rmooney@uicsl.UUCP (03/08/84)
#N:uicsl:7500052:000:1619
uicsl!rmooney Mar 7 10:50:00 1984
I just thought I would bring up amazing fact regarding creationism.
Believe it our not there is one phenomenon which the creationists have
not yet concocted a ridiculous scenario for to fit it into there "origins
model". Or at least A. Ray Miller, who has nice little quotes for almost
every other issue neatly arrranged on notecards, could not give us a reply
to.
This is the phenomenon of geographical distribution of life. That is,
,for example, Why are "all" the marsupials in Australia? Evolution accounts
for this very nicely, it says they all evolved from a common stock that was
isolated on this land mass when it broke off. Creationists cannot account
for it in any other way than saying that for some strange reason the creator
decided to put them all there (i.e. That's the way the creator created it!)
The preposterous flood arguement will not help them here. There is no reason
why such a vast array of animals, which fill many different ecological niches,
would be in any one area and therefore all be isolated together.
This is the only technical point I have found which A. Ray does not have
a standard creationist reply for. Certainly some creationist somewhere should
be working on this problem and formulating an appropriately distorted scenario
to account for it. I find creationists a particularly apt name, they certain-
ly can be creative at times; in fact maybe they should call it "Creative
Science" instead of "Creation Science".
Ray Mooney
...ihnp4!uiucdcs!uicsl!rmooney
University of Illinois Urbana/Champaignwmartin@brl-vgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (03/12/84)
By the way, is there anything incompatible between the theory of continental drift and creationism? (That is, do creationists deny the possibility of continental drift, or do they not accept the allowability of enough geologic time for continental drift to occur?) My mind isn't made up either way... Will Martin
flinn@seismo.UUCP (E. A. Flinn) (03/12/84)
>>By the way, is there anything incompatible between the theory of >>continental drift and creationism? (That is, do creationists deny >>the possibility of continental drift, or do they not accept the >>allowability of enough geologic time for continental drift to occur?) "Continental drift" is more properly called "plate tectonics," since it is the plates, rather than the continents, that move (the continental crust rides along on the plates). Plate tectonics is as well established as any scientific theory, e.g., that the Earth orbits the Sun (or the theory of evolution, for that matter): the evidence that the plates have moved and are moving is overwhelming. Almost every earth scientist in the world now believe that all geological and geophysical phenomenon are explainable in terms of plate tectonics, or at least are consistent with it - the exception is the Soviet Union, where V. V. Beloussov, the Chairman of the Soviet Geophysical Committee, has personally squelched interest in geodynamics (but that's another story that I'll tell if anyone is interested). The rare observational data which does not fit the present rather crude model is being vigorously studied, and is being used to refine the model. There is very convincing evidence that the present cycle of plate motion begain about 250 million years ago, and that this cycle was preceded by other cycles all the way back into the Precambrian. If this conflicts with creationist notions, so much the worse for the creationists. Incidentally, plate tectonics also beautifully explains the available paleontological data on dispersal of species.