- Culture & society (59)
- History (25)
- Notable Quotes (13)
- Personal story (11)
- Politics (23)
- Science and faith (76)
- Uncategorized (14)
- November 10, 2008: Of Baramins and Baloney 3
- November 2, 2008: Good conversation
- October 19, 2008: Baraminology and pseudoscience
- October 5, 2008: No Matter What
- September 16, 2008: As easy as 1-2-3
- September 7, 2008: Not what they had in mind
- August 31, 2008: The momentum against logic and facts
- August 24, 2008: Orgnizations v. Organisms
- August 20, 2008: EPICENTER
- August 3, 2008: OF THE PRINCIPAL SOURCE OF BELIEF AMONG DEMOCRATIC NATIONS
Blogroll
Chat
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
E(volution) is not equal to mc2
Suppose a respected scientist goes into the lab or office of another scientist and says, “I believe that there exists a way for information to travel faster than the speed of light, and I believe I can prove it.” Many experiments have been done to detect if the speed of light (c) is or has been exceeded by anything, so the second scientist would be very skeptical, but he would also hear him out. This is because true science is always open to question. Now suppose a respected scientist went into the lab or office of another scientist and said, “I believe I have found evidence that some species or characteristics of species exist that could not have evolved, and I believe I can prove it.” Even though much life exists that has not been investigated, the second scientist is more likely to lose respect for the first than to be open to discussion. I stand by my premise: True science is always open to question.