Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!bill
From: bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys)
Newsgroups: net.misc
Subject: Re: Creat/Ev #4
Message-ID: <37@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 12-Mar-84 14:14:46 EST
Article-I.D.: utastro.37
Posted: Mon Mar 12 14:14:46 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 14-Mar-84 07:22:52 EST
Organization: UTexas Astronomy Dept., Austin, Texas
Lines: 48

Finally, Ray Miller remarks:

>      But to put creationism to the test even more: creation, unlike evolution,
> says that some things won't happen (and thus opens itself to falsification).
> Creationists claim that there are limits in variability to viable organisms.
> Thus to falsify the claim, simply demonstrate said transitions in the past
> (through fossils) or in the present.  If you don't know the difference between
> "horizontal" and "vertical" evolution then you don't know enough about the
> creation model to intelligently criticize it.  

Presenting evidence of future evolution is not within the guidelines I
suggested, which specified *present day* techniques, and by implication
at least would require the experiment to be completed within a reasonable
amount of time.  Ray knows as well as anyone that evolutionists (even
punctuated ones :-)) believe that speciation takes times which are very
long by human standards, even though they may be short geologically.

As for past evolution, evolutionists have presented many examples.  
Creationists, however, always object that the examples are not examples
of evolution of one "kind" to another, but only of variations within
one "kind".  Unfortunately, creationists have not provided objective
critera by which it is possible to distinguish one "kind" from another.
Even in the Arkansas case they were unable to do so, although under oath.  
So, Ray, if you can provide a satisfactory set of criteria by which anyone
can objectively determine whether two species belong to the same "kind",
then we can consider the above test further.  Until then, I will have
to say that it fails to satisfy my ground rule that an objective judge
would be able to evaluate the data to determine whether the criteria
have been met.

> If you don't know why creation-
> ists generally agree with evolutionists on the *order* of fossils in the local
> geological columns then you don't know enough about the creation model to
> intelligently criticize it.

I am familiar with creationist theories for "explaining" the order of the
fossils.  In my opinion they are among the more bizarre of the creationist
ideas.  If Ray wants to discuss them, let him present them (as I do not
want to be accused of setting up a "straw man").  However, as Tynor and 
Mooney pointed out in an earlier article, this theory poses serious 
difficulties for creationist interpretation of the Paluxy data that 
Ray likes so much.
-- 

	Bill Jefferys  8-%
	Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712   (USnail)
	{ihnp4,kpno,ctvax}!ut-sally!utastro!bill   (uucp)
	utastro!bill@ut-ngp			   (ARPANET)