"John W. Redelfs" wrote:

> At 12:42 PM, Saturday, 11/2/02, Marc A. Schindler wrote:
> >The 1P don't say. It doesn't appear to be a concern for them. That could
> >be why all
> >the sciences are represented in the curriculum at BYU (in fact, BYU's
> >evolutionary
> >biologists are leading "cladists," a sub-specialty in the field). Also, I
> >don't
> >seem to see "all that disagreement" that you talk about. Science is forever
> >tentative -- it always changes. This is its nature. It's normal.
> Aw, c'mon now. Right here in Diamond's book he contradicts all those
> paleontologists who have presented evidence of human habitation in the
> Americas before the Clovis culture.  Why can't scientists at least agree on
> that?  He also points out that there is a difference of opinion among
> scientist whether or not the early American hunter-gatherers were
> responsible for the extinction of the large mammals that one inhabited the
> Americas.  He says that the early Americans killed them all, and then
> admits that many scientist do not believe any such thing.

Exactly what I said. "Science is forever tentative -- it always changes."
Scientists *do* now believe that the Monteverdian culture (the one you're
referring to, the one found in Chile) pre-dates the Clovian culture, but
defenders of the Clovian culture as being first didn't give up without a fight.

> The orthodox view among the most highly respect paleontologists is that
> mankind arrived in the Americas by a series of successive waves of
> immigration over the Bering land bridge.  He says that other highly
> respected scientists allow for the possibility that some of the first
> inhabitants of the Americas arrived here by boat as they followed the
> shoreline that rings the Pacific.  Which is it?  I can't believe that you
> would say that scientists don't disagree on anything, or that they don't do
> it much.  They do it all the time, and it is commonplace.

Perhaps, instead of asking me just so you can pick holes in answers which I'm
presenting in an attempt to be helpful, you could check into some of Diamond's
recommended reading books.

> Part of the reason I turned away from science to religion is because I
> despaired of learning anything with any certainty when the foremost
> authorities in almost every field disagree with fellow scientists about
> really basic things.  I have a real need for at least some questions to
> have conclusive answers.  Otherwise, life is just a constantly changing
> dream bound by no laws and consequently all over the map.  I know very
> little "for sure," but what little I do know I have learned from the
> scriptures, the modern prophets, and the testimony of the Holy Ghost.

It's always either/or, isn't it? <sigh>

> John W. Redelfs                       [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland

“The first duty of a university is to teach wisdom, not a trade; character, not
technicalities. We want a lot of engineers in the modern world, but we don’t want
a world of engineers.” – Sir Winston Churchill (1950)

Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author
solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s employer,
nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated.

///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html      ///


Reply via email to