lief@hpfcrs.UUCP (lief) (03/07/85)
That's funny -- the Bible I read never said the earth was flat. You
better go learn to read!
Your supposedly *scientific* theory of evolution can't even answer the
simple question of where all matter came from in the first place, or what was
here before the beginning, or what lies beyond the universe -- need I say
any more about the primitive nature of the theory of evolution?
If you think the Creation story will vanish while Evolution prevades,
you have a severely limited knowledge of history -- namely that Creation has
been with us since the beginning of time, while Evolution has only come on
the scene since the 19th century, obviously another passing fad.
Now for those folks who insist that the Biblical story of creation is
only a metaphor or a Fable, what is your proof of such assertation? Until
you can prove your point, don't waste your breath. The Creation story sure
makes alot more scense than the theory of evolution.
Lief Sorensenethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (03/18/85)
> > That's funny -- the Bible I read never said the earth was flat. You > better go learn to read! > Oddly enough, I don't seem to have any problems in that department. :-) > Your supposedly *scientific* theory of evolution can't even answer the > simple question of where all matter came from in the first place, or what was > here before the beginning, or what lies beyond the universe -- need I say > any more about the primitive nature of the theory of evolution? > This has been said before, but I haven't yet given up. Science is the process of relating observations to one another in ways that suggest further relationships and illuminate the nature of the observed phenomena. By its very nature it proceeds from the realm of specialized and limited theories to the more general and sweeping kind. As a result it is characterized by the tentative nature of the results and by a limited range of strict applicability. A theory gains acceptance if it predicts future observations that are subsequently verified. The most convincing evidence of all comes from predictions that are not only subsequently verified, but for which no clear rationale exists among competing theories. In this respect the theory of evolution scored impressively by predicting the degree of biochemical affinity among species. Modern geology (which is not the same of the theory of evolution although the distinction is not commonly made in this group) did similarly well when the order of the geological column (established well before Darwin) was confirmed by radioactive dating of rock formations. "Complete" theories, of the kind you seem to be demanding, are preferable to incomplete ones only if they have some empirical basis. Anyone can invent grand and beautiful theories explaining life, the universe, and everything. Science demands that such theories have a clear empirical meaning and a relationship to our observations of the world. It doesn't take a lot of insight to realize that no such "scientific" theory exists, or has much prospect of existing. This doesn't strike me as a particularly telling blow against science. As an aside, "scientific creationism" is in one important respect worse than baseless speculation on such topics, since it contradicts the sucessful "incomplete" theories based on evolution. > If you think the Creation story will vanish while Evolution prevades, > you have a severely limited knowledge of history -- namely that Creation has > been with us since the beginning of time, while Evolution has only come on > the scene since the 19th century, obviously another passing fad. > I trust you forgot the little :-) after that last comment :-). Homicide, child abuse, disease and war have also been with us since the beginning of history (I will not say since the beginning of time). Not to mention poetry and love. For better or worse I expect them to continue. Creationism is neither the best or the worst of the things that may well be with us into the forseeable future. > Now for those folks who insist that the Biblical story of creation is > only a metaphor or a Fable, what is your proof of such assertation? Until > you can prove your point, don't waste your breath. The Creation story sure > makes alot more scense than the theory of evolution. > > Lief Sorensen Hmm.. proof in science is proof beyond all reasonable doubt, not beyond a shadowof a doubt. I'd say evolution is proved in the former sense. Nothing in science is proved in the latter sense. As to what makes sense to you... Whatever makes you happy Lief, just don't confuse it with science and we'll both be happier. "Don't argue with a fool. Ethan Vishniac Borrow his money." {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan *Anyone who wants to claim these opinions is welcome to them.*
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (03/18/85)
Lief Sorenson shared some pearls of wisdom with us that merit some comment. > > That's funny -- the Bible I read never said the earth was flat. You > better go learn to read! > > Your supposedly *scientific* theory of evolution can't even answer the > simple question of where all matter came from in the first place, or what was > here before the beginning, or what lies beyond the universe -- need I say > any more about the primitive nature of the theory of evolution? That's not surprising since the theory of evolution is not a theory of cosmology - it is not required to explain where matter came from. The matter could have originally come from a creator as far as evolution is concerned. If you spent some time reading about evolution and cosmology, besides your bible, you would know the difference. I suggest you heed your own advice. Padraig Houlahan.
