------------------------------------------------------------------------------ just one more... Eva > Scientists do not as a rule observe and then theorize. They typically do > it the other way round. When they find the data does not confirm the > hypothesis, the usual reaction is not to reject the hypothesis, but to > assume it was a bad set of data and proceed to draw another set. > > These observations are well born out in the following article about > scientific heretics and particularly Thomas Gold, because he generated new > data on the origins of oil and gas and geophysicists are not rejecting the > conventional theory but Gold's data. These observations are not so born out, because what they are not saying is that scientists observed, theorized, observered, experimented, theorized, and observed some more to get the current theory *before* Thomas Gold came up with his new theory -- which flies in the face of all those past observations. > As an astrophysicist he is well aware > that hydrocarbons are found in meteorites and on planets like Pluto where > there is absolutely no chance of their having originated from plants - the > conventional theory of petroleum geologists. Hydrocarbons does not necessarily mean petroleum. As a matter of fact most hydrocarbons found off-planet (we don't know about Pluto, BTW, very little chemical information from there as yet) is in the form of very simple hydrocarbons, such as methane, not the more complex stuff. No-one is claiming that all methane must come from biological processes. -- James H.G. Redekop | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web Programmer | http://www.residents.com/ The Residents UUNET Canada | http://www.residents.com/Goons/ The Goon Show [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.residents.com/Tzoq/ Home Page [EMAIL PROTECTED] [application/octet-stream is not supported, skipping...] ----- End of forwarded message from /DD.msdos=PSCNHQ$/LAURIER2$[EMAIL PROTECTED] -----
