Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics.

---

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Propeller Head Plaza ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

Re: Newton's Law of Gravity and the Orbit of Mercury

Posted by dado4 (A) on October 30, 2003 at 19:57:00

In Reply to: Newton's Law of Gravity and the Orbit of Mercury posted by Pat D on October 25, 2003 at 21:40:20:

The fact that portions of Newton's and Einstein's ideas have been falsified just demonstrates that they are testable. Macro evolution is not. It remains only an inference .

Michael Cremo's book Forbidden Archeology is the source for the items I have mentioned. It is a catalog without comment of archeological/paleontological finds that appear to contradict conventional understandings. I have not read it in several years, but I am not aware of any revisions to the original publication.

These anomalies do not represent scientific verification or falsification. How can they? They are simply data points interpreted in light of the viewer's preconceived notions. This in no way contradicts my argument as to history (it actually supports it). These finds appear to be a difficult fit for one theory and more a comfortable data point for another. Scientifically, this is all we can say. Evolutionists insist that the Paluxy prints are eroded animal tracks. Creationists say they could be evidence of dinosaur/human coexistence. Who is right? How can we ever tell? It is simply a question of belief at this point. The conclusion reached is based solely on how the data fits personal philosophies of history and/or biology.

Evolution insists that random mutation and natural selection are the sole responsible agents for the creation of animal phyla without a single demonstration of the process or any historical data to back up this claim. How is acceptance of this theory as valid truth different than acceptance of a claimed supernatural agent affecting the same events? Both involve belief in the absence of material proof- faith. In this way Darwinism contradicts the definition you included - it is not testable.

And, BTW I have yet to see a cogent rebuttal of the issue of the contradictions between Darwin’s theory and the Second Law. I will say that most debates on this subject are shallow on both sides. Never the less, the criticism is valid at it’s core. I am very conversant in this area (nuclear engineer by training ) so do not hesitate to argue the thermodynamic nitty gritty if you are inclined to debate this topic.

Our thread to this point has not been much of a debate. We argued at cross purposes for the most part. I would like to discuss what in neo-darwinism convinces you of it’s veracity. Since you state you have no theological / philosophical objection to the theory, this should be a good avenue to travel in the direction of substantive debate.

Thanks,
Rob

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

VH Audio

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---