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (03/18/85)
> Your supposedly *scientific* theory of evolution can't even answer the > simple question of where all matter came from in the first place, or what was > here before the beginning, or what lies beyond the universe -- need I say > any more about the primitive nature of the theory of evolution? Once more we have an attack on science feebly disguised as an attack on evolution. If it doesn't know everything, it can't be much good, EH? If it doesn't have access to ETERNAL Truth, it's primitive, EH? It is the very nature of science that forbids it (so far) to make theories about what came before the begining. There is no evidence to indicate such, and our present "primitive" understanding of nature does not let us extend our theories back beyond the "Big Bang". The theory of evolution does not try to extend back even so far. It limits itself to the origin of life o this planet. -- Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!ward ARPA: hplabs!hao!ward@Berkeley BELL: 303-497-1252 USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (03/18/85)
> > Now for those folks who insist that the Biblical story of creation is > > only a metaphor or a Fable, what is your proof of such assertation? Until > > you can prove your point, don't waste your breath. The Creation story sure > > makes alot more scense than the theory of evolution. > > > > Lief Sorensen I suspect that no major Christian religion willingly decided to accept the story of Genesis as a metaphor. It's just that the only alternatives are to reject science (as we see here) or to reject Genesis. Most prescientific theories make more sense than the scientific ones...until you take the evidence into account. Prescientific theories were formulated specifically to make sense. Scientific theories are formulated to provide an explaination of what we know of the universe. -- Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!ward ARPA: hplabs!hao!ward@Berkeley BELL: 303-497-1252 USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (03/18/85)
I love it when newcomers think they know it all, and don't realize that we've been over these points before, in greater depth. In article <14600003@hpfcrs.UUCP> lief@hpfcrs.UUCP (lief) writes: > That's funny -- the Bible I read never said the earth was flat. You > better go learn to read! You'd better go read some history. For centuries the Bible was quoted to support the theory that the earth was flat. And it is still quoted for that purpose, by members of the Flat Earth Society. The Bible doesn't explicitly say that the earth is flat and not spherical, but many cherished Christian ideas are no better supported. > Your supposedly *scientific* theory of evolution can't even answer the > simple question of where all matter came from in the first place, or what was > here before the beginning, or what lies beyond the universe -- need I say > any more about the primitive nature of the theory of evolution? Your supposedly sacred texts can't even answer the question of what was before god, or how god was created, or what processes god used to create the earth, or what lies beyond god's powers -- need I say any more about the primitive nature of those stories? > If you think the Creation story will vanish while Evolution prevades, > you have a severely limited knowledge of history -- namely that Creation has > been with us since the beginning of time, while Evolution has only come on > the scene since the 19th century, obviously another passing fad. If you think evolution will vanish while Creationism pervades, you have a severely limited knowledge of history -- namely that evolution has been occurring for billions of years, while Creationism has only come on the scene in the past 3000 years, obviously another passing fad. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
sidney@linus.UUCP (Sidney Markowitz) (03/19/85)
