I renew my request: could we please make an effort to stick
to scientific reasoning?
1) The validity of a scientific argument does not depend on
what the audience believes or "contends". The whole point
of the exercise is to make a convincing argument. What is
the point of convincing people who already agree? And
conversely, what is the point of using the first sentence
to ridicule those who are not already convinced?
2) The validity of a scientific argument is not established
merely by showing that the conclusion is true. For instance,
suppose a science-fair project calculated that the fraction
16
----
64
was equal to 1/4, by "cancelling" the numeral six that appears
in the numerator and denominator. The outcome of the calculation
happens to be correct but the reasoning is entirely bogus. I,
for one, would judge the calculation rather unfavorably.
========
I am informed [off list] that this thread was triggered
by a project that purported to calculate that humans have
existed for only a few thousand years, by extrapolating
recent population trends.
IMHO it is possible (and recommended!) to judge such a
project without even considering its religious ramifications.
I would judge the project unfavorably for failing to
formulate a reasonably-complete set of plausible competing
hypotheses, and failing to evenhandedly consider all the
available data. It really doesn't matter whether I think
the conclusion agrees with Moe's religion or disagrees
with Joe's religion, just as it doesn't matter whether I
think 16/64ths is equal to 1/4th. The argument is bogus
and anybody who tries it in my presence is gonna get called
on it.
========
If you want to make a scientific argument about the age of
the species or the age of the earth, go ahead.
It's OK to practice such arguments on an audience that
already agrees with the conclusion ... but remember that the
point of the exercise is to come up with a _convincing_
argument, i.e. one that would persuade someone who did not
already agree. The argument must be based on facts and
logic, not predicated on the assumption that everybody
already agrees. (I have not yet seen anything remotely
approaching that standard in this thread so far.)
Hint: I've always found the radiological evidence much
more convincing than the available genetic evidence.......