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distortion of a proposal I originally made to prove a point.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