In article <14600003@hpfcrs.UUCP> lief@hpfcrs.UUCP (lief) writes: > > > Your supposedly *scientific* theory of evolution can't even answer the >simple question of where all matter came from in the first place, or what was >here before the beginning, or what lies beyond the universe -- need I say >any more about the primitive nature of the theory of evolution? > [ ... ] > Now for those folks who insist that the Biblical story of creation is >only a metaphor or a Fable, what is your proof of such assertation? Until >you can prove your point, don't waste your breath. The Creation story sure >makes alot more scense than the theory of evolution. > >Lief Sorensen Ok, so now we have another vocal proponent of creationism. Maybe you, Lief, will answer the questions that no other creationist has been willing to address on the net. Just what is the theory of creationism that you believe in? Specifically: 1) You state you believe in the Biblical story of creation. Which Bible in particular? I would assume you are referring to the account in Genesis in the Judeo-Christian Old Testament, but which translation? According to which theologians' interpretations? 2) If you interpret the creation story as involving the sudden appearance of the universe and current species of life some thousands (or even millions) of years ago, what is your explanation of such things as (a) indications that there are stars billions of light-years away, so that the light we see from them has been on its way to us for billions of years (b) evidence from red-shift and background radiation that is consistent with a big-bang having occurred billions of years ago (c) estimates of age of items based on various radio-isotope dating techniques? 3) Even better than answers to the few example questions in (2), how about a summary of your understanding of how creation happened and what has happened since then, in a sufficiently comprehensive version so that it provides an explanation for the various phenomena that astrophysicists, geologists, biologists, etc., have developed their theories to explain? So far I've seen nothing from any creationist here that even begins to answer these questions. How can you expect to convince people that you even *have* a theory without explaining anything? Well, Lief, do you care enough about your beliefs to try for a credible answer? -- Sidney Markowitz ARPA: sidney@mitre-bedford UUCP: ...{allegra,decvax,genrad,ihnp4,philabs,security,utzoo}!linus!sidney
brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (03/20/85)
In article <14600003@hpfcrs.UUCP> lief@hpfcrs.UUCP (lief) writes: > That's funny -- the Bible I read never said the earth was flat. You >better go learn to read! "Go ye therefore unto the ends of the earth..." Last time I looked, spheres do not have ends. > Your supposedly *scientific* theory of evolution can't even answer the >simple question of where all matter came from in the first place, or what was >here before the beginning, or what lies beyond the universe -- need I say >any more about the primitive nature of the theory of evolution? Sorry, but the question of where matter comes from is not included in the "Theory of Evolution", because the answer is not relevent to evolution. Where matter comes from is a question more appropriate to the science of physics, probabally, and there are several competing theories (none are currently totally accepted within the scientific community). > If you think the Creation story will vanish while Evolution prevades, >you have a severely limited knowledge of history -- namely that Creation has >been with us since the beginning of time, while Evolution has only come on >the scene since the 19th century, obviously another passing fad. Hopefully the creation story will not vanish, but will remain a nice story. Maybe we will be lucky enough that people will quit claiming that it is scientific, however. > Now for those folks who insist that the Biblical story of creation is >only a metaphor or a Fable, what is your proof of such assertation? >Untilyou can prove your point, don't waste your breath. >Lief Sorensen If you turn the above statement arround to "where is the proof of the Biblical creation story", one can start a discussion of a scientific nature. -- Richard A. Brower Fortune Systems {ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (03/20/85)
In article <14600003@hpfcrs.UUCP> lief@hpfcrs.UUCP (lief) writes: > Your supposedly *scientific* theory of evolution can't even answer the >simple question of where all matter came from in the first place, or what was >here before the beginning, or what lies beyond the universe -- need I say >any more about the primitive nature of the theory of evolution? Your supposedly *divine* Bible can't even answer the simple questions, like "How much does air weigh?" or "Why does wood float?" Need I say more about the primitive nature of your ancient superstitions? You think science is inferior to the Bible because science doesn't answer all the questions that the Bible answers. If so, what is implied by the fact that the Bible doesn't answer all the questions that science can answer? -- David Canzi "It's lonely at the bottom, too."
