decot@cwruecmp.UUCP (Dave Decot) (10/26/83)
My comments are not indented, the lecturer's points as reported are indented. Basic Viewpoints 1. No religious doctrines should be taught in public schools. Hear, hear. Good luck ensuring this, though. What does the lecturer define to be a "religious doctrine"? 2. Theories on the origins of life and the universe should be taught at the appropriate grade levels in the public schools. Who says what is appropriate? The theories should certainly be taught, though. 3. If evolution is taught, then evidence contradicting evolution should also be taught. I agree fully. But be careful what you call evidence. Basic Points of Discussion 1. The Theory of Evolution is Invalid. - Evolution has never been observed. (Ed. note: He cited as reference, the multitude of fruit fly experiments which have never resulted in the evolution of a more complex fly species.) Evolution has been observed. There have been a multitude of fruit fly experiments, certainly, but how many experimenters were TRYING to use natural selection to bring about change in the species? Also, evolution does not always tend to favor the more complex, rather the tendency is toward the more successful in survival. - All arguments for evolution are outdated, illogical and wishful thinking. Which arguments, and what makes them so? And why would a scientist wish that evolution were a correct theory? - New research shows that the requirements for life are so complex that chance and billions fo years alone cannot explain life. (Ed. note: He cited numerous studies by mathematicians challenging evolution.) Mathematical studies involve constructing models that may arbitrarily simplify the nature of actual behavior. I submit that the studies were either overly simplified, or based on incorrect assumptions about the world and, perhaps, "wishful thinking". 2. The Universe, Solar System, Earth and life were recently created. - Most dating techniques point to young Earth. (Ed. note: This is a quote) It certainly is not a fact. Most dating techniques point to an Earth about 4 billion years old. What techniques were used to deduce a young Earth? 3. The Earth has experienced a world-wide flood. Possibly, but so what? This is remotely related (at best) to the issue at hand. - Noah's Ark exists. Where is it? I want to measure it with my cubit-stick. How modern was the Noah who built it? How do you know it belonged to Noah? - Geological evidence indicates a global flood occurred. What evidence is that? Also, did God have to recreate all of the plant species that were destroyed during the Flood? - Many unexplained geological features of the Earth can only be explained by a flood. E.g., -> Salt Formations beneath the surface in South East US. How would a flood explain that? Geologists, what are other possible explanations of those formations (about which I am unfamiliar)? -> Formation of Mountains. Geologists, tell us about continental drift and faults. Supporting Evidence All dating techniques assume that the velocity of light has been constant since the beginning. Analysis of measurements of the speed of light taken over the last 300 years indicate that the measured velocity of light has been steadily decreasing. (Ed. note: He stated that the function which best mapped to the data points for the speed of light was csec**2 function and that the rate of change in the speed of light had leveled off after 1960. The speed of light approached infinity approx. 6000 years ago and had steadily decreased to its current measured value.) What kind of analysis of what kind of measurements? How good at measuring the speed of light were we in 1683? And WHY would the purported change in the speed of light change after 1960? Decent instruments/methods, finally? This phenomenon explains the very large red [Doppler] shifts of many galaxies and also explains the blue shift of some nearby galaxies (Ed. note: Can anyone verify that some galaxies have a blue shift in their spectrum? I thought that all observed objects in the universe were apparently moving away from the earth.) Ed. is correct. How would such a speed decrease affect our perception of the light from these galaxies anyway? The fact that the Moon is recessing from the earth points toward a young Earth - Moon system. If the Moon was indeed 4 billion years old, then it should be much farther away from the Earth. The rate of accretion of dust on the surface of the Moon indicates that the Moon could not have existed for 4 billions years since the volume of dust on the moon is not nearly large enough. Who says the moon is recessing from the Earth? And if it is, why must the effect be linear (or whatever was supposed)? How often does dust get added to the moon's surface? Leading evolutionists are aware of problems with the theory of evolution, but are suppressing contradictory evidence. How did the lecturer discover this "suppressed evidence"? There are problems with any theory, and it is a sign of a good scientist not to trust even his own theories too much. Dave Decot decvax!cwruecmp!decot ---------------------------------------- Dave Decot ..!decvax!cwruecmp!decot
decot@cwruecmp.UUCP (Dave Decot) (11/02/83)
The following posting, in between the +-+-+'s, is from uiucdcs!uokvax!andree (mike): +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ /***** uokvax:net.religion / cwruecmp!decot / 8:41 pm Oct 25, 1983 */ This phenomenon explains the very large red [Doppler] shifts of many galaxies and also explains the blue shift of some nearby galaxies (Ed. note: Can anyone verify that some galaxies have a blue shift in their spectrum? I thought that all observed objects in the universe were apparently moving away from the earth.) /* ---------- */ The above is quoted wholesale from a letter from cwruecmp!decot. The editorial note is his, the rest of the text is from a message he was quoting. In answer to his question, there ARE galaxies that are approaching earth. These are the local group; that group of galaxies gravitationally bound to Thiswhirl. It wouldn't make sense if they were all receeding from us. The best example of an approaching galaxy is M-31, the brightest galaxy around (~ 4th magnitude). <mike +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The entire indented part was indeed in an article from me, but the editorial note is not mine--it was also in the article I was quoting. As I said in that posting, ALL the indented material is from the article I was quoting, and the non-indented stuff was my commentary. That is an interesting explanation, though. Thanks. Dave Decot decvax!cwruecmp!decot
andree@uokvax.UUCP (11/09/83)
#R:cwruecmp:-75000:uokvax:8300011:000:888 uokvax!andree Oct 30 16:56:00 1983 /***** uokvax:net.religion / cwruecmp!decot / 8:41 pm Oct 25, 1983 */ This phenomenon explains the very large red [Doppler] shifts of many galaxies and also explains the blue shift of some nearby galaxies (Ed. note: Can anyone verify that some galaxies have a blue shift in their spectrum? I thought that all observed objects in the universe were apparently moving away from the earth.) /* ---------- */ The above is quoted wholesale from a letter from cwruecmp!decot. The editorial note is his, the rest of the text is from a message he was quoting. In answer to his question, there ARE galaxies that are approaching earth. These are the local group; that group of galaxies gravitationally bound to Thiswhirl. It wouldn't make sense if they were all receeding from us. The best example of an approaching galaxy is M-31, the brightest galaxy around (~ 4th magnitude). <mike