quarks. 
Whether that interpretation is correct or not does not 
negate the fact that a repeatable observation is being 
made.

As science is not my area of expertise, all I can do is to 
quote what scientists say. But philosophy and logic were 
areas I specifically studied, so when a scientist speaks 
illogically, or makes common logic fallacies, I will not give 
him a pass, no matter how renown is that scientist.

Karl W. Randolph.

...
> 
> Yitzhak Sapir

-- 
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm