The California Collection/TheCaliforniaCollection.cdr/his065/evolu150.arj/EVOLU150.TXT

Text File | 1985-11-20 | 95KB | 1,914 lines

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

(C) Copyright 1991 by the Religion & Ethics RoundTable of GEnie. All
rights reserved.  Permission is hereby granted to not-for-profit groups
to print this in its entirety AS IS provided that this notice is
included:

To sign up for GEnie, follow these steps:
1. With your computer and modem, dial 1-800-638-8369
2. When you connect, type HHH and press the RETURN key
3. The computer will respond U#=
4. You respond by typing the following:
 XTX99669,GENIE
5. Now answer the questions on the screen and you will be able to use
GEnie the next working day.   Have your credit card or checking account
number handy.
========================================================

 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 81        Tue Apr 04, 1989
WALTER                       at 22:02 EDT

Arminius, the following is a slightly edited version of one of the points I
think you were making in your March 31 append. I do not want to set up "straw
men" to knock down, so if it is not a fair statement, please rephrase it. The
rest of this note assumes it correctly reflects your belief: "...Creationsism
[predicts] that no transitional forms will ever be found...That prediction has
proven correnct... the fossil record [contains no] transitional forms." There
are 2 ways this argument is invalid.

In the first place, a statement that an event will NEVER happen cannot be
verified, only falsified if and when the event does occur. Even if no
fossilized transitions had been found, that does not verify the statement they
will NEVER be found. Depending on the ammount of effort expended and the
expected likelyhood of dectecting them (if they exist), some measure of their
IMPROBABILITY could be determined based on not finding one. (For example,
lower bounds on certain masses are being estimated in physics by the fact that
over ever-increasing periods of time no proton has been seen to decay). The
second error is that fossil evidence DOES exist.  Therefore creationism has
been falsified.

Since we hold two contrary views on this point - you, that no such evidence
exists, and I that it does -  the only way to resolve this difference is to
look at every purported piece of evidence and have you refute each one. Since
there are thousands of reported cases in many refereed journals, we cannot do
all of that here. Let me propose that you take a look at one or two of them,
the submit your refutation to the journal from which the publications come,
and here on the BB.  I assure you that if your counter arguments are correct,
they would be quickly published by the journals in question, all of which
hunger to break new ground.

If, on the other hand, you do not feel qualified to review them, please
refrain from repeating suppositions based on ignoring the evidence. Let me
suggest:

Stenzel, H. B., Successional Speciation in Paleontology,
    EVOLUTION, v3., pp. 34-50, 1949 ROss, C., and Ross, J., Pennsylvanian and
Permian rugose corals;
    Journal of Paleontology, v.36, pp.1163-1188, 1962.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 82        Tue Apr 04, 1989
CHES                         at 21:05 CDT

No, Armenius2, I did not say "the problem is not that the appropriate isomers
cannot be synthesized in the lab." I said "the problem is not that the
appropriate isomers cannot be synthesized". As I read it, this is a direct
denial of your statement in message 66 that "the isomers in protein amino
acids and nucleic acid sugars would not plausibly have arisen in a primordial
soup."

However, in re-reading my message 72, I now see that the message was not as
clear as I had originally thought. So let me try to restate the major point I
was trying to make:

In recent messages you have stated that creationists claim scientific
arguments exist which conflict with the possibility that isomers of certain
biological molecules could be created in a "primordial soup." It is my
contention that nothing in the fields of physics, chemistry, biochemistry, or
molecular biology conflicts with the possibility that life arose from natural
means (ie, in full accord with the laws on nature) on the early earth.

One problem here is that your statements don't leave me with a clear and
precise picture of exactly what the creationists' argument is. In message 72 I
made an effort to guess at what you were trying to say. Instead of guessing,
let me ask you directly. Is the creationist argument that (a) amino acids, or
(b) l-amino acids, or (c) proteins constructed entirely from l-amino acids,
couldn't have arisen from the "primordial soup". In other words, just what is
this "theoretical difficulty" you are alluding to. If you could clarify this
it would help a lot.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 83        Tue Apr 04, 1989
CHES                         at 22:09 CDT

I was under the impression that two intermediate forms of Therapsida have been
discovered that have DOUBLE jaw joints - one composed of the bone that is
found in mammalian jaws, and the other consisting of the bones that eventually
became the hammer and anvil of the mammalian ear.

But I am not an expert in this area and defer to a paleontologist.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 85        Wed Apr 05, 1989
NPC.ARCHIVES [Paul Chernof]  at 20:34 EDT

Lots of stuff to read here since I last visited. Let me try to address a few
points while on-line.

j. Similarity in structure does not develop independently. While
   structures might seem similar, there are tests used which have
   proved many so-called similarities. Arthur Koestler had his head
   handed to him over many of his claims of similarity between
   life evolved in Australia and elsewhere. In evolution the most
   sophisticated statistical methods are used in comparing bones.
   The standards used are rigid and have been used widely. What
   may look like a similarity on the surface can easily turn out
   to be very different under a little scrutiny. For example, the
   Panda's thumb is not at all related to our opposible thumb.

d. As to the textbook reference. Most textbook writers are very ignorant
   about what they write about, and they are scared witless about
   offending anyone, thus the disclaimers when it comes to
   evolution. I have voiced opinions on the subject of textbooks in the
   past.

Gould has pretty much answered (many times) the questions posed about
transitional finds. He (and others) offended the establishment when they
pointed out that transitional finds are rare by definition.  Unless one
assumes that evolution is a gradual process (which reflects more about our
cultural biases than the fossil record) transition would occur in a
geologically short span of time. Also, you could always claim that there must
be transitional forms between any two fossil groups; you have arguement ad
surdium by always stating "and what was the transitional group between those 2
transitional groups."

h. You create a hypothetical situation and tell us the results. yet this
   situation has not occurred. What is your point, except to show
   your distrust of people involved in evolution (which includes most
   biologists)?
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 86        Thu Apr 06, 1989
PANICHOLLS [Phil     ]       at 23:50 PDT

CONCERNING THERAPSIDS
  The structure of the lower jaw is the reason why Therapsids are classified
as reptiles and not mammals.   They are not mammals, but a transitional form
between mammals and reptiles.  That is what we were discussing, was it not? As
a matter of fact, the articulation of the lower jaw is a diagnostic
characteristic used by paleontologists to differentiate between mammal-like
reptiles and primative mammals.
  What you neglected to mention was that the in Therapsids, the dentary bone
is much larger than in other reptile groups.  The other bones forming the jaw
are much smaller.  The quadrat and articular bones are greatly reduced in
size.  In one group of late Jurrasic Therapsids, the Ictidosaurs, there is a
double articulartion of the jaw- one reptile like (quadrate-articular-
squmosal) and one mammal-like (dentary-squamosal).  In the Ictidosaurs,
dentary composes some 99% of the bulk of the lower jaw (in mammals, the lower
jaw consists of the dentary alone).  The other bones, including those of the
reptilian joint, are greatly reduced in size.
  Therapsids have heterdont teeth (teeth differentiated into incisors,
canines, molars and premolars).  Some, such as the Ictidosaurs, have a
zygomatic arch- an important mammalian characteristic because it indicates a
reorganization of the jaw musculature (reptiles use teeth and jaws for holding
onto prey, but not for chewing.  The zygomatic arch, together with the
heterodonty, indicate that this was not the case for therapsids.)
 The limbs of therapsids have been brought under the body, rather than splayed
out to the side, making them more like mammals than modern reptiles or
dinosaurs.  This gives them the ability to move faster and may indicate that
like some dinosaurs and like the crocidles today, they are warm-blooded.
 To be sure, there are many features of Therapsids that are reptilian.  The
point is that they ARE reptiles, transitional to early mammals.  They compare
favorably to some of the earlier mammals, like the Docodonta, Symmetrodonta
and especially the Multituberculata.
  Now, onto another charge.  Arminius claims that after a million years of
observation, no macroevolutionary change has been observed.  First of all, I
would have to wonder how old he is, to have been around a million years to
search for this.  Darwin published in 1859.  At most, biologists have been
looking for such changes about 130 years.  Yet, in order to verify such a
change, a species would have to be singled out for study and then observed in
nature (as creationists would hardly credit laboratory evidense) for several
thousand years before any such evidense could be forthcoming.  To my
knowledge, no such study has been undertaken.  Given the nature of funding in
academica, it is unlikely that such a project could be kept going that long.
The experiments refered to on fruit-flies and E. coli were not done to induce
macroevolutionary change.  They were done to study how variation arises and is
transmitted.
  Creationist accept what they call microevolution, since it is changing
"within a kind," but reject macroevolution.  When opposing hypotheses are
discussed, they see it as some sort of flaw.  What they are seeing is how
science works.  In reality, microevolutionary and macroevolutionary changes
arise from the same mechanisms.  The distinctions made by creationists are
meaningless and reflect a fundamental ignorance of modern evolutionary theory.
 New organs do not spring-up.  Completely new structures are rare in the
history of life on earth.  Instead, existing structures are modified to new
ends.  This is a process of slow, gradual change.
 This brings us to Arnimius's revival of the old watchmaker arguement, his
discussion of the organ of Corti- the structure that registers individual
frequecies of sound and translates them into nevous impulses.  This structure,
plus the movement of the old reptilian quadrate and articular bones into the
mammalian inner ear, causes him to doubt evolution, and to assert that
creationists offer a more scientific explaination.  We must ask ourselves
which explaination makes the most sense and which is truely opperating within
the realm and restrictions of science.  Explaination #1:  An intelligent
creator designed and constructed such organs and indeed, all the major "kinds"
of organisms.  Explaination #2:  All life  has a common origin and all of the
wonderous structures came about by mechanisms still in operation today.
   To my mind, only one of this, the second, can be considerd a scientific
explaination.  Creationism has a built in escape clause- divine intervention,
to explain all those nasty enigmas.  Science cannot appeal to supernatural
agencies.  Therefore, any "theory" that makes such an appeal cannot be
considerd scientific.   Evolutionary theory unifies biology in a way that  no
other single theory can.  It explains so much, has withstood so many tests,
that it will be difficult to disprove.  This brings me to my final point.
Science cannot prove any proposition beyond doubt.  Science can affirm a
theory or disprove it, but it can never set up any idea to a status that it
cannot be challanged.  Falsifible means it can be disproven, not proven.
Thus, all science is forensic science, by your definition.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 87        Sun Apr 09, 1989
ARMINIUS2                    at 20:01 EDT

P. Nichols,


I have learned that the Creation Research Society (not ICR) has recently
published an article on the Therapsid Reptile issue. I will try to obtain that
and upload the main ideas.

                          Heads I win Tails you lose?

I too see the need for science to look for the natural laws, but I see no need
to exclude the obvious in the name of science. Intelligent design is the
obvious alternative to evolution. But, your definition of science is the same
thing as saying science cannot consider the alternative. What good is a
science like that? A science that can not consider the obvious alternatives?

Under your definition, science is FORCED by dogma to make the evidence fit
evolution!  Why? Because you have forbidden it to look at the alternatives.
Your definition of science is just another form of the old saying, "Heads I
win tails you lose!"

Suppose two people find a watch. The first finder says the watch is obviuosly
the result of intelligent design because of the well ordered movement of the
hands, the protective dust casing etc. The second finder says we can only
appeal to the mechanism inside the watch to explain its origin. Anything else
would not be scientific. By so doing the second finder makes it impossible for
himself to ever be proved wrong, since now it is impossible to find any other
explanation.

This does not mean I am backing off and now saying Evolution is not
falsifiable. It means your definition of science (if adopted) would make
evolution incapable of falsification.

Isn't it strange that Evolutionists have said science can only examine the
things which are falsifiable, and then you turn around and define science in
such away that Evolution cannot be falsified by it!

Oh sure, there would be plenty of discussion as to how it occurred, but it
would always be necessary to presume it did.

                    Empirical Science vs. Forensic Science

Changing the subject, you say all science is forensic by my definition. Not
correct. A forensic science is one that (like macro evolution) is not capable
of observation or is not repeatable in an experiment.

Empirical science is testable, observable and repeatable; forensic science is
not. The theory of Electricity is an empirical science, but the theory of
Macro Evolution is a forensic science. Is it not obvious?

                         Progress requires concession

I feel you are in a position to concede that Macro-Evolution is a forensic non-
testable science, but you have yet to agree to this point. The same thing
applies to the issue of whether Creationism is falsifiable or not. You have
yet to clarify your agreement, or give a reason for disagreement.

Arminius2
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 88        Sun Apr 09, 1989
ARMINIUS2                    at 20:03 EDT

Walter,

The existence of macro-transitional forms (if they exist) would falsify only
the anti-evolutionary portion of Scientific Creationism. But, it is too
cumbersome to keep saying "the anti-evolutionary portion of Creationism" so I
have abbreviated from time to time by simply saying "Creationism". If you
allow that distinction in your definition of my position you will have
accurately defined it.

Of course, transitional forms would NOT disprove intelligent design. In fact,
highly organized and complex macro-transitional changes (if they exist) would
IMPLY intelligent design. I find it lamentable that Ches has been unable to
find any indication of a divine creator in the world around him (#73).

But, that is a different argument altogether. For now you have claimed the
existence of "thousands" of transitional forms. You also seem to think that I
should study all of them before making a comment on them. Not correct. For the
level of discussion we are pursuing here, it is just as well that I quote from
experts who have studied them, and base my suppositions on that.

I feel it is too early for you to expect a concession on the existence of
transitional forms. Also, it would be impossible for me to address a thousand
at once. Try something more practical like one at a time. Anyway, the quotes
below cause me to doubt the veracity of your statement, and for the moment I
am still researching the Therapsid reptile issue.

    "The EXTREME RARITY of transitional forms in the fossil record
    persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary
    trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and
    nodes of their branches; the rest is INFERENCE, however reasonable,
    not the evidence of fossils"
          (Stephen Jay Gould May 1977 Natural History pg 14.)

    "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of plyletic
    evolution accomplishing a major morphological transition..."
           (Steven Stanley Macro-Evolution: Pattern and Process pg 39)

   "In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist
   knows, that most new species, genera and families, and that nearly all
   categories above the level of families, APPEAR IN THE RECORD SUDDENLY and
   are not led up to by known gradual completely continuous transitional
   sequences." (the Major Features of Evolution by G.G. Simpson pg 360)

(emphasis mine) These quotes come from ICR reference material so I do not have
the source documents.

It is not necessary for one to use a fact the same way his opponent does. If
it is a fact for Mr.Gould that "the rest is inference" then it is a fact I can
use as well.

It is true Mr. Gould uses the gaps to support Punctuated Equilibrium. But,
there is no reason Creationists cannot use the same gaps to support
"Punctuated Creation" instead.

Arminius2 ----------
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 89        Sun Apr 09, 1989
ARMINIUS2                    at 20:06 EDT

Ches,

I see no difference between saying the isomers were synthesized "in the lab"
or saying the isomers were "synthesized" (not mentioning the lab). In either
case they are still performed in the lab. So why sound the alarm?

The experiments done in the lab lack realism. I will be paraphrasing from
"Adam and Evolution" by Michael Pitman pg 140-142.

1. The experiments utilize a cold trap which protects the resulting products
from the destructive effects of the electrical discharge zone. In a real world
soup that protection would not be available, especially when you consider the
harmful zone which a bolt of lightning would produce.

2.Living proteins are based on L-Form amino acids. The problem is that the
amino acids produced by discharges of electricity in lab soups produce both L
and D form amino acids. In a realistic scenario there appears to have been no
process whereby the L and D forms would have become sufficently isolated from
each other so that L-form proteins could form.

3. A real world primordial soup would not have been able to isolate reactive
end products from each other as is done in the lab. And, if the right
concentration of organic materials did occur there was no way to keep them
from degrading into non biological reactions as soon as they were formed.

4. If life had emerged from a primordial soup or if it had been near the top
of the soup, it would have been destroyed by ultra violet radiation as the
ozone layer then would have offered too little protection.

5. A primordial soup would have been too diltue to produce the polymers or
chain molecules which form living material.

                           Religious Accidentalism?

Professor Wichramasinghe (at the Arkansa trial) pointed out that the odds for
life beginning by itself, and then developing to its present state would be
about the same for a tornado going through a junkyard and producing a Boeing
707!

It is not science, but faith that causes the Evolutionist to believe in a self
regulating process that began with chemicals in a soup and worked upwards (by
itself to produce both you and I.

Of course I suppose it is alright for one to believe all this occurred by
chance, but then it is merely belief. In fact, it is just as much a matter of
faith as is religious creationism.

Evolution is nothing more than religious Accidentalism set forth as a
scientific theory. In view of that, equal time for Creationism should be
given. Creationism is a far more rational explanation for the complexity of
living organisms than the accidentalism of Evolution.

You said earlier that you would love to see some evidence of a divine creator.
Is it not all around you?

         "Was the eye contrived without skill in optics and the ear
         without knowledge of sounds" Sir Isaac Newton

         "...beyond the intricate mechanisms of the human eye lie
         breathtaking glimpses of a master plan" Sir Charles Sherrington

         "Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so
         that the chance of their being formed through random
         shufflings of simple organic molecules is exceeding minute,
         to a point where it is insensibly different from zero"
         Sir Fred Hoyle and Professor Wickramasinghe

         "To involve purpose is in the eye of the biologists the
         ultimate scientific sin...The revulsion which biologists
         feel to the thought is therefore revulsion to the concept
         that biology might have a connection to a higher intelligence
         than our own" Ibid


The evidence for intelligent design abounds. And, the accidentalism of the
primordial soup scenario is not up to the task of explaining it.

Arminius2 ------------
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 90        Sun Apr 09, 1989
PANICHOLLS [Phil     ]       at 23:02 PDT

Arminius,

   You yourself have outlines at least two situations in which  evolution
becomes falisifible.  Your continued assertion to the  contrary is just
another example of creationist double-speak. If modern mammalian fossils were
found, say, in Precambrian rocks, that would falisfy evolution.  There would
be no way to explain it. If no transitional forms existed at all, that would
also falsify evolution. If anyone were to find convincing evidense of
hydrolyic sorting (the    hypothesis proposed by creationists to explain the
fossil record) then that too would falsify evolution.

  If the immuniological distance between humans and apes were the same as
between humans and horses, then that would falsify evolution.

  How do you falsify the idea of intelligent design?  You cannot.  C
Creationism has built within it an escape clause.  You cannot falsify the
central concept of intelligent design.

