rmooney@uicsl.UUCP (03/20/84)
#N:uicsl:7500054:000:2715
uicsl!rmooney Mar 19 12:09:00 1984
I am tired of A. Ray Miller's worthless references to the "Little Green
men from Ork" explanation for the Paluxy tracks. I believe this is a
distortion of a proposal I originally made to prove a point.
First let me state categorically that I do not believe the Paluxy
tracks, or any other such data A. Ray mentions is truly valid. This
comes from the simple fact that most such things have been examined
by paleontoligists and they are not convinced. I prefer to leave such
things to the experts. If there is such overwhelming evidence that
the standard evolutionary "calendar" is wrong, why is it that the scientists
in the field don't accept it? Sufficient evidence will overcome any biases.
*Even if* dinosaurs were contemporaries of men I do not see how this is
proof against evolution. This might be explained by a mistaken date for the
extinction of all dinosaurs. Please tell me why it disproves evolution.
Finally, since A. Ray believes the data and that it disproves evolution
I simply asked him why it could not be explained with a panspermia arguement,
i.e. that all life was put here by extraterrestrials. (We could even include
the flood and say they colonized once but were wiped out by a worldwide flood
and had to try again) I believe this is as ridiculous as anyone, but *if*
evolution on earth was disproven (and the flood proven, both *highly* un-
likely) it would be a viable scientific alternative. It is simpler than
proposing an unknowable supernatural agent which is forever outside the
realm of science. Simply put, which is more ridiculous (from a scientific
standpoint), proposing something in the natural world which we know to have
likely existence and which we could learn more about (i.e. extraterrestrial
life) or proposing a whole other realm of existence which we have no evidence
for and which we can never learn more about (i.e. the scientific dead-end of
creationism).
A. Ray refuses to say what is wrong with the panspermia arguement and
why creationism is preferable, so he has to phrase my arguement to sound as
silly as possible so that he can ignore it without censure. Hopefully, he will
not use it again unless he addresses the point it raises. He cannot defend
creationism against a simple Occams's Razor attack so he has chosen to ignore
us. All I can say is I wish I could ignore A. Ray and the rest of the
creationists, unfortunately I am afraid if that I do they might end up
teaching this pseudo-science to my children. Creationists are certainly
bad scientists but they can be good politicians (e.g. Reagan).
Ray Mooney
ihnp4!uiucdcs!uicsl!rmooney
University of Illinios at Urbana/Champaignalle@ihuxb.UUCP (Allen England) (03/20/84)
+ > Creationists are certainly > bad scientists but they can be good politicians (e.g. Reagan). > Ray Mooney What evidence do you use for classifying Reagan as a creationist? He is certainly advocating prayer in public schools, but he hasn't advocated the teaching of creationism! Everything bad thing that happens IS NOT (notice I am shouting) Reagan's fault! Allen England at AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville, IL ihnp4!ihuxb!alle
jonw@azure.UUCP (Jonathan White) (03/21/84)
<> >> > Creationists are certainly >> > bad scientists but they can be good politicians (e.g. Reagan). >> > Ray Mooney >What evidence do you use for classifying Reagan as a creationist? >He is certainly advocating prayer in public schools, but he hasn't >advocated the teaching of creationism! Everything bad thing that >happens IS NOT (notice I am shouting) Reagan's fault! >Allen England at AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville, IL I don't know for a fact that Reagan is a creationist (or even religious, for that matter), but during his 1980 campaign he did say that creationism should be given "equal time" with evolution in our public schools. I think that Reagan would say just about anything to appeal to the right-wing, fundamentalist voters, but, fortunately, he has done relatively little for them. Jon White [decvax|ucbvax]!tektronix!tekmdp!azure!jonw
rmooney@uicsl.UUCP (03/23/84)
#R:ihuxb:-55800:uicsl:7500055:000:660
uicsl!rmooney Mar 22 11:16:00 1984
I thought that Reagan was in favor of an "equal treatment" of creationism
in the classroom, if I am wrong then I apologize. However I am more sure that
he does beielve in a literal interpretation of Genesis and that it has
scientific support and therefore one could classify him as a "creationist";
and he is obviously a good politician, so the example would hold. However,
although I may disagree with him on certain issues (e.g. prayer in school)
I am not a complete "anti-Reagan" person and would like to know his actual
stand on this issue. ??
Ray Mooney
ihnp4!uiucdcs!uicsl!rmooney
University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaignrmooney@uicsl.UUCP (03/23/84)
#N:uicsl:7500056:000:2174
uicsl!rmooney Mar 22 12:13:00 1984
I recieved mail on my Creationism & Men from Ork note from
Larry Bickford, {ihnp4,ucbvax}!{sun,amd70,decwrl}!qubix!lab
I thought I would post it with my replies for the entire net.
> Is is that Paleontologists don't accept the evidence -
> or don't WANT to accept the evidence, because of what it would do to
> their long-cherished beliefs? That accusation has been raised against
> the creationists, but it works both ways. The evidence is there; the
> interpretation and how it fits into the model MUST be explained.
I maintain that if the evidence is convincing enough it will win out.
Copernican astronomy, evolution, relativity, quantum mechanics, all
violated the "long-cherished beliefs" of people. (Even Einstein denied
Heisenberg's Uncertaintity Principle)
> Then again, some people will go to any extent to avoid acknowledging a
> God they could be held accountable to.
As I explained in the note, I deny that such evidence would demand the
existence of God, simpler explanations remain.
> BTW, re-dating the dinosaurs would wreak havoc on the current
> evolutionary timetable.
I still fail to see the logic of this. Does this supposed evidence
show that man existed before any of his evolutionary ancestors, or just
that men and dinosaurs might have been contemporaries?
> Panspermia begs another question: where did *they* come from?
> It also fails to account for the vast variety of creatures on earth, and
> for man's current technological ineptitude (compared to those who left
> the life forms here).
This question has the simple answer that they evolved on another planet.
(my original Creationism & Occams Razor note dealt with this issue in
greater depth) Why does it fail to account for variety? Who says
we are "technological[ly] inept" ? We just lack "their" knowledge. The point
is that these are questions answerable in the physical world not like the
questions creationism begs:
"Were did God come from?"
"Where is God?"
"What is God?".
Ray Mooney
ihnp4!uiucdcs!uicsl!rmooney
University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaignandrew@inmet.UUCP (03/23/84)
#R:ihuxb:-55800:inmet:6400107:000:172
inmet!andrew Mar 21 11:18:00 1984
Reagan admitted "having some difficulty with the theory of evolution"
in a campaign speech in 1980.
Andrew W. Rogers, Intermetrics ...{harpo|ima|esquire}!inmet!andrew