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (04/28/85)
>>>>>How could new species appear in isolated regions if they didn't evolve? >>> . . . <the following is advanced by Karl as a creationist explanation> >>> >>>>> "There is a simple explanation. Gawd created unique >>>>> species everywhere, and those on the mainland mingled and mixed. >>>>> When we got to the islands,we found some previously inaccessible species. >>>>> A simple uniform distribution of created species answers everything." >>>> [Paul DuBois] >>>>Hang on a second. Have you ever actually seen this argument used? >>>>If so, where? If not...be quiet. >>> [Isaac Dimitrovsky] >>> OK, Paul, just what is *your* explanation of this? >>> I assume by your irritated reaction to the argument given above that >>> you have a different one in mind. >> [Paul DuBois] >> No, I don't. I meant what I said, viz. "what creationist actually >> uses this argument?" No acrimony implied. > [Jeff Sonntag] > So should we just add this one to the list of phenomena which is easily > explained by evolution and ignored by creationists? Maybe. Or maybe someone could actually come up with the creationists who make this argument. Or maybe someone could just admit that it's a straw man, and quit circling around the question. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "There are two sides to every argument, until you take one." |
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (04/28/85)
> --JB (not Elizabeth, not Beth Ann, not Mary Beth...Just Beth) > Creationists don't usually deal with the issue of > where that really unique form of life came from, and when they do they > usually make wierd faces and say something like it "always existed". But > they do seem to believe that life on earth came from non-life, especially if > they buy the Genesis account of God creating Adam from dust (and, of course, > the old dust-to-dust stuff). > > Comments? Sure. Evolutionists claim that they do not have to account for the origin of the matter from which life arose. Why then should creationists have to account for the origin of the creator from which life arose? -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "There are two sides to every argument, until you take one." |
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (04/28/85)
> A creation theory which has a certain philosophical appeal is the > "Sandbox Theory". Our existence, and the existence of the world we see > around us is the result of a "god-child" playing sandbox. Soon his mother > will call him in for dinner and he will kick the whole thing over as he > ends his play. > > Jim Potter jp@lanl.arpa Further information may be obtained by consulting Fantastic Four number 24, "L'Enfant Terrible". Anyone remember that one? -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "There are two sides to every argument, until you take one." |
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (04/29/85)
> Padraig Houlahan says it's 'pathetic' to point out the error of past > evolutionary arguments (he references mention of embryo development as > an argument for evolution is no longer used and to point that out is > to en effect to beat a dead horse) since no one believes them any longer. > > But this is merely the same kind of argument religious people us to point > out to non believers when they, the non believers hold up silly notions > of what the believers really believe! That kind of arguement is quite valid, and religious people are allowed to use it too, as far as I'm concerned. > Such as the utterly stupid idea > that God has to be explained - who/what caused God? Just how is this an example of an outdated religious belief which nonbelievers hold up to ridicule? <answer: it's not.> > > Many uninformed believers in evolution, just like the uniformed unbelievers > in God, still hold to outmoded or bogus ideas to bolster their convictions. > WHAT MANY EVOLUTIONISTS ON THIS NET SEEM TO FAIL TO REALIZE IS THE THE > 'ENVIRONMENT' IN WHICH THE 'DEBATE' ABOUT EVOLUTION IS TAKING PLACE IN OUR > SOCIETY TODAY IS ONE IN WHICH EVOLUTION IS SEEN TO HAVE CARRIED THE DAY, > AND SO IT IS RIGHT, AS A TECHNIQUE, TO CRITICISE EVOLUTION POINT BY POINT > IN MAKING A CASE FOR CREATIONISM. Wow! It's in capital letters, so it must be TRUE! Notice that if it were true, it would be valid for people to criticize modern physics since newtonian mechanics doesn't work for v->c. Physicists would say: 'But we've got a new theory that takes care of that!'. And aristotelians could then make *exactly* the same arguement that Arndt just has. Nuff said. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "This here's a story 'bout Minnie the Moocher. She was a low-down hoo-oochy koocher. She was the roughest, meanest frail. But Minnie had a heart as big as a whale." - idunno (mail me if you do!)
hua@cmu-cs-eduphanu-cs-edu1.UUCP (04/30/85)