  Science cannot make appeals to the supernatural to explain.  Any system o
of ideas or beliefs that does cannot be scientific.  That is not my
definition of science, it is one accepted by Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Ernst
Nagel and other philosphers of science.  Science deals with NATURAL phemomenia
and must operate within the realm of the NATURAL.  That  definition was not
proposed to keep creationists out, but to limit the domain of science to those
areas in which the scientific method is applicable.  If you are going to start
submitting religion to scienctific test, you are in trouble.  But why should
you?  Religion draws its  wisdom from a different source and uses a different
methodology.  I see no need to cast either aside.  Rather, they operate within
different object domains of knowledge.  It is you who seek to impose a
conflict  where one does not exist.

  Finally, your insistance on the term forensic:

   Forensic (adj)  1) belonig to, used in or suitable to courts of
   judicature or to public debate.  2) ARGUMENTATIVE, RHETORICAL.

Evolution is not a mear rhetorical exercise, but an attempt to explain and
test ideas concerning the history of life on earth.  Evolution is  not a
rhetorical science, much as you would like to believe otherwise.

By the way,the article you mentioned on Therapsids- don't waste your time.  I
have read it and have already disposed of its main points  in my previous
posting.  Repeating its twisted logic, distortions and fictions will not make
them come true.  Yes, I have read it already.

Tell me, have you ever seen a therapsid fossil?

 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 91        Mon Apr 10, 1989
ARMINIUS2                    at 23:32 EDT

P.Nicholls,

You seem to think I am backing off on my earlier concession that Evolution is
falsifiable. I am not. Evolution is falsifiable.

I am not saying Evolution cannot be falsified, I am saying your definition of
science would make it incapable of falsification.

You ask how one can falsify the idea of intelligent design. I don't think it
can be falsified. But, then again how can one falsify Accidentalism when your
definition of science won't allow them to adopt any other alternative! They
certainly cannot adopt intelligent design because you have already ruled that
out for them!

Actually, I feel the most scientific approach is to utilize a process of
elimination. If we compare both Accidentalism and Intelligent Design to the
evidence, which explains the evidence the best?

If Intelligent design fits the evidence best then why do you insist on
defining science to exclude it? Furthermore, if Accidentalism does not
adequately explain the evidence, why do you define science in such a way it
must teach it!

I submit to you that something is radically wrong with your definition of
science!
                           ***********************

You ask if I have ever seen a therapsid reptile. No. Only drawings.

But, with a few exceptions, my arguments were not my own. My role was to relay
the arguments of others who have the expertise. So, I don't think you can
minimize my responses a whole lot, though I suppose you can some.

In fact, I will minimize my previous responses for you.

Folks, my responses were only shadows of what might have been said by the
Creation Scientists I borrowed my ideas from. If I have done poorly it was
because I represented them poorly. If I have done well at all it is because
their strength held me up.

Arminius2




 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 92        Wed Apr 12, 1989
PANICHOLLS [Phil     ]       at 00:20 PDT

Arminius,

   If you want to falsify evolution, you have only to produce any of the
situations you suggest.  Find dinosaur and human footprints side by side, find
a modern mammal in precambrian rock, find some discontinuity in the genetic
structure of organisms on this planet. Your first say evolution is falsifible,
then you say it cannot be falsified.  You are not making your position clear.

  Science is, basically, what scientists do.  When you get right down to it,
that's what science is.  The Center for Creation Research does not do science.
The results of their work are not pulished in any peer reviewed scientific
journals.  They rely on the general public's ignorance of science and when
inconsistancies are pointed out to them, they are ignored.  I can listyou no
less than 10 books in which  biologists, paleontologists and geologists have
taken the evidense presented by creationists and reviewed it.  Yet, dispite
this, the same arguements keep appearing: the thermodynamic argument, the gaps
in the fossil record arguement, the design arguement, etc., all appear in one
form or another unaffected by critique.  That is not science.  That is a
deliberate attempt to mislead and misinform.

  I have defined science as a methodology that investigates  natural
phenomenia by means of gathering data, forming hypotheses  and testing
hypotheses.  A one must be able to make predictions based on a hypothesis,
predictions concerning the results of those activities that verify hypothesis.
The body of theories know as Evolution have followed this course.  Creationism
forms a hypothesis prior to any gathering of data, based upon the perception
that this aspect of biology violates deeply felt spiritual values.
Creationists then do not look for data to confirm their hypothesis, but seek
to cast doubt on evolution, feeling that creationism must win by default.

  All of the fossil, biochemical, embryological and anatomical evidense
suggests that all life has a common origin.  There exists no evidense for a
contrary position at this time.  I have asked you to present this evidense and
you have responded only by attacking evolution.  I am sorry if these ideas
upset you.

  Now I am going to tell you something else.  I too have deeply held spiritual
values.   I do not see an active creator, but rather an embodyment of nature
that when contemplated, is very moving.  You  are attempting to bring god into
science.  I say that one cannot have direct experience of god through science,
but rather through a  contemplation of the deeper emaningof science, of first
causes.

 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 93        Wed Apr 12, 1989
DRMIKE                       at 17:25 EDT

ARMINIUS,
 Why do you refuse to accept the possibility that evolution was the mechanism
used by God to create life on earth? That is accepted by most mainstream
religions today.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 94        Wed Apr 12, 1989
MPIASKIEWICZ [Mark P]        at 22:29 EDT

  Arminius, you seem to understand that proof has nothing to do with science,
and that when an experiment is devised to test a theory, the best result that
can be hoped for is that the experiment will fail to falsify the theory.

  'Scientific' creationism is based on the premise that a creator exists.
Since there is no way to devise an experiment that can disprove the existence
of a creator, the entire foundation that 'Scientific' creationism rests on an
unscientific theory. Until an experiment is devised that test for the
existence of a God, how can creationism be called a science? It can't.

  Teaching creationism as a science is, in my opinion, staggeringly
irresponsible, especially in light of the poor scientific education that our
students are currently receiving.

  --Mark
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 96        Thu Apr 13, 1989
ARMINIUS2                    at 21:46 EDT

P.Nicholls,

I shall try to clarify the distinction by giving you a scenario.

Let us suppose paleontologists found a fully developed skeleton of modern man
in the lower Cambrian level, a level where invertebrates would be expected,
but nothing more complex than that. Furthermore, let us suppose this became a
common finding (of course I realize it isn't).  Would you reject evolution,
and if you did, what would you replace it with?

I contend you would have nothing to replace Evolution with, therefore you
simply would have to find a "natural process" to explain away the difficulty.

As I see it, your definition of science results in the following syllogism:


YOUR MAJOR PREMISE: Science must always resort to natural explanations

MINOR PREMISE (unspoken): Evolution is the only natural explanation possible.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION: Science can only resort to Evolution.


Under your definition of science you must make the evidence fit evolution or
you must make evolution fit the evidence, but evolution itself is never at
risk.

                          **************************

DrMike,

I do not reject the possibility, nor does the idea upset me as P.Nicholls
suggested.

Depending on the evidence, I would even be willing to adopt Theistic
Evolution. I would not require ABSOLUTE proof either, only reasonable
probability.
                      *********************************** Mark P.,

I agree the existence of a Creator cannot be falsified by scientific means.

However, the question is not whether a Creator exists, it is whether the
complexity of biological organisms would be best explained by accidentalism,
or by intelligent design.

Now, if we decide that the evidence of biological complexity is best explained
by intelligent design then we have arrived at the hypothesis of a creator via
NATURAL, NON RELIGIOUS means!

Furthermore, if you forbid intelligent design in the classroom you not only
forbid a "natural" conclusion, you  must offer accidentalism in its place.
But, accidentalism does not fit the evidence as well as intelligent design
does! It is the inferior explanation of the two. Yet, you would give it
preference? Scientific nonsense!

It is better to work two untestable ideas against each other than to adopt the
inferior one of the two, and then let it go unchallenged!

Arminius2



 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 98        Sat Apr 15, 1989
MPIASKIEWICZ [Mark P]        at 10:49 EDT

  Arminius, in one mesage you imply that lack of transitional forms is
evidence for intelligent design, and in another you say that transitional
forms if found, (they have) would also be evidence for intelligent design!
Talk about 'Heads I win, Tails you loose'! What kind of logic is that??

  That's only another way of saying "It was created that way", 'Scientific'
creationism's all-purpose escape clause. It's only an easy way out of a tough
situation, and doesn't solve anything.

  'Scientific' creationism, intelligent design, or what ever you decide to
call it, thrives on, and pushes that kind of distorted logic. _THAT_ is why I
find teaching it as a _science_ so offensive.

  When it was discovered that the sun could not be powered by chemical
reactions, the scientists of that day could have taken the easy way out and
said, "It was created that way", but they didn't. Nuclear physics eventually
came up with a better answer, but it still couldn't account for all the energy
being produced. Again, they kept at the problem, and eventually effects
predicted by Quantum mechanics did account for the energy being produced.
Granted, there is still the problem of less neutrinos being detected than
predicted, but I assure you, it is being worked on.

  When measurements of the speed of light in different directions and the
failure to accurately predict the orbit of Mercury sank Newtonian mechanics,
scientists didn't throw up their hands and say "It was created that way", they
came up with the theory of relativity. And remember, Newtonian mechanics had
been accepted as 'law' for almost three centuries.

  If evidence turns up that pulls the rug out from under evolution, (you came
up with a senario for that) I guarantee that no scientist is going to give up
and say "It was created that way". The new evidence would be carefully
considered, and new theories would eventually be formulated. These new
theories would be just as falsifiable as Newtonian mechanics, Quantum
mechanics, Relativity, the current theory of Evolution, and any other
_scientific_ theory you can think of. Science is objective, and has never
claimed to be infallible.

