Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!rmooney From: rmooney@uicsl.UUCP Newsgroups: net.misc Subject: Creationism & Men from Ork - (nf) Message-ID: <6267@uiucdcs.UUCP> Date: Mon, 19-Mar-84 22:42:33 EST Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.6267 Posted: Mon Mar 19 22:42:33 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 21-Mar-84 00:56:01 EST Lines: 47 #N:uicsl:7500054:000:2715 uicsl!rmooney Mar 19 12:09:00 1984 I am tired of A. Ray Miller's worthless references to the "Little Green men from Ork" explanation for the Paluxy tracks. I believe this is a distortion of a proposal I originally made to prove a point. First let me state categorically that I do not believe the Paluxy tracks, or any other such data A. Ray mentions is truly valid. This comes from the simple fact that most such things have been examined by paleontoligists and they are not convinced. I prefer to leave such things to the experts. If there is such overwhelming evidence that the standard evolutionary "calendar" is wrong, why is it that the scientists in the field don't accept it? Sufficient evidence will overcome any biases. *Even if* dinosaurs were contemporaries of men I do not see how this is proof against evolution. This might be explained by a mistaken date for the extinction of all dinosaurs. Please tell me why it disproves evolution. Finally, since A. Ray believes the data and that it disproves evolution I simply asked him why it could not be explained with a panspermia arguement, i.e. that all life was put here by extraterrestrials. (We could even include the flood and say they colonized once but were wiped out by a worldwide flood and had to try again) I believe this is as ridiculous as anyone, but *if* evolution on earth was disproven (and the flood proven, both *highly* un- likely) it would be a viable scientific alternative. It is simpler than proposing an unknowable supernatural agent which is forever outside the realm of science. Simply put, which is more ridiculous (from a scientific standpoint), proposing something in the natural world which we know to have likely existence and which we could learn more about (i.e. extraterrestrial life) or proposing a whole other realm of existence which we have no evidence for and which we can never learn more about (i.e. the scientific dead-end of creationism). A. Ray refuses to say what is wrong with the panspermia arguement and why creationism is preferable, so he has to phrase my arguement to sound as silly as possible so that he can ignore it without censure. Hopefully, he will not use it again unless he addresses the point it raises. He cannot defend creationism against a simple Occams's Razor attack so he has chosen to ignore us. All I can say is I wish I could ignore A. Ray and the rest of the creationists, unfortunately I am afraid if that I do they might end up teaching this pseudo-science to my children. Creationists are certainly bad scientists but they can be good politicians (e.g. Reagan). Ray Mooney ihnp4!uiucdcs!uicsl!rmooney University of Illinios at Urbana/Champaign