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.