From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Subject: Re: dragons were dinosaurs?
Reply-To: whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 17:44:06 GMT

In article <92Aug21.160921.30248@acs.ucalgary.ca> iwsbarke@acs.ucalgary.ca (I W Scott Barker) writes:
>Indeed. And has every piece of dirt in the world been dug up to prove that?

Not every apple has been dropped?  Do you doubt gravity because the
test is not exhaustive?

There comes a time when the available evidence is overwhelming an
withholding agreement is simply being perverse.  The evidence that
dinosaurs died out long before man appeared on the scene reached this
stage some time ago.  To hold out hope that this is not so is absurd.

>Who is to say that there isn't some evidence somewhere? I'm not necessarily
>agreeing that dinos and humans co-existed, but unless you are some kind of
>omnipotent being, you cannot *prove* anything is impossible.

True--but with the amount and quality of evidence that is available,
any claim to the contrary falls under the strciture that
"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."  It is *not* up
to anyone to 'prove' that dinosaurs and humans could not have
coexisted--but, rather, for those that make such claims to either put
forward their evidence or *shut*up*.  So far, every attempt to come up
with such evidence has been more fit for laughter than serisou
examination.  (One is reminded of one of Stephen J. Gould's
correspndents who examined some purported human-and-dinosaur track
specimens.  He was amazed.  He was amazed that the hoaxer hadn't even
disguised the chisel marks.)

At this time, with the evidence that is available, it is about as sure
that a dropped apple will fall that *all* dinosaurs died out before
primates evolved into anything that can reasonably classed as 'homo'.
What remains of the dinosaurs are their avian descendents.  (If you
want to class birds as dinosaurs feel free, but then please recognize
that those dinosaurs commonly so called are part of the *extinct* part
of the group.)

>> For astrology to be true as specified is _impossible_.
>
>Who says? Maybe there is a single individual in the world who always gets their
>astological predictions right. Have you interviewed them all? Are you so all
>powerful that you can definitely say there is nothing beyond your
>comprehension?

At this point--*you* find the one you claim can stand scrutiny.  All
claims so far have proven to be false.  The general claim that
astrology is bunk is well founded.  To believe otherwise is wooly
minded mysticism.

>> For "psychic seers" to reliably and accurately foretell the future for you for
>>   $2.00 for the first minute and $.95 per minute thereafter is _impossible_.
>
>Same argument as above.

Likewise.  If you believe this stuff, there's an old adage 'a fool and
his money are soon parted.'  P. T. Barnumhad a suitable quote, too.
The one about the sorts of people that are born every minute.

*Examine* the existing data.  There is a large body of it clearly
showing that all such claims (to date) are false.  There is enough of
it that the presumption that all future, similar claims will also
prove to be false.

>Well, I've got you there. My car did in fact accelerate out of control for
>no apparent reason once. Luckily, I didn't hit anyone, and did not go out of
>control, however, the only way I could stop it was to turn it off. The engine
>revved so much that the brakes *were* useless, even though they were
>functioning perfectly. After shutting it off, neither I nor the mechanic I
>took it to could figure out what happened, but it hasn't happened since. Thus,
>it was quite possible that I could have run someone over, and would have had no
>evidence as to why. Thank god that didn't happen.

How sure are you that your foot was on the brake pedal?  You indicate
no mechanical problems evident after the fact.  The simplest
explanation (and one borne out by numerous investigations of accidents
of this general type) is that you *thought* you hit the brakes, but
really hit the accelerator.

>Back to science for a moment: it is an accepted truism that every scientific
>law is fact *until proven wrong*. Thus, there is a built in "tolerance" to
>science today, which recognizes that human beings ARE NOT capable of 
>DEFINITIVELY determining what is or is not possible.

Not DEFINITELY--but once there is a sufficient accumulation of data
and experience that all points in the same direction--it becomes the
way to bet.  It is certainly true that nearly every branch of human
knowledge has had revolutionary changes in theory, but in most cases,
those have been refinements and extensions of theory.  The
obesrvations and data are not invalidated--just the explanation of
*why* things happen the way they do.  Einstein did not overthrow
Newton--he showed where Newtonian approxiamations no longer held for
practical application.  The vindication of the basic ideas of Alfred
Wegner didn't change what rocks are where--but it provided insight
into how to use those rocks to deduce the history of a place.

No discovery tomorrow will prevent any presently working device from
working and no new theoretical insight will change a single
fossil--though it may change where you go to look for fossils related
to the ones you've already found.

>And BTW, I'm not American, I'm Canadian.

Pity . . .  I had hopes that the Canadian school system was better
than ours.  Please tell me you're the exception--not the rule.

	--Hal
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    "Boycott Time-Warner"
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |         --J. Danforth Quayle
510-823-5447                 |    "... kill all the lawyers."
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |         --William Shakespeare
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science