  Creationism is based on the statement "It was created that way" and that
statement cannot be falsified. That is an unscientific, subjective statement.
How can you call it a natural conclusion when it is nothing other than thinly
disguised dogma? There is no senerio that can falsify creationism, but there
are senarios that can falsify Evolution. That is why Evolution is a science
and creationism is not.

  I have no problems with creationism being taught in a philosophy or religion
class. Not being a science, however, it has no place in a science class even
if it is an alternative to evolution.

  --Mark
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 99        Sat Apr 15, 1989
NPC.ARCHIVES [Paul Chernof]  at 14:43 EDT

Today's reading of this topic reminded me that "Creation Science" can be seen
as blasphemy. We do not exist in a world of perfect design (at least when it
comes to living things). The design of animals has a "make do" philosophy
about it with lots of room for improvement. Creation Science makes God look
like a lousy designer.

And it is time to bring in a little information theory. Just to keep this
message short, information theory (which came out of Bell labs) supports
evolution. The comparison of evolution to a tornado in a junk yard producing a
747 is garbage (excuse the pun). While information theory does not necessarily
predict (though its inventory made lots off of applying it to the stock
market) it shows mutation to be random but NOT chaotic. Creation Science
confuses randomness with chaos.

Paul
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 100       Sat Apr 15, 1989
CHES                         at 21:19 CDT

Armenius2, I am really suprised by Michael Pitman's "criticisms" of chemical
evolution. His comments suggest to me either that he has a very shallow
understanding of the fields of chemical kinetics and kinetic molecular theory,
or that he is deliberately trying to deceive non-scientists. Let me explain:

First, why does Pitman state (to quote your summary of his claims) that the
"harmful zone which a bolt of lightening would produce" would destroy the
resulting products (a comment that is echoed in the second sentence of claim
number 3). Come on, Armenius2! Any student of chemical kinetics knows that for
every forward process there exists a reverse process, and that it is the
relative rates of these processes that determine the relative concentrations
of the reactants and products at any given time, and that the relative rates
of these processes depend on the concentrations.

For example, consider the general chemical equation A <-> B. Let's let A stand
for the non-biological reactants and B the biological products. At any time
the rates of formation of B and A must, by the laws of chemical kinetics,
depend on the amounts of A and B present. Hence, if initially [B] = 0 then A
MUST initially be converted to B, according to the laws of chemical kinetics.
Hence, at any finite time both A and B MUST be present. I can get more
mathematical about this one if you'd like, Armenius2. You just let me know.

For now, let me say it in common language. YOU CAN'T START DESTROYING PRODUCTS
UNTIL SOME PRODUCTS ARE FIRST FORMED. AND THE RATE AT WHICH PRODUCTS ARE
DESTROYED DEPENDS ON THEIR CONCENTRATIONS. IF YOU HAVE VERY LITTLE
CONCENTRATIONS OF PRODUCTS, THE RATE AT WHICH THEY WILL BE DESTROYED WILL BE
SLOW. SO INITIALLY, SINCE YOU HAVE NO PRODUCTS, THE CONCENTRATION OF PRODUCTS
MUST INCREASE.

Second, why does Pitman claim that cold traps or their equivalents not
available in the real world? Nonsense! And I say this based on elementary laws
of kinetic molecular theory.

For example, let us consider, for the sake of argument, the bolt of lightning
that you keep referring to. Before the lightning strikes we have only non-
biological reactants. However, when it strikes it creates a mixture of
reactants and products. Agree? Then tell me, what happens to the products? If
you (or Pitman) is familiar with kinetic molecular theory, then you (or he)
would know that they DIFFUSE from the regions in which they are in high
concentration (ie, near the lightning bolt) to regions in which they are in
low concentration (ie, away from the lightning bolt). Diffusion from regions
of high concentration to regions of low concentration is one of nature's cold
traps. Is Pitman trying to say that this isn't so? Or is he simply ignorant of
the process of diffusion? Or is he trying to mislead people?

Third, why is Pitman restricting his discussion to bolts of lightning?
Experiment after experiment has shown that just about ANY source of energy can
produce biomolecules in an appropriate mix of inorganic chemicals, including
shock waves produced by lightning bolts, volcanic explosions, etc. In fact,
the shock waves also make very nice "cold traps" in that when a shock wave
passes through a region the region initially gets rapidly heated, driving
reactions, and then it undergoes rapid cooling, "freezing" the chemical
composition at that of the higher temperature.

Fourth, I must disagree with your statement that "The problem is that the
amino acids produced by discharges of electricity in lab soups produce both L
and D form amino acids. In a realistic scenario there appears to have been no
process whereby the L and D forms would have become sufficently isolated from
each other so that L-form proteins could form." Sorry, Armenius2, but the two
forms don't have to be "sufficiently isolated." It is a well-known fact that
enzymes can be stereospecific. In fact, the vast majority of biological
enzymes are, as are many non-biological catalysts. So, in a mixture of l- and
d- amino acids an enzyme specific to l-amino acids will preferentially create
proteins made of l-amino acids. Likewise for d-. So you don't need to
physically separate the isomers. Stereospecific enzymes and other catalysts
will do it for you, even in a racemic mixture!

Fifth, the "reactive end products" are not supposed to be isolated from each
other, as is so deceptively claimed in number 3. They continue to react to
make proteins, DNA, etc, and yes, even life forms - a fact that seems to cause
you great emotional stress.

Sixth, Pitman's claims about ozone show little, if any, in depth attempt at
analysis. Let me ask you the following: (a) Did he take into account that
during the chemical evolutionary period the sun was in the latter stages of
its own formation? It was estimated to be about half as luminous as today, and
cooler. Both of these factors will decrease the intensity of uv radiation
emission. (b) DId he look at any of the chemicals that were present in the
earth's atmosphere at the time to see if they absorb in the same region as
ozone? For example, a quick look through Herzberg's book on polyatomic spectra
shows that H2S, HN3, OCS, CS2, etc have absorption bands in regions
overlapping ozone's. (c) Does he realize that light undergoes strong Raman
scattering in liquid water? The scattering intensity goes as the inverse
fourth power of the wavelength. Considering that visible light in a _clear_
ocean only penetrates a hundred feet or so, the uv light that did penetrate
the promordial atmosphere would have dissipated _very_ near the surface of the
oceans.

Seventh, where does Pitman get his information that the primordial soup would
have been too dilute to produce large biological molecules? Current estimates
are about 10% organics. Also, has he properly taken into account the long
times involved in chemical evolution? If so, then what are his upper limits on
the concentrations? Has he discounted catalytic processes? And has he taken
into account all conditions. For example, it is known that when water mixed
with precursors to biological molecules freezes, eutectic mixtures can form in
which as little as one molecule in four is water. Again, I ask you, has Pitman
done his research correctly, or is he simply trying to deceive the non-
scientist?

Eighth, "Religious Accidentalism or Creationist Deceit?" Professor
Wichramasinghe should know that the statement he made is only valid for an
isolated system, and that the earth is anything but an isolated system. It is
a well-known fact of non-equilibrium thermodynamics that energy flowing
through a molecular system can cause it to organize, ie cause its entropy to
decrease. In fact, a scientist named Prigogine received a Nobel Prize for his
studies in this area. Are you trying to tell me he was awarded a Nobel Prize
for "faith" rather than for his scientific research? Really. By the way, are
you trying to claim that Hoyle is a creationist? As far as I know, he has some
very strange ideas about the beginning of life on earth, but he works to keep
them in line with known science, as opposed to creationists who try to distort
science.

Perhaps the scientific laws that govern the natural world _will_ ultimately be
viewed as evidence for a higher being. A being that created all of the
fascinating laws of physics, chemistry, and biology that allowed life to
evolve on this planet. ches
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 101       Sun Apr 16, 1989
CHES                         at 02:06 CDT

In my sixth criticism of Armenius2's comments on chemical evolution, the
species HN3 should be NH3. Sorry for the typo.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 102       Sun Apr 16, 1989
ARMINIUS2                    at 18:28 EDT

Mark P,

In spite of your disquisitions, it remains true that biological complexity is
best explained by the intelligent design hypothesis.

It also remains true that you would prefer to throw it out, and substitute an
inferior alternative (accidentalism) in its place. That is censorship, not
science.

I submit to you that your motives are NOT scientific, but social.

Also I made it clear from the beginning that transitional forms could only
falsify the antievolutionary portions of Scientific Creationism. So, at that
point, falsification is possible.

As far as intelligent design is concerned, I have already pointed out that it
is better to work two untestable ideas against each other than to adopt the
inferior one of the two and let it remain unchallenged. You really have said
nothing to answer that except that you prefer to continue doing it.

If I tried to censor accidentalism THEN I would be using a "Heads I win Tails
you lose approach". But, since I wish to work the two ideas against each other
the charge is not validly made against me.

You, however, say we should throw out the alternative you don't like, and that
we can only use an inferior explanation to explain the evidence.

You are like the man I described who insists the origin of the watch can only
be explained by its internal mechanism, I am the man who said the watch was
the result of intelligent design.

Arminius2

 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 103       Sun Apr 16, 1989
ARMINIUS2                    at 18:30 EDT

Ches,

Your letter brings the discussion to a new and higher level of technical
expertise, one which requires someone more qualified than myself to respond.

