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: A *scientific model* for creation
Message-ID: <1431@qubix.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 16-Oct-84 03:40:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: qubix.1431
Posted: Tue Oct 16 03:40:35 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 17-Oct-84 09:23:06 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: Quadratix ... Quartix
Lines: 111

[this line has not evolved out of existence]
[#1 in a series of 3 articles at this time. #2 is general responses.
#3 deals with Richard Carnes article on Scientific theory.]

Since Mike Ward, Ethan Vishniac, and many others have apparently kept
themselves in the dark rather than doing any research on their own about
scientific models for creation and have ignored previous postings
regarding a scientific model for creation, I suppose posting the
following *again* will mean little to them. Nevertheless, I can hope it
will.
	"The creation model thus postulates a period of special creation
	in the beginning, during which all the basic laws and categories
	of nature, including the major kinds of plants and animals, as
	well as man, were brought into existence by special creative and
	integrative processes which are no longer in operation. Once the
	creation was finished, the processes of *creation* were replaced
	by process of *conservation*, which were designed by the Creator
	to sustain and maintain the basic systems He had created.
	"In addition ..., the creation model proposes a basic principle
	of disintegration now at work in nature (since any significant
	change in a *perfect* primeval creation must be in the direction
	of imperfection). Also, the evidence in the earth's crust of
	past physical convulsions seems to warrant inclusion of
	post-creation global catastrophism in the model."
		Morris, _Scientific Creationism_, p.12

A key difference between this and the evolutionary model that is so
often presented in this group can best be stated by Byron Howes' own
admission:
	"Evolutionary theory doesn't have to deal with the genesis of
	matter because the scope of evolutionaty [sic] is only (!) the
	development of life forms. Creationists explicitly include the
	unobservable as the creator of life forms."

Evolutionists thus neatly dodge some very basic issues, such as origin
of life and origin of the universe. Unfortunately, the evolution model
cannot escape its uniformitarian basis; thus it is not out of line for
creationists to force the concurrent study of all three origins. (My
appreciation to Professor John N. Moore of Michigan State for noting the
three parts of origins study in _How to Teach Origins (Without ACLU
Interference)_.) My question is "Why are the evolutionists unwilling to
deal with the *entire* issue of origins?"

One of the building blocks of the creation model is the recognition
	"...that the evolution model ... assumes that natural laws and
	process suffice to explain the origin and development of all
	things. The creation model ... says that present laws and
	processes are *not* sufficient to explain the phenomena found in
	this present world."
		Morris, op. cit., p.92

Some postulate the existence of matter/energy at some point, dismissing
any further study as "beyond the realm of science." This is the very
pseudo-science that evolutionists accuse creationists of. Even if the
events appear not to have left any evidence, there still remains the
study to see whether natural laws and processes, operating as they do
now, would have been sufficient to account for what is. And it is the
claim of creation scientists that they are *not* sufficient, thereby
justifying the pursuit of other possible causes.

Inevitably (as Ray Mooney did), the philosophical question of "First
Cause" arises. And well it should - the evolution model CANNOT provide
a satisfactory answer to it. Yet it must, for by its statements, all
things must have an answer within what we see. The creation model, on
the other hand, admits to a realm beyond science, where a First Cause is
fully possible.

Apart from the study of "what was before," we can study "what it was
like as far back as we can see." In this, the evolution and creation
models separate. Evolution views a very simplistic world, later to be
built up both biologically and geologically. Creation views a completed
world, later to degenerate. The geology of the evolutionary world was
built fairly uniformly. The geology of the created world was broken down
and restructured by catastrophes. We can study the implications of the
two models as they pertain to geologic features.

Ethan Vishniac presented his views to support his ideas that overthrusts
actually occurred. Among his six points are the following implicit
observations or fallacies:
	1. That sections of the Earth's surface appear to be moving
	   relative to one another at typical rates of about 1"/year.
	2. That these motions are persistent?
Observation: how do we know that the 1"/year has been so for the 4.5
billion years of Vishniac's point 3?
	4. That 4.5 billion years * 1"/year = 71,000 miles.
	5. That the above points imply that continents have more than
	   enough time to collide repeatedly.
Observations: would the continents "collide repeatedly"? If the 1"/year
motion has been continuing for 4.5E9 years, the continents would have
all come back together again!

The big problem with "overthrust geology" is the complete lack of
evidence that it ever occurred. The challenge to the evolutionist: APART
FROM THE ASSUMPTION OF EVOLUTION, what evidence is there that
overthrusting has occurred? There is very good evidence that it hasn't -
* we're not talking about a few small boulders moved by a flood (:-);
  these rocks are HUGE and the distances on the order of 35 miles!
* a noticeable absence of brecciation at the contact plane (i.e., moving
  the top rock into place should have devastated the surfaces of both
  rocks. The contact plane is particularly noted because later surface
  erosion could not occur there).
* the rock on top rests very comfortably on the rock below - not a very
  natural occurrence, yet distinctly present in all "overthrusts."

To the contrary of Bill Jefferys claim, it is not Flood Geology which is
preposterous, it is evolutionary geology which has more holes than a tax law.
-- 
		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.