___________________________________________________________________________ > From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) > > > --JB (not Elizabeth, not Beth Ann, not Mary Beth...Just Beth) > > Creationists don't usually deal with the issue of > > where that really unique form of life came from, and when they do they > > usually make wierd faces and say something like it "always existed". But > > they do seem to believe that life on earth came from non-life, especially > > if they buy the Genesis account of God creating Adam from dust (and, of > > course, the old dust-to-dust stuff). > > > > Comments? First, a comment on the original, which Paul does not deal with. The biggest difference is the responsibility for the emergence of life forms as we know them. Is it an act of God? Or did it "just happen"? There is not problem in terms of a literal origin of life forms. The real difficulty lies in the forces that caused the tranformation. > Sure. > > Evolutionists claim that they do not have to account for the origin > of the matter from which life arose. Why then should creationists have > to account for the origin of the creator from which life arose? Second, on Paul's comment: Really? Who said so? Actually, don't waste your time answering that because I know of several who did. >From my perspective, evolution is simply a grandiose label for the natural flow of things. If you want to categorize and subdivide nature into, say, living and non-living, some reasonable question might be: "Where did the living come from?" or "Where did the non-living come from?" From a lot of analysis and research, some people have proposed answers to these questions. From a scientific perspective, the answer is that the living originally came from the non-living, as shown by the fossil record via some extrapolations. (Obviously, I am by no means saying that the fossil record is complete.) There is some development of form. From a religious perspective, a sample proposition might be the literal story of Genesis, which says that life forms were created at some instants of time by a supernatural life form. If you want to categorize something else, like languages, you might ask the same of languages. In which case, evolution is an answer again. Certain languages changed with time. Another answer is the Tower of Babel story (did I get that name right?). Now, a good question for the non-living part of nature subdivision would be: "Where did it all come from?" Again, the answer given by the Bible is that God made it all. Ultimately, science must assume that it was there since the Big Bang, which was the source of the matter that occupy the current version of the universe. No one can prove that ... yet. Biological evolution does not deal with this idea. However, evolution as a whole does cover EVERYTHING. It must cover everything as it does deal with the origin of everything.(*) Some net readers have limited the discussion to biological evolution, going on the assumption that that is the main topic at hand. (*) Note that when I said "origin", I meant the states that the universe transgressed to get to its current state. At the moment, it is difficult to image the states at or before Big Bang, so that is considered the the- oretical "beginning" ... for now. ___________________________________________________________________________ Live long and prosper. Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }
lief@hpfcrs.UUCP (lief) (05/12/85)
> You are confusing *capacity* and ability. Humans have a >natural *capacity* to *learn* language, something which no other >animal has ever been demonstrated to have. Humans only actual learn >to speak if they have the motivation, that is other humans to which >to speak must be present. The *real* test of the inborn nature of >language would be to raise a group of children *together* from >infancy, but without *any* contact with adults, and then see if they >invent a language for use among themselves. >-- > > Sarima (Stanley Friesen) > >/* ---------- */ Any idea what mutation or natural selection mechanism caused mammals which have no *capacity* for learning languages to somehow gain that ability? Lief Sorensen HP Fort Collins, CO Uucp ...!hpfcla!lief
lief@hpfcrs.UUCP (lief) (05/16/85)
> > Actually, according to what little I know of creation theory, the creation >model would predict a sudden and abrupt appearence of all species which >currently exist, plus all species which have subsequently become extinct. >This is contradictory to the evidence. Any explanations, creationists? >-- >Jeff Sonntag Any Creationist who really believes in the "sudden and abrubt appearance of ALL SPECIES" is certainly going to have to reject the Flood theory in Genesis 6-8, since there is absolutely no way every species of land animal and bird could fit into the ark and be sustained for a whole year. And in my opinion, if one rejects Genesis 6-8, he doesn't have a case for Genesis 1. I've said it before, although not here. Natural selection (and yes, mutations) account for the vast variety of species which have occurred since the Flood, (and on isolated islands). Douglas Futuyma in SCIENCE ON TRIAL, which I recently read, has many, many documented experiments demonstrating that species can change radically within a few generations via natural selection and mutations. (Realize however that he is in no way supporting creation.) However, he fails to list even one example of a species changing so radically that it suddenly belongs to another family. In all his cases, a horse was still a horse, a dog was still a dog, a fly was still a fly. What he does, is constantly remind us that because of these experiments, we can *infer* that the boundaries may be crossed. Unfortunately, *inference* ranks very low on my list of evidences. Let me remind some Creationists that if they really reject natural selection, then again they will need to reject Genesis for another reason. In Genesis a man named Jacob did some experiments with some cattle in order to improve them -- in other words, variation of species. Lief Sorensen HP Fort Collins, CO Uucp ...!hpfcla!lief
