<rant>
The latter is particularly galling to me as a scientist, and a
continuing source of confusion. the word theory used by a scientist is
defined as an overarching explanation of a large set of data, with
bazillions of studies supporting the concept. The basic atomic theory
and the theory of evolution come to mind.
</rant> ;)
I'm always interested that people use the *Theory* of Evolution as
an example of Science. At best you could call it an hypothesis,
since to be science a theory must be observable and repeatable.
As I've looked into this idea of evolution, what I've found is alot
of conjecture and interdisciplinary circular reasoning. Stories
that constantly change. Comets this year, asteriods last year,
volcanoes the year before.
"These fossils are x-millions of years old" say the *biologists*
"because they're found in rock x-millions of years old." "These rocks
are x-millions of years old" say the *archiologists* "because these
fossils are in them, and we know that these animals lived x-millions of
years ago."
Look, an unobserved series of historical events happened. No
transitional species have ever been found (notwithstanding several
publications' attempts to present them from time to time) that
has stood up to scrutiny. Remember whole hominid skulls fashioned
from one pig's tooth? No? That's because it isn't of general
interest to the evolutionary *scientists*, and thus we still find
Piltdown stories being published in children's 'science' textbooks.
Evolution is not science, it's a worldview that fits a set of
religious beliefs and as such is really only a religious
precursor. Certainly not science.
Best regards... Tim
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
