Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 / QGSI 2.0; site qubix.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!sun!qubix!lab From: lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: ...and yet more responses Message-ID: <1432@qubix.UUCP> Date: Tue, 16-Oct-84 03:51:26 EDT Article-I.D.: qubix.1432 Posted: Tue Oct 16 03:51:26 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 17-Oct-84 09:23:46 EDT Distribution: net Organization: Quadratix ... Quartix Lines: 146 [Evolutionists preaching religion; creationists preaching science] This article is mainly devoted to responses; a parallel article sets forth the scientific creation model, with some implications and comparision with the evolution model. A separate one deals with "theory." Tom Knotts' quotation from the Bay Area Skeptics reminds me of the same lack of understanding displayed by the BAS representative who has been on KGO several times. The man simply WOULD NOT distinguish between matters of faith and matters of science. BAS is wilfully perpetuating the media myth that just because creation scientists believe certain things as a matter of religion, they are trying to incorporate them into science. BALDERDASH!! If so, then evolution is the introduction of racism/atheism/Marxism/Fascism/Nazism into the schools. (BTW, Mooney, Hitler himself said he was NOT a Christian.) *Scientific* creation does NOT look to the Bible for its support, but rather MUST depend on SCIENTIFIC evidence. Basically put: "We have this evidence (same evidence as available for evolution) and a model that explains the evidence at least as well as (if not better than) evolution." I tried to explain this to the BAS representative. He refused to deal with the SCIENTIFIC aspects; rather, he ran and hid behind statements like "Morris and Gish believe thus-and-so." He did not state that they believed such things (such as a *6-day* creation) as a matter of FAITH - I have YET to hear any creation scientist state that he believes in a *6-day* creation as a matter of SCIENCE (that the earth was created is one thing; stating that stars were created one day after the plants is something altogether different). Yet what do Tom Knotts and others do: "But there isn't a shred of evidence that backs up the Biblical creation 'theory' as far as I can tell." We aren't discussing *Biblical* creation. The creation model, although it does not contradict the Biblical story, does NOT depend on the Bible. To answer Rich Yampell's question, saying that the Creator is the Judeo- Christian God is goes beyond *scientific* creation, and into *faith*. Ethan Vishniac makes a good point that Dick Dunn had made earlier: 1. Life originated by natural processes once in the distant past. All living organisms are the descendants of the original life form. ... Model 1 is the preferred scientific model for evolution today.... The religious elements of these models are superfluous additions to model #1. I have said before that theistic evolution is a bad brother to both evolution and creation. Vishniac and Dunn apparently agree. BTW, for those who keep insisting that school children should be taught the current scientific theory, why has Gould's "punctuated equilibria" been dominating the science realm while the kids are still being taught Modern Synthesis/gradualism? More evolutionist hypocrisy. If Ethan thinks his model 9 is scientific creation, he is: 9. God created the universe 6000 years ago. All indications to the contrary are just his idea of a joke. No group of organisms on Earth has evolved into a different group. ... Scientific creationism, as discussed in this group, consists of model 9. The young age hypothesis (dealt with later) is not a mandatory part of the Scientific Creation model. Scientific Creation *allows* a young earth (which evolution does not) but does not *demand* it. The "indica- tions" to the contrary are evolutionary INTERPRETATIONS of the data to fit their desired goals (as I noted in my last series of articles). Another of Ethan's points, this one for falsifiability, is "outrageous anachronisms in the fossil record would constitute disproof of evolution." HAH! Evolutionists don't give up that easily; they merely add some more secondary assumptions onto their basic model. "Living fossils" are one such anachronism - completely absent from the fossil record for millions (sometimes E8) of years, such that any rock containing a fossil of them would immediately have an ancient date, yet they are still quite alive! (Ethan's arguments fail, for how do we know that we are a recent product, and not just something that was rare and unsuccessful for a long time?) Both "Lucy" and the findings of Richard Leakey have caused revamping of the evolutionary timetable. Leakey's discovery gave him thorough fits: "...it simply eliminates everything we have been taught about evolution, and I have nothing to offer in its place." We can also note the treatment given to the dinosaur and man footprints in Glen Rose, Texas. Evolutionists will fight tooth-and-nail rather than let their pretty little system get blown to bits. (BTW, *ancient* human bones have recently been found there, *in situ*.) Actually, Ethan and the others trying to submit ideas for falsifiability do so in vain, inasmuch as much more advanced scientists in the evolution camp have flat-out admitted that "our theory of evolution has become ... one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations." On to two subjects which are not necessarily parts of the basic creation model - the age of the earth and the nature of the catastrophes? Phil Polli asked questions in both of these areas, apparently because my earlier articles did not get to all sites (not even to Ray Miller!). Radiometric dating of rocks is like asking your accountant "how much do these figures add up to?" The answer is, of course "How much do you want them to add up to?" So it is with radiometric - many assumptions, even on the half-lives of the elements involved (more so with Rb/Sr), assumptions which may not be true, including: invariability of decay rates under extreme conditions; that there was no daughter element present at Time=0; etc. The distance to the stars was a topic covered by the Optical Society of America some 25 years, and discussed later by Dr. Thomas Barnes, formerly at UTEP. OSA was pondering the possibility of light (EMR is a strange beast as it is) travelling - not in Euclidean space - but in *Riemannian* space, putting the Andromeda Galaxy many orders of magnitude closer than is believed. I have heard of any followups to this. Barnes has been doing work with relativity, and has found other models placing the stars a lot closer. Just last weekend, I was able to browse through John Moore's _How to Teach Origins (Without ACLU Inter- ference)_, where he discusses astronomical measurement - and assumptions - more fully. On the other hand, in _The Case for Scientific Creation_, Morris presents 41 separate reasons for disputing the 4.5E9 years hypothesis of evolution, among them: Decay of earth's magnetic field (10E4 years max) Influx of radiocarbon into earth system (10E4 years max) Efflux of He-4 into atmosphere (1750-175000 years) Decay lines of galaxies (10E6 years max) Expanding interstellar gas (60E6 years max) On the nature of the catastrophe, the basic creation model makes no statements. Yet from observation of the data, global flooding combined with major geologic upheavals would account for the evidence. Given the evidence of the biosphere, about 5000 years ago is a possible time. "Where did the water come from/go to? What happened to the dinosaurs?" entails a study of pre-cataclysmic conditions. One suggestion (which bears evidence at the poles of former tropical climates) is that the pre-catastrophe world had a high-humidity environment, essentially creating a greenhouse effect over the entire earth. Such an environment would provide both the lush tropical vegetation that brontosaurs et al. would thrive in and the hospitable environment for their massive physiologies. Now to ponder the result of that humidity turning to rain, and either causing/being caused by/accompanied by geologic upheavals (I tend to favor the middle, as it provides the particles necessary for rain to form). The whole face of the earth gets rearranged, the waters drain into what become the oceans, and the dinosaurs (what few survived) find themselves in a very inhospitable environment that they cannot adjust to. So they bid this world fare-well. -- The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford {amd,decwrl,sun,idi,ittvax}!qubix!lab You can't settle the issue until you've settled how to settle the issue.