I will forward a copy of your letter to the Creation Research Society and the
Institute for Creation Research. Hopefully it will interest them in joining
the discussion.

I must presume that Mr.Pitman would be quite able to defend himself, but he
lives in England so I won't be expecting him to get online. Also, my
paraphrase of his arguments might have over simplified them. I am reasonbly
sure I presented him accurately although I do have some minor doubt.

Fred Hoyle and Professor Wickramasinghe wrote a book together (Evolution From
Space) in support of intelligent life from outer space having started
evolution on earth. Based on the reviews it APPEARS they argue for Undirected
Panspermia, the idea that the earth became infected with genetic materials
which were designed somewhere in space, and which drift about the cosmos like
pollen in the wind.

I am in the process of getting their book, and my earlier quotes were taken
from Creationist references. There is no attempt in Creationist writings to
portray them as Creationists, but their arguments are well suited to
Creationism.

In any event, they make a strong argument AGAINST life forming on earth by
itself.

Arminius2
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 104       Sun Apr 16, 1989
PANICHOLLS [Phil     ]       at 17:53 PDT

RMINIUS2,

  Should evidense similiar to that you have described be found, I would have
to reject evolution.  As for what I would replace it with, that depends on
alot of things.  I might be forced to conclude that the origin of humans is
not a question open to scientific investigation at this time.
  But such evidense does not exist and the pattern of the history of life on
earth suggests that existing life evolved from preexisting life.  Evolution,
not intelligent design, best explains the complexity of life.  Organisms are
not perfect creations.  They are often patchworks and improvised versions of
prexisting forms.  What is more, intelligent design fails to explain the
following:

   o  The presense of gills in all vertebrate embryos, including
      humans.

   o  The presense of vestigal organs- the coccyx in humans, non-
      functional eyes in cave fish, hindlimb bones (unattached and
      non-functional) in snakes, whales nd dolphins.

   o  Homologous structures- the human hand and the bat's wing which
      have the same bone count, but in which the bones are of similiar
      shape, different sized and performing different functions.

   o  The presense of a double jaw articulation in late Therapsid
      reptiles- one mammal-like and one reptile like.

   o  Fossils of marsupials all over the world, but living marsuipials
      only in those areas that are not occupied by Eutherian mammals.

If life was created or designed, the designer showed a startling lack or
originality in many cases.

Now let us see.  So far, you have presented the following arguements:

 1)  The Gaps in the Fossil Record   upon which it was pointed out that
     contrary to you 15year old sources and the rantings of Gish and
     Morris, transitional forms do exists for most all vertebrate forms.

 2)  The intelligent design arguement  well, life is not perfect.

 3)  The thermodynamic arguement   in which you (and Gish and Morris)
     fail to distinguish between charotic and random and between an
     open system and closes system.  Also an ignorance of what
     entrophy really is.

 4)  The evolution is not scientific because it can't be proved arguement
     In which you were called to task for not understanding the
     essential difference between science and dogma- that science can be
     challanged and that nothing can safely be enshired forever.

All of these arguements are old and stale.  There is nothing new here that has
not been presented by the ICR better, and which has not been refuted a dozen
times (Try _But is it Science?_ by Michael Ruse or _Science and Creationism_
by Ashley Montique. or for a short treatment, _Monkey Buisness_ by Niles
Eldridge).  Like all creationists, you rely on a lack of scientific
sophistication among those to which you present you distortions.  It appears
that you were wrong here.  I suggest you find something new to discuss, and
quit bring in this old, burned-out chestnuts.

 One more thing.  You mentioned earlier that someone's reason for accepting
evolution was social and not scientific.  THAT took alot of balls.  I suggest
that your refusal to admit the possiblity of organic evolution is based upon
social/religious prejudices and not because you have carefully examined the
evidense and found it wanting. You rejected evolution before you ever heard of
Therapsids or Th     Thermodynamics.

Philip A. Nicholls Department of Anthropology San Francisco State University

Biology Department Phillip Burton Academic High School San Francisco, CA

 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 105       Mon Apr 17, 1989
MPIASKIEWICZ [Mark P]        at 00:25 EDT

   Arminius,

   1. Yes you are one hundred percent right. My motivations are COMPLETELY
 social in nature. I feel that since it doesn't fit the criteria for science,
 intelligent design should not be taught as a science. Our educational system
 is in very bad shape and teaching a pseudoscience as a science isn't going to
 help. How anyone with any social conscience can allow this to happen, is
 beyond me. You may as well teach astrology as a science.

   2. Evolution _is_ testable, and has passed many tests. Intelligent design
 is not testable, and therefore is not a science. Working the two against each
 other isn't possible because they aren't in the same category. It's like
 comparing apples and oranges. To quote an essay by James P. Hogan, "The Word
 Of God Revealed":

       "The fallacy with the above claim {if evolution cannot be proved beyond
       question to be fact, then it's just as much a theory as creationism,
       and if one deserves to be called scientific, so does the other.} is its
       assumption that all degrees of uncertainty are equal--by the same logic
       we could argue that since George Washington can't be proved absolutely
       and conclusively to have existed, then the case for Santa Claus is just
       as solid."

       "One of the most important criteria that science demands for a theory
       to be acceptable as a serious candidate for consideration is that it be
       unfalsifiable. It was precisely the fact that it *could* be tested and
       shown to be false that made Newton's a genuinely scientific theory.
       Whether it ultimately survived or failed the tests is not the point.
       This is why the contention that "some UFO's might be alien spacecraft"
       is not answerable by scientific inquiry. Yes, some of them might be,
       and however many specific instances are shown not to be, the
       speculation can never be shown to be untrue. It is unfalsifiable. (The
       inverse theory--that *no* UFO's are alien spacecraft--can very simply
       be proved untrue, but not by any of the claims submitted to date as
       evidence.) And creationism is unfalsifiable, since every fact, every
       new discovery that might be made, any result of any test that might be
       imagined--can all be dismissed with the assertion that "it was created
       that way." Hence, even before any debating or appeals to evidence,
       creationism fails the most basic test. It is not "scientific," and no
       amount of legal semantic juggling can make it so."

   3. I do _not_ wish to censor Intelligent design. I just feel that since it
 is not a science, it should not be taught in a science class.


   Please explain to me how Intelligent design can be considered to be a
 science.

   --Mark
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 106       Mon Apr 17, 1989
MPIASKIEWICZ [Mark P]        at 01:12 EDT

   Phil, sorry to refute your defense of me, but it became a social issue with
 me when a co-worker saw me reading "In Search Of The Big Bang" by John
 Gribbin, and accused me of reading a dirty book! It was very funny at the
 time, but it is a very sorry commentary on our educational system.

   --Mark (I don't know whether to laugh or cry)
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 107       Mon Apr 17, 1989
MPIASKIEWICZ [Mark P]        at 21:51 EDT

  Oops! in my previous message, the line that read "One of the most important
criteria that a science demands to be acceptable as serious candidate for
consideration as a theory is that it be unfalsifiable", should have read:

 "One of the most important criteria that a science demands to be acceptable
as serious candidate for consideration as a theory is that it be falsifiable."


  Sorry, it was very late.

  --Mark
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 108       Sat May 13, 1989
HJOHN                        at 00:06 EDT

Is anyone here acquainted with the research of Robert Gentry and radiohalos?
It is rather controversial, I understand.  Gentry is a "creation scientist"
who has un into trouble with the mainstream scientific establishment over his
research.

I am in the process of reading his book, "Creation's Tiny Mystery," published
by Earth Science Associates, Knoxville, TN, 1988.

I'll share some of his views from time to time.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 109       Wed May 17, 1989
E.HAAS                       at 01:06 EDT

     What kind of research does Gentry do?
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 110       Fri May 19, 1989
DRMIKE                       at 17:02 EDT

The argument that neither the universe nor life could have occurred by
"accident" and thus God is proved always fails to take into account that some
OTHER creator (i.e. not the one described in the OT and NT) may have done the
work.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 111       Fri May 19, 1989
HJOHN                        at 22:45 EDT

DRMIKE: Can you be more specific about what you mean by "some OTHER creator?"
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 112       Sun May 21, 1989
PANICHOLLS [Phil     ]       at 01:35 PDT

Consider a golfball.  If I hit the golfball, it will land somewhere on the
goldcourse, most likely on a blade of grass.  After hitting the ball, I find
it is, indeed, resting atop of a single blade of grass.  Now their are
millions of blades of grass on the golf course.  The odds that my golfball
would hit this one blade of grass are very very remote, nearly impossible, I'd
say.  Yet, there it is.

8s 8
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 113       Fri May 26, 1989
J.BELL4 [Jabel]              at 00:48 PDT

Oooooooooh.  I have heard the sound of one hand clapping.

(Huh?)
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 114       Fri May 26, 1989
HJOHN                        at 23:08 EDT

Robert Gentry is a research physicist who has discovered tiny radioactive
particles in Precambrian granites which he claims have such a short half-life
that they could not have been formed over millions of years.

Rather, according to Gentry, these radioactive particles called radiohalos
provide interesting evidence that the earth could actually have been formed
over a very short period of time.

I will be discussing Gentry's ideas in detail. My information is taken from
his book, "Creation's Tiny Mystery," published by Earth Science Associates,
Box 12067, Knoxville, TN  37912-0067.