lief@hpfcrs.UUCP (lief) (05/16/85)
> No creationist argument >about holes in evolutionary theory can prove anything about >the validity of creationism unless the Creator can be shown >to exist. > Duncan A. Buell > No evolutionist argument about holes in creationist theory can prove anything about the validity of evolution unless The Origin of Life from spontaneous generation can be shown. 10 years, hey? > > Can the creationists on this list separate >their arguments from their religion? I suggest that they >cannot. > Duncan A. Buell > I like this. It is the seperation of religion from Creation that makes the whole theory of Creation ridiculous. In fact, Evolutionists attempt to do that either intentionally or unintentionally. You see, how can an all loving God who created all things perfect be responsible for the deadly virus, the mosquito, the useless wings, etc? In this sence it does not make sence! However, the religion of the Bible teaches not only about a loving God, but also about sin, the adversary Devil, the big flood, etc. When the whole scope of the conflict of good and evil is tied with Creation, it falls into place very neatly. And as Duncan Buell stated, without this religious backdrop, Creation cannot be argued. On the other side of the coin, many Creationists do not really understand what Evolutionists are saying, either intentionally or unintentionally. A couple weeks ago in church while teaching my class, I thought I was going to be shot when I mentioned that "natural selection" was a fact. I believe some folks labelled me a heretic. Anyway, did you know that "natural selection" is Biblical? You can read about it in Genesis. When Jacob went to live with his uncle Laban, he used "natural selection" to improve his herd of sheep and cattle. I find it disturbing that some Creationists are so defensive that they explode at anything that sounds like evolution, even when it's Biblical. Perhaps Evolutionists may want to discard "natural selection" from their theory since it is Biblical?(-: Lief Sorensen HP Fort Collins, CO Uucp ...!hpfcla!lief
sidney@linus.UUCP (Sidney Markowitz) (05/23/85)
In article <14600014@hpfcrs.UUCP> lief@hpfcrs.UUCP (lief) writes: > >Any idea what mutation or natural selection mechanism caused mammals which >have no *capacity* for learning languages to somehow gain that ability? See Marvin Minsky's article in the April '85 issue of _Byte_ on the likelihood of our being able to communicate with a hypothetical extra-terrestrial intelligence. (The article is really about language and intelligence.) Minsky argues that much of the foundation for linguistic ability is inherent in cognitive processes and structures required for reasoning and problem solving. In other words, if you develop the abilities of planning and abstraction, linguistic capacity may be a result. -- Sidney Markowitz ARPA: sidney@mitre-bedford UUCP: ...{allegra,decvax,genrad,ihnp4,philabs,security,utzoo}!linus!sidney
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (05/23/85)
In article <14600014@hpfcrs.UUCP> lief@hpfcrs.UUCP (lief) writes: > >[Sarima (Stanley Friesen)] > >Humans have a > >natural *capacity* to *learn* language, something which no other > >animal has ever been demonstrated to have. > > Any idea what mutation or natural selection mechanism caused mammals which > have no *capacity* for learning languages to somehow gain that ability? GACK! Talk about fallacious insinuations! Shame, Lief. Let's rewrite the question to fit in with evolutionary thought, rather than creationist misrepresentations. "Any idea what mutation or natural selection mechanism enabled mammals which have precursors for ability to learn languages to gain that ability?" There's no doubt that other mammals have elaborate systems of communication which (for technical reasons) we don't call language. But no insuperable gap has been identified between human language ability and that of apes. Chimps and gorillas seem to be on the threshold of language ability: I say that because as of yet, we've not been able to tell one way or the other. First, we need more understanding of just what our language ability is. As for the specific mechanisms, no we don't know yet. However, we have a wide variety of plausible evolutionary mechanisms to explore. (Which reminds me, that I ought to go out and read "Promethean Fire", by Lumsden and E. O. Wilson.) -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
jjm@.UUCP (05/24/85)
Is not determanism (sp?) then the same as evolutionism?
I have always tought of myself as a determanist. That is,
the events occuring now are a direct result of all action in the
past, and all action occuring at time t (now) will directly
effect the future. For example, if now I decide to not post this
note, no one will read it, and all I will have done is practice
my typing (so I'm alittle slow) thus effecting only myself.
When I post this, some will read it and post, others will scoff
and use this tidbit in some future rebuttle, and (maybe) some will
agree. OK. You (out there in net-land) decide to read
net.origins after work instead of going right home. You read my
note, respone and go home. Well, by my posting a note I have
effected the time you return home. What does this change? No
one could ever know.
So, is not evolution determanism of life (so to speak)?
