From: robd@cherry09.cray.com (Robert Derrick)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 23 Nov 92 18:21:58 CST

kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us wrote:
: 
: It's a question of proximity. Whether I am a million parsecs away or one
: foot away, I still receive the "supernova" observation through my
: senses. But either way, the phenomenon can be said to have been
: "directly" observed, since it was actually seen and not just imagined.

This is playing fast and loose with the word "observed".  What
exactly does it mean to say that supernova have been directly
observed?  What is the nature of the evidence?

For example, from a legalistic point of view, which constitutes a
more compelling case - one constructed entirely of eyewitness accounts,
or one constructed of physical evidence only?  If combined in a single
case, which form of evidence has a higher level of confidence?  In a
jury's eyes, they would often prefer the eyewitness account, but in
reality, based on much actual experimentation into the dynamics of
eyewitness recall, it is the physical evidence, and that will
constitute the preponderance of the evidence used to reach a verdict.
People believe not only far too much of what they read, but also
too much of what they see, or thought that they did.

Before you leap here, KD, fangs frothing, note that it is for this
very reason that science is so distrustful of "new" ideas.  It is
not enough for Pons to see it, and Fleishman included.  It must be
repeatable by anybody and everybody.  The lame claim that they aren't
trying hard enough is pure apologetic crap.

Another example:  In flying an airplane, if your visual direct
observation disagrees with your instrumentation, the rule of thumb
would be what?  Follow the direct observation or follow the instruments?
In all but the most simplistic cases, the answer is follow the
instruments.  Direct observation in very often a deadly liar to
a pilot.  It was the refusal to believe their instruments that led
the legendary flight 19 to become lost forever in the Atlantic in the
1940's.

In the case of the supernova, you seem to think that just because
we saw this phenomena in the sky, that we have directly observed
the event.  An event that happened how many millions of years ago
(assuming that Red Shift really is always a measure of distance,
which is not directly known.)?  An event that we are only interpreting
based on our rather limited knowledge of the life cycle of stars?
An event whose interpretation as an exploding star is based on a
very large body of assumptions of events that have never been
directly observed.

If supernova is defined as "a bright light in the sky where a star
used to be" then maybe, by your narrow confined definition, one
can say it has been directly observed.  Of course, we have very
little direct information about stars (what kind of assumptions
do we make, based on indirect evidence based on "Unproven" theories,
that allow us to take the leap of faith to claim that the sun is
just a "star".

But physical evidence is the method used by law enforcement,
airline pilots, and scientists of all kinds, to "observe"
events that have taken place in the past or out of our direct
sight.

Your characterizations are, like your pontifications about
information theory, woefully misinformed.

: I don't see what this "reason to believe" might be. No one has observed
: abiogenesis occurring from any distance, near or far. Abiogenesis has
: been imagined only. So there does not seem to be any comparison with the
: case of supernovas.

There is only slightly more compelling evidence that supernovas are
exploding stars than that abiogenesis occurred.  There is no direct
evidence at all that black holes exist anywhere in the universe, or
that they can exist.  Their entire "existence" at this point is
theoretical.  But this is even orders of magnitude greater than
the evidence for the existence of a jivatma, a soul.  And yet you
cling to that ethereal will-o-the-wisp with the tenacity of a tic.

The problem with understanding such as yours, and a science based
on such, is that it is capable of discovering nothing.  It is 
impotent to make any real statements about anything apriori.  It
will only be after real science has codified the knowledge that
wags such as yourself will reinterpret your scriptures to 
include a description of that knowledge.
--

rob derrick				robd@cherry.cray.com