IF you write for information about this book, please tell them where you heard
about it - right here on the GEnie Religion & Ethics RoundTable!
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 115       Mon Jun 05, 1989
PANICHOLLS [Phil     ]       at 22:49 PDT

Isn't it interesting how such an important discovery is not mentioned in the
major scientific journals?  Such an important particle should be announced in
SCIENCE or NATURE.  Yet, nowhere is such an announcement found.   We
canonclude from this that:

1) ROBERGENTRY has not submitted his results for peer review.

2) ROBERT GENTRY did submit his results, but the establishment
   scientific press will not print them because:

   a) they would throw the science of radioactive dating into
      chaos.
   b) they were judged the work of a crackpot

3) ROBERT GENTRY is a crackpot.

  I wonder which of these is true.?

 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 116       Tue Jun 06, 1989
HJOHN [Sky Spy]              at 23:17 EDT

Robert Gentry has published extensively in the scientific literature.

A few examples:

1968, "Fossil Alpha-Recoil Analysis of Certain Variant Radioactive Halos,"
SCIENCE 160, 670.

1975, "Response to J.H. Fremlin's Comments on 'Spectacle Halos,' NATURE
258,269.

1978, "Are Any Unusual Radiohalos Evidence for SHE?" International Symposium
on Superheavy Elements, Lubbock, Texas. New York: Pergamon Press.

1984, "Radioactive Halos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological
Perspective."  Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division.
American Association for the Advancement of Science 1, 38.

1987, "Radioactive Halos: Implications for Creation," Proceedings of the First
International Conference on Creationism," Vol. II, 89.


If you are interested in a more complete list, please let me know.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 117       Fri Jun 23, 1989
DRMIKE                       at 21:13 EDT

HJOHN by other creator I mean that while the universe begs to have been
"created" as opposed to merely having "happened" that argument does NOT prove
that Yahweh/God/Allah was the creator, or that he even exists. The God of the
Old/New Testaments and Koran may be a misunderstaning of what the "true"
creator really is.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 118       Tue Jul 04, 1989
PHILIP.PRICE                 at 02:53 EDT

Sounds like John got the best of that one. (ie. Someone ASSUMED without Facts
to back them up that RObert Gentry was unpublished). Sounds like prejudice to
me. Ie. PANICHOLIS Prejudge that Gentry was a crackpot therefore he infered he
couldn't have been published in any true scientific journal. Either that or I
just infered more sarcasim in his last post than there actually was.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 119       Tue Jul 04, 1989
PANICHOLLS [Phil     ]       at 11:42 PDT

I have been reading SCIENCE and NATURE for the last 10 years, which will
explain why I didn't catch Gentry before this.  Your posting made it seem as
if this were a new development, which of course it is not.  I will check the
references and get back to you.  It appears, though, that these ideas have
been dismissed- one of the possiblities mentioned in my previous postings.

Not every idea published in SCIENCE or NATURE, indeed, very few of them,

stood unchallanged for long.

By the way, I listed Gentry as a crackpot as only ONE of several possiblities.
Like most people who advocate creationism, you seem to have difficulty
including all important facts in a discussion.

By the way, could the universe have been created by cosmic bunnies? Well,
there is as much evidense for them as creators as for any other entity.

 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 120       Tue Jul 04, 1989
PHILIP.PRICE                 at 15:26 EDT

 Not to get sidetrack by your insult, But I can't believe you didn't want to
infer from 'that post' that he was a crackpot. Are you saying then you didn't
think him a crackpot? That that wasn't what was foremost in your mind and that
it  saturated how you phrased that post? Myself since I have not heard of or
read anything of or about Gentry I cannot say if he is or is not a crackpot.
But I am continually amazed at those who hold so much faith in what they know
for 'FACT', that they assume any evidence or theory that  disagrees with them
must hold no merit. I find most christians more open minded about the limits
of our intelligence and the possibilities of them being wrong about some
things. Then again they too have faith in something, but it isn't there own
infalliability and greatness.
    Phil
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 121       Sun Jul 09, 1989
PANICHOLLS [Phil     ]       at 03:31 PDT

If you will READ the message again, you will see that I listed several
possiblities, one of which was that he was a crackpot.  That this is the one
possiblity you have focused is beyond me.  One possiblity I listed was that
Gentry did report his findings, but they have been dismissed for one reason or
another.  This is indeed the case.  In the same issue of NATURE, several
letters point out some of the errors in Gentry's  intepretation of the data.
(Odd, these references were not listed with the rest).

Please let me get one things straight.  This is not a christian vs atheism
issue.  Science is not atheistic, and evolution is not an equal to atheism.
The mast majority of organized religions on this planet have come to terms
with evolution.  This is an issue of science vs non-science.  Creationist
constantly pick at evolution as if they assume that if they can disprove
evolution, they somehow prove creationism. That is not how science works.
When I or anyone else attack creationism, we are not attack religion.  We are
attacking pseudoscience.

No matter how many creationist arguements critiques you dispose of, they
always seem to have one more ready.  It is like the story of the little boy
shoveling horse manure believing that their is a pony down their  somewhere.

Creationism has no scientific standing.  It's proponents are not biologist or
anthropologists- they are engineers (usually, they have no scientific training
at all).  It is therefore not surprizing that many of them have no concept of
what science really is.  [Please, this is not an attack on engineers.  It is
simply a statement of fact.  Engineers are not research biologists.  Would you
trust you life to a computer engineered by a       biologist?

 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 122       Sun Jul 09, 1989
PHILIP.PRICE                 at 21:02 EDT

Phil, I agree with most (99.88%) of what you said in your last post. Though I
must say that many engineers are scientist(even us Computer scientist ;). My
father who is a leading Human Factors expert, and has numerous published
papers I would consider a scientist and one who follows the scientific method
in all his research. (For anyone who wonders what human factors is, it's a
branch of Industrial Engineering and Operations Research).
 Actually somone in my field (Computer Science) has a lot of reasoning, logic,
deduction, reduction , math etc training, but no formal scientific method
training  (at least without having taken electives in other fields). While
certain engineers do have it. But all of this is besides the point( I never
liked the I'm a scientist and your not arguments). What is important is do
people truely follow the scientific METHOD, not if they call themselves a
scientist. A book concerning this and written by a professor in chemisty, a
self-claimed skeptic, non-creationist, but 'believer in the scientic method'
is called Origins A skeptic's guide to the creation of Life on earth By Robert
Shapiro.  Published by Bantam New Age Books {Ugh! I dislike 'New age'! :) } I
am sure someone has already mentioned (and probably since it is over 30 years
old, has found many a rebuttle for) a book called 'The Genesis Flood, The
biblical record and it's sccientific implications' By John C. Whitcomb and
Henry Morris. Published by Baker Book House. Anyone have other books that they
particulary like and dislike? (I have numerous others but wouldn't want to
bore you all :)
   Phil (Hey there are more than one person named Phil here, perhaps we are
clones ! [Just joking]}
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 123       Tue Jul 11, 1989
ASGARD [DBALTZ]              at 21:31 MDT

"Back off Ma'am!  I'm a scientist!"

                Dr. Peter Venkman in 'Ghostbusters'


Please excuse me if I'm not humbled by the attempts to classify engineers  as
bumbling inventors who couldn't care less about Truth.  I'm not  humbled
because the accusation comes from a so-called scientist, whose  definition of
science seems to be: a man who subscribes to 'Nature',  works at a university,
writes papers, and ridicules any of his colleagues  theories with whom he
disagrees politically or theologically.  A very  open-minded definition,
wouldn't you say?


I have said before that it is not the scientists and their theories  that are
the threat, but the pseudo-scientists who actually 'believe'  the theories and
speak of them as fact.  Anyone who dismisses the  possibility that some
'universal constants' may actually not be constants  at all, I would hardly
call a scientist.  He is a closed-minded child  ... and even an engineer can
see that.


                                                                dB


 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 124       Fri Jul 14, 1989
PHILIP.PRICE                 at 21:01 EDT

I agree.
  Phil (Who has been darn agreeable lately ;)
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 125       Wed Jul 19, 1989
GM                           at 15:59 EDT

 The fact remains that it's not a science or scientific fact if it can't be
measured.
  And what does that mean? (beats me, grin)
  Actually, to be serious a moment: It has always seemed to me that
Creationism is an attempt to circumvent the laws prohibiting the preaching of
religion in schools; if it's a science, it can't be "religion," right?  That
falls right in with the attempts to brand "humanism" as a religion.
  The plain fact of the matter is, Creationism has always been a religious
matter, unseparable from the Christian faith, and is just one more attempt by
a religious sect to shove their beliefs down everyone else's throats, whether
they want it or not.
 Such a literal interpretation of the King James bible is amusing to me.
Trivia Question: How many Gospels were removed from the New Testament during
the Council of Ephesus in the 12th Century AD, and how many members of the
Church hierarcy were executed for opposing the] move?
  Rick
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 126       Thu Jul 20, 1989
J.REPICI                     at 00:15 EDT

Just a note:
  Most of what's happeneng in the "unified theory" circles these days can't be
measured.  That is unless someone can build an accelerator the size of the
galaxy.
     John
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 127       Thu Jul 20, 1989
PANICHOLLS [Phil     ]       at 00:13 PDT

Once again (for those of you on drugs), my postings were not attacks on
engineers.  I have great respect for engineers.  When the start talking about
biology, they are usually out of their depth, much as I would be if I were to
give a lecture on systems analysis.

