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