Anyway I needed to practice my typing ;-}.
pasta fazool,
joekeithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (05/24/85)
[...............] > You are confusing *capacity* and ability. Humans have a >natural *capacity* to *learn* language, something which no other >animal has ever been demonstrated to have. Humans only actual learn Actually, this is not true. Some chimpanzees have learned a form of sign language, and have taught it to their offspring. I guess what you mean is, no other animal has ever demonstrated the ability to speak verbally. >Any idea what mutation or natural selection mechanism caused mammals which >have no *capacity* for learning languages to somehow gain that ability? I heard on a T.V. program recently that some scientists think that the 'hunter gatherer' form of society may derive considerable benifit from vocal sound communication. I believe some examples were given, but unfortunately I can't remember what they were right now. Maybe someone else on the net saw the program, (a PBS program on communication or speech or something like that) or is familiar with other theories. Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (beth d. christy) (05/24/85)
From: lief@hpfcrs.UUCP (lief) Message-ID: <14600014@hpfcrs.UUCP> >Any idea what mutation or natural selection mechanism caused mammals which >have no *capacity* for learning languages to somehow gain that ability? > >Lief Sorensen Probably the mutation or natural selection mechanism that caused mammals which had no capacity for learning languages to somehow gain that ability. I know this sounds sarcastic, but seriously: What answer would you accept? The one that did it is the one that did it. That's all there is to say. -- --JB "The giant is awake." Disclaimer? Who wud claim dis?
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (05/24/85)
In article <14600014@hpfcrs.UUCP> lief@hpfcrs.UUCP (lief) writes: >> You are confusing *capacity* and ability. Humans have a >>natural *capacity* to *learn* language, something which no other >>animal has ever been demonstrated to have. Humans only actual learn >>to speak if they have the motivation, that is other humans to which >>to speak must be present. The *real* test of the inborn nature of >>language would be to raise a group of children *together* from >>infancy, but without *any* contact with adults, and then see if they >>invent a language for use among themselves. >>-- >> >> Sarima (Stanley Friesen) >> >>/* ---------- */ > >Any idea what mutation or natural selection mechanism caused mammals which >have no *capacity* for learning languages to somehow gain that ability? > In a general sort of way, yes. The capacity for language is of course a complex "trait" resulting from the interactions of many different physiological and neuroanatomical traits, thus there is no simple "mutation" involved. The selective pressures involved can be summed up in the concepts of socialization and cooperative hunting. That is, improved communication within a band if early "ape-men" would lead to increased efficiency in hunting and reduced social friction between troup members. Social structures could be formed and maintained with less of the potentially damaging fighting typical of other primates, resulting in a generally stronger band. These factors would lead to a greater succes for the band and other bands like it, which is, essentially by definition, a selective advantage for improved communication. Over time these improvements would easily accumulate until the complete adaptive suite we see in modern humans was attained, giving full language competancy. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (05/26/85)
> [...............] > > You are confusing *capacity* and ability. Humans have a > >natural *capacity* to *learn* language, something which no other > >animal has ever been demonstrated to have. Humans only actual learn > > Actually, this is not true. Some chimpanzees have learned a form of > sign language, and have taught it to their offspring. I guess what > you mean is, no other animal has ever demonstrated the ability to > speak verbally. > The distinction between language (as applied to humans) and language (in reference to animals) is that humans can form abstractions from the juxtaposition of symbols using syntactical structures. There are those who believe that some of the basic syntactical rules are hard wired into the human brain. Many animals have shown the ability to make the connection between a sybol and an object. It is still not clear whether chimpanzees can use syntax. > >Any idea what mutation or natural selection mechanism caused mammals which > >have no *capacity* for learning languages to somehow gain that ability? > > I heard on a T.V. program recently that some scientists think that the > 'hunter gatherer' form of society may derive considerable benifit from > vocal sound communication. I believe some examples were given, but > unfortunately I can't remember what they were right now. Maybe someone > else on the net saw the program, (a PBS program on communication or > speech or something like that) or is familiar with other theories. > Any tribal society, like chimpanzees or humans, rely on cooperation. Increased symbol manipulation is an obvious benefit to such. It may be more interesting to wonder why chimpanzees *didn't* develope language. "Don't argue with a fool. Ethan Vishniac Borrow his money." {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan Department of Astronomy University of Texas
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (05/30/85)
In article <634@cadovax.UUCP> keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) writes: >[...............] >> You are confusing *capacity* and ability. Humans have a >>natural *capacity* to *learn* language, something which no other >>animal has ever been demonstrated to have. Humans only actual learn > >Actually, this is not true. Some chimpanzees have learned