Once gain, this is not a question of one truth being better than another. The
question is, is creationism a scientific theory, yes or no.  A theory is a
framework, something which guides research and determines what que
questions are important.  A theory must met certain important criteria. It
must be falisfiable.  It must not rely on causal agents outside the natural
world.

Creationism fails on both points and for this reason does not belong in a
biology classroom.  Creationism, as part of the history of science, may be
brough-up in an historical context.  Creationism is not supported by empirical
data.  Creationists spend most of their time attacking     evolution and
little or now time researching creationism.  This should tell you something.
Creationism cannot act as a guide to research. A good theory raises as many
new questions as it answers.  Creationism is a dead end. .s
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 128       Fri Jul 21, 1989
HJOHN [Sky Eye]              at 01:56 EDT

I can hardly agree with your simplistic explanation of Creationism.  I think
Robert Gentry shows that yes one can believe in Creation and yet study the
phenomena in nature which point to indications that their is scientific proof
for the Biblical story of creation.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 129       Sat Jul 22, 1989
GM                           at 10:59 EDT

 Frankly, just what *is* the proof for Creation? All I ever see from
creationists is attempts to debunk evolution, not prove creationism.
  Rick
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 130       Sat Jul 22, 1989
PANICHOLLS [Phil     ]       at 09:11 PDT

As I think I have pointed out before, proof in science does not exist. No
theory can be proven to the point that it cannot be questioned.  The longer a
theory can stand without being falsified by data, the stronger it becomes.
This is why evolution has such a solid place in biology. It has stood for more
than a hundred years and has not been disproven.  It has been modified and
expanded to encompass new findings, something that creationists do not seem to
understand.

GM, there is no proof for Creation.  The main points of creation, however,
cannot be falsified (you cannot prove or more importantly disprove the
existence of god).  This is why it is not a science.

Gentry's findings have been disproven.  They were disproven in an article in
Nature, the same issue mentioned above.  If this is what you rest your belief
in creationism on (creationism as in "scientific creationism") then you belief
still has no standing in the scientific community.

Just once I would like to see some compelling evidence for creationism.
Something that is not just an attempt to disprove some aspect of evo
evolutionary theory.   The reason I don't expect to find such evidence is that
I have yet to meet or read a creationists who has the first notion of what
constitutes scientific theory or scientific evidence.

One last thought.  Even if you disprove evolution (and it is possible to do
that.  Find evidence of some advanced life form in precambrian rocks, for
example, and you have disprove it.) creationism does not win by  default.
Creationism must stand scientific review, which it cannot do because its basic
premise is flawed.

.s
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 131       Tue Jul 25, 1989
MPIASKIEWICZ [Mark P]        at 18:17 EDT

  Since the foundation of 'Scientific' Creationism is based on an
unfalsifiable (therefore unscientific) premise, 'Scientific' Creationism is
not a science. (no matter how much research is done on the subject)

  It amazes me how the above statement (or variations thereof) will inspire
torrents of references to articles and violent attacks on the theory of
evolution, but the implications of the statement are never addressed.
Creationists ignore it like crazy!

  The major implication is that since creationism isn't a science, teaching it
as a science is lying (bad enough) to children (even worse), and thereby
causing their understanding of science and deductive reasoning to be distorted
(inexcusable!).

  --Mark
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 132       Tue Jul 25, 1989
J.REPICI                     at 22:46 EDT

I'm not a "creationist" Mark.  But just so people don't get to carried away
with the "virtues of science" i should point out that, from a sci- entific
viewpoint, before the write bro's, heavier than air flight (by man) was
considered unscientific;  Plate techtonics (the "science" of continental plate
movement) was consideered a farse by the "scientific community as early as 50
years ago.  And lastly, to this day, "scientificaly" it is IMPOSSIBLE for
bumble-bees to fly.

     Faith is what you have to have.  What you choose to have it in is up to
you,  but you HAVE to have it.

 :)   -John
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 133       Wed Jul 26, 1989
MPIASKIEWICZ [Mark P]        at 00:04 EDT

  John,

  My faith or lack thereof isn't in question here. I'm speaking of the
definition of science. "Man can't fly", "Continents can't move" and "Bees
can't fly" are valid scientific statements simply because it is possible to
disprove them. The fact that they are wrong is irrelevant.

  Creationism is not a science simply because on the introduction of any
evidence to the contrary, one can postulate the existence of an all-powerful
being who is 'stacking the deck' against us. Personally, I think that if there
is a God (I think there is), He would be quite a bit more subtle and
intelligent than the creationists give him credit for.

  My argument with the creationists, as I have stated before, is the fact that
they are trying to teach creationism as a science. It _isn't_ a science, and
teaching it as such, can only do harm to our children. The educational system
in this country is in bad enough shape without these people distorting the
truth.

  --Mark
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 134       Thu Jul 27, 1989
J.REPICI                     at 23:06 EDT

Mark,
   I understand, but think that you are getting lost in semantics on the
subject.  My problem is how you define science, and the fact that you are
seeing it from only one side.  You say "man can't fly" is ok because it can be
disproved.  Rephrase it to the theory that the Write bros. were putting
forward to the scientific community "Man can fly" and you have a statement
which can not be disproved (not now, and not before flight was achieved).
Science, once a search for absolute truth, seems to be, for the sake of
'humanism' (seems to have been) reduced to a mad rush to to find only the
lies.  That to me takes out half the picture, and limits what science is to a
level that Capurnicus probably would not have liked. Of course, you can turn
things around any way you like them.:
  "God created the universe"     -not scientific
  "The universe evolved"         -not scientific
  "God did not create the universe"  -is this scientific?
   "The universe did not evolve"     -is this?
   "God created life"           -not scientific
   "Life evolved"               -how can this be "disproved"?

   What i'm saying (i wasn't questioning your faith) is that science is a
faith.  You have to have faith.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 135       Fri Jul 28, 1989
R.DANIELSON                  at 21:31 EDT

Both the evolutionist (if honest) and the creationist (ditto) will admit that
there are things about the origins of life and the universe that they don't
know.   But the creationist says that there are things about the universe that
CAN'T be known - this is what makes creationism less than a science.

A truly "scientific" creationist would work his or her way backward to that
moment in 4004 BC (or whenever) and then say "All right, here we have this
being who created the universe. What were the processes involved here?  Let's
try to reconstruct the mechanism by which somethingness arose by from
nothingness." The creationists of today don't do that - their position is that
they can't even try to think about that, and what is more, you can't either.

                               Bob
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 136       Fri Jul 28, 1989
HJOHN [Sky Eye]              at 23:59 EDT

Are there any evolutionists that you know of who are so "scientific" as to
prove that yes, million, nay billions of years ago, a cataclysmic occurence
took place which resulted in the creation of a life form.  Why is it
considered more "scientific" to believe that than to say that God spoke and
life was created.

It takes the same amount of faith to believe one view as the other.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 137       Sat Jul 29, 1989
R.DANIELSON                  at 12:48 EDT

What science says (in my opinion) is that given enough time, enough brainpower
(and a big enough research grant) there are no questions about the universe -
past, present, or future, - that are not answerable.  We don't KNOW exactly
how the universe was created, or exactly when, but said universe is big enough
and comprehensive enough that the evidence is there, albeit in a scattered and
disorganised form.

What creationism says is that we can trace back the history of life to a very
specific point (determined more or less by the lifespans chronicled in the Old
Testament) and beyond that point NO inquiry is possible.

The essential difference is that for creationism to stand as a theory, it
requires us to accept that there are mechanisms (that actually is entirely the
wrong word, isn't it??) by which things happen in the universe which we can
NEVER understand nor analyse.  THAT is what makes it less than a science.

                               Bob
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 138       Sat Jul 29, 1989
HJOHN [Sky Eye]              at 14:50 EDT

Why is it that so-called evolutionists think they have some kind of monopoly
on "science" and that anyone who does not believe in their "theories" of
origins is unscientific?
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 139       Sat Jul 29, 1989
R.DANIELSON                  at 16:28 EDT

Aw come on, Harrison, I did not say that creationism was unscientific because
it didn't conform to the establishment view.  If we took that kind of
position, there would have been no scientific advancement in the last 1000
years.  And I certainly agree with a lot of the criticism of the current
scientific establishment - some of which has come from creationists.

But you are evading the point.  To say that "God brought it all into being" is
a philosophical statement.  To say that "God brought it all into being, using
the following methods, as shown by the accompanying physical evidence" is
science.

No creationist that I know of has taken the latter point of view.

Let's try a different approach.  Many things that were thought to be
supernatural in nature in the past have now been shown to be explainable
phenomena (yes, I know, a tired old agnostic argument, but it serves its
purpose).  What I would propose is that any theory which has to resort to
unknowable supernatural forces as a root cause, is unscientific.  This leaves
it wide open for those who want to postulate that God created matter out of
nothingness in an instant, that men and dinosaurs coexisted 8,000 years ago,
or whatever.  All they have to do to make it scientific is to set up a
theoretical model showing exactly HOW these processes of creation operate.
I'd be delighted to give THAT kind of creationism a fair shake.

             Bob
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 140       Sun Jul 30, 1989
HJOHN [Sky Eye]              at 10:52 EDT

Danielson: Glad to see your openness!

Unfortunately, not many so-called scientists are willing to be that generous.
For example, why was Robert Gentry given the run-around by some elements of
the scientific community when it  became known that he was a creationist? Yet,
these same people supported him in his early research.

Gentry was postulating the very approach that you suggest.  He was trying to
show in a scientific way that radiohalos found in Precambrian granites were
not the end product of slowly cooling magma over a period of thousands or
millions of years.

