Re: Age of the Earth
Michael S. Tsirkin (mtsirkin@usa.net)
Sun, 14 Sep 1997 17:59:40 +0300
Eli Turkel (turkel@math.tau.ac.il) wrote:
<<Contrary to this viewpoint science is based on observations and has not
been based on philosophy since Aristotle was overthrown. This in no way
means that mistakes are not made or that there are not controversies.
However, one must distinguish between theories and observations. Darwin's
theory of evolution is a theory, not a fact. Dating of the distances of
stars, dating of fossils, etc., is observation. If one wishes to dispute
the accuracy of these datings then one needs a reason. Simply claiming the
whole world is anti-Torah is not enough. As stated before, when a religious
person makes the same observations, he comes up with the same numbers.>>
Although science is BASED on observations, this does not mean that it is
based on observations ONLY. For example, dating of fossils is not a direct
observation - the validity of dating methods employed is based on many
(quite reasonable, though) assumptions about decay rate of radioactive
materials etc.
Even when one sees something, one can claim that this is true only under
assumption that one is not currenly hallucinating. Do you call this a
theory or an observation :)?
Thus by your definition there are only theories in science, no facts at all.
Michael S. Tsirkin
mtsirkin@usa.net