Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site scgvaxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxj!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!petsd!peora!pesnta!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!scgvaxd!dan
From: dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: A new voice.
Message-ID: <352@scgvaxd.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 3-Jul-85 23:21:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: scgvaxd.352
Posted: Wed Jul  3 23:21:58 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 7-Jul-85 05:06:56 EDT
References: <349@scgvaxd.UUCP> <81@rtp47.UUCP>
Reply-To: dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA
Lines: 70
Summary: 

In article <81@rtp47.UUCP> throopw@rtp47.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
>>     Too bad it hasn't been able to describe a reasonable mechanism for
>>     Evolution.
>
>Nor has anyone been able to describe a reasonable mechanism for creation.
>Note that I don't mean a *description of* creation, but a *mechanism for*
>creation, that is, (for Biblical creationism) *how* God did it.
>All in all, the mechanisms proposed for evolution, which you call
>"[not] reasonable", are far more convincing to me than the total lack
>of explaination on the part of the creationists.
>
   There is a huge difference here! Creationism allows for a supernatural
   act to start things off. Evolution holds that the same processes that
   got us here are still taking place (speciation) at a rate to slow to
   observe. Nevertheless, since the processes are still occuring, it should
   be possible to discover the mechanism behind it.

   "How God did it" can not be ascertained using present scientific methods.
   We can not use physical observations to discover how the creative force
   made something out of nothing.

   Your first reaction will be to say, "AHHAA, so that means that creationism
   is not science, since it deals with the metaphysical!" But, my answer is
   not necessarily so. Science is interested in truth and evidence of such
   truth. If science rules out anything that is related to the metaphysical,
   Evolution must also be ruled out. Why? Because even Evolution had to have
   a beginning. (ala Big Bang) Where did the gasses come from?? If you say
   that the Universe is eternal, than your opening the door to all sorts of
   metaphysical questions! Finally, since the origin of matter and life can
   not be adequately explained by known physical laws, why rule out a meta-
   physical origin. This is not being objective!

>>     I asked for a reason to believe in Evolution. You did not give me one!
>>     Perhaps if you had, I COULD see it!
>>                   Dan
>
>The posting I am responding to was not directed to me, but I would like to
>restate my own reasons for finding evolution more reasonable than creation.
>Evolution explains more facts using fewer assumptions.  This is the reason
>it has become the prefered theory in the scientific community.
>I would be interested in hearing about facts that creation explains "better"
>than evolution, but I have yet to see any posted in net.origins.

  For as many facts as Evolution can explain, it leaves some very difficult
  problems behind. For example, the ability to reason and sexual organs (male
  and female) are very hardpressed to be explained by Evolution.

  Creationism explains to me why I can think about the past, reason through
  the present, and wonder about the future. It explains why I am so different
  from the animal kingdom and why there are two of every animal species and
  two of the human species. It explains why the dog in all its variation is
  still a dog after years of artificial breeding. It explains why the
  fruitfly still remains a fruitfly after inducing mutations at an incredible
  rate. It explains why the fossils have been unable to confirm Darwinist
  gradualism but rather support creationist claims.

>Evolution explains more facts using fewer assumptions.

 You have got to be kidding! Confirming the age of strata by the fossils
 found within it is NOT an assumption? Most of the dating methods for the
 age of the earth are based on assumptions! For all practical purposes,
 Evolution is used to prove Evolution. Here is a quote from A.E. Wilder
 Smith. "A formation undisturbed as far as we can see does not need to be
 geologically old. If it contains trilobites it is old and if it contains
 mammals it is young. Neither the physical form of the formation nor its
 sequential position with respect to other formations is reckoned as being
 important." from  Man's Origin, Man's Destiny;page 130


					 Dan