Rather, Gentry postulates that the radioactivity necessary for creating these
special halos had such a short life span or half- life that they would have
disappeared long before the magma had time to cool and form granite rocks.

If you are seriously interested in this issue, I suggest you get Gentry's book
and read it for yourself.

The book: "Creation's Tiny Mystery," by Robert V. Gentry, Earth Science
Associates, Knoxville, TN  1988.

I don't know where you would get this but in the book it says it is published
by Earth Science Associates, Box 12067, Knoxville, TN 37912-0067.  You could
write to them for information about where to buy the book.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 141       Sun Jul 30, 1989
MPIASKIEWICZ [Mark P]        at 11:17 EDT

  John.. I guess I did pick some bad examples, but the fact still stands that
creationism doesn't qualify as a science. Like the statements at the end of
your post that contain the word 'God', creationism can't be scientific because
of the dependance on dogma.

  I'm not sure what you mean by "... rush to find only the lies". In its quest
for truth, science is bound to uncover false theories, but I wouldn't call
them lies, a lie is an intentional distortion of the truth, a false theory is
just a mistake.

  I have faith (trust) in science, however, I can't regard it as a faith.
(Faith being defined as "Belief without need of certain proof")

  How or why one would go about disproving an obvious fact (ie. man can fly)
is beyond me.

  BTW... The Universe _is_ evolving. How else could one explain the metal
poorness of the oldest stars, the measureable expansion of the universe, and
the extremely isotropic microwave background radiation?




  Bob.. Not wanting to give the creationists any extra ammunition, but there
are things that science says can't be known. We can't know both the exact
position and momentum of a sub-atomic particle. We can know the exact position
_or_ the exact momentum, but not both at the same time. There is no such thing
as a particle with both an exact position and momentum. Also we can't know
what happened before the Big Bang because our physical laws won't apply.

  --Mark
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 142       Sun Jul 30, 1989
MPIASKIEWICZ [Mark P]        at 11:19 EDT

  SKY EYE,

  The microwave background radiation of the universe is thought to be the
'echo' of the Big Bang. The extreme nearness of spectrum of this radiation to
a blackbody spectrum could only have been produced when matter and radiation
were in equilibrium, ie. very hot and very dense.

  According the standard theory (verified by observations) the early universe
contained about 75% Hydrogen, 25% Helium and traces of other light elements.
These elements had to be recycled via stellar nucleosynthesis into the
elements that we are made of.

  --Mark
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 143       Mon Jul 31, 1989
MPIASKIEWICZ [Mark P]        at 23:05 EDT

  What's the creationist policy on the Big Bang theory?
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 144       Tue Aug 01, 1989
E.HAAS                       at 03:54 EDT

      Just a side note:  Nobody ever proved that it was impossible for the
bumble bee to fly. A scientist once calculated that it would be impossible for
a bumble bee with RIGID WINGS to fly. The obvious conculsion (that everybody
seems to have missed) is, bumble bees have flexible wings (which they do).
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 145       Thu Aug 03, 1989
HJOHN [Harrison]             at 23:56 EDT

You may be interested in some quotes by an evolutionist about Robert Gentry's
"Creation's Tiny Mystery."

In a Foreword to the book, Dr. W. Scott Morrow, Associate  Professor of
Chemistry at Wofford College says this:

"Quite apart from the matter of constitutional justice, which has been
decisively treated in the works of Cord and Bird, the question of 'origins'
remains a challenge not only to the  human intellect, but also to the human
spirit. "Creation's Tiny Mystery" is a fine documentation of the research of a
tenacious, courageous scientist.  Robert V. Gentry writes lucidly of his
meticulous experimentation with radio halos in ancient minerals. Many
scientists with international reputations, such as Truman P. Kohman, Edward
Anders, Emilio Segre, G. N. Flerov, Paul Ramdohr, Eugene Wigner, E. H. Taylor,
etc., have commented favorably in regard to Gentry's integrity and the
professional quality of his data. A non-Darwinian evolutionist like me is
struck by how often creationists and evolutionists look at the  same
information, e.g., the fossil record, and extract from it mutually exclusive
interpretations..."

More later.  I hope Arniebell reads this!
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 146       Thu Aug 03, 1989
ARNIEBELL                    at 23:19 PDT

I did, Harry.  What's your point?
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 147       Sat Aug 05, 1989
J.REPICI                     at 12:32 EDT

    "A non-Darwinian evolutionist"  boy do i like that phrase!
  Mark,
    Your message was quite a few messages back so i'm kinda wing'n it here You
wondered how or why someone would try to disprove heavier than air flight,
when it *is* possible.  At the time the Write bro.s proposed it though it was
not.  I can understand now, after seeing your definition of "lies", why you
were upset when i said science was, by your definition "a search only for
lies".  You define lies as purposely wrong information.  I was defingi lies as
 "untruths" of any kind.  I agree that life is evolving, and that the universe
 is evolving (though not that the 'red shift' proves the distance of bodies,
or  origin of universe as whole).  I believe, however that it is a "leap of
faith"  to go from "evolving" to "evolved".  The same can be said for life.
No  mechanism has been shown for combining non-biological componds in a way
that  will produce enzimes, but this is what the whole Darwinian theory rests
on.   To be an evolutionist requires that you have "faith" of the exact kind
you  described in your message that such a mechanism exists and did exist at
some  time in the random environment on earth to produce life.  This cannot be
 disproved.  The theary says "a mechanism to do this IS out there" and no
amout  of scientific research can disprove that.  Yet you have "faith"... a
belief in  something without certain proofs... that there is a way to produce
life  randomly.
     Though you might get the idea that i'm a creationist here Mark, i'm  not.
At least not in the sense that many fundamentalist are.  The Bible, like  say
calculus, is a symbolic representation of spiritual/phisical universe.  I
would like to see the scientific community do more work in the spiritual
realm.  I beleve that the reasons for not researching this realm are
"unscientific" ("The church kicked Capurnicus out for telling the truth, so we
 won't have anything to do with the spiritual realm, na"). Most of what
science  knows about the physical realm was explained to it by a man who's
main  concerning was exploring the spiritual realm, he even gave us calculus.
Also,  we are to the point where we know enough to destroy ourselves
completely, yet  we haven't got the wisdom to know how not to destroy
ourselves.  Being a pure- ist you may not agree, but science *is* driven by
social isues.  Science is  coming up against a number of "walls" in the
physical realm.  The search for a  unified theory is now completely in
"untestable" ground.  no-one can ever  build an accelorator large enough to
test any of the dozen or so theories on  the nature of matter, and the
unifying forces.  Without being able to devise  tests with repeatable results
(MY definition of "scientific"), science is  lost.  It should begin a slow
cautious move into the spiritual realm.  Making  only those observations with
which "repeatable" results can be obtained, in  order to open up new areas.
     -Take care now   -John
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 148       Sat Aug 05, 1989
DRMIKE                       at 12:45 EDT

Have we said it once or a thousand times: there is NOTHING in science that
says God did not create the universe! We don't know what happened before the
Big Bang (which the Vatican accepts, and they are fairly major league in
religion, as I understand it). Why do fundamentalist fanatics INSIST that God
COULD NOT HAVE CREATED THE UNIVERSE USING THE BIG BANG 15 BILLIONS YEARS AGO,
and why do they insist that God COULD NOT HAVE CREATED MAN BY THE PROCESS OF
EVOLUTION. Do they deny God that capability? There is not and never has been
anything mutually contradictory about God's creating the universe and
humankind, and the scientific theories that explain the same.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 149       Sun Aug 06, 1989
H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm]           at 14:27 EDT

Dr. Mike,
     Although I agree that God did create the universe using the "big bang" 15
Billion+ years ago, or by whatever that may happened before that.  I am at
odds with thinking that God created man through evolution.  What the creation
story tells in Genesis is the making of the earth habitable for  humans,
starting at verse 3 of chapter 1, notice that the earth was already created
well before this.  But when Adam named the other animals of the  field
(genesis 2:19) he never said "at last bone of my bones...", there WAS a time
that he was alone in the garden.  This would be an impossible thing for a man
like Moses to imagine or for Jesus to believe unless it was  true and given to
him by God.  Never does Moses suggest that this is "made up" so although
animals were formed many thousands of years ago--man was only here for 6000
years.                    Herm
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 150       Mon Aug 07, 1989
HJOHN [Harrison]             at 22:26 EDT

The reason we cannot accept evolution because the Bible clearly contradicts
that theory.  The universe was created in an instant by an all-powerful being,
GOD.

A careful study of the scientific evidence shows that this view of creation is
certainly quite plausible.

Historical evidence indicates that man is a relatively new comer to the
universe.

While some elements in nature such as certain rocks may show great age, that
in itself does not negate creation.  It could merely mean that at some point
in eternity, God created the "Genesis rocks" and placed man and vegetation
etc. at a later time.

Furthermore, some scientists postulate that the ravages of the Noachian flood
were of such immense proportions that they could have caused certain rocks and
elements to give the appearance of having been around for very long periods of
time.

I agree with Dr. Gentry when he says in his book, "Creation's Tiny Mystery"
that "...the polonium halos in Precambrian granites identify these rocks as
some of the Genesis rocks of our planet--created in  such a way that they
cannot be duplicated without the intervention of the Creator."

Sorry if I have confused some of you but we'll continue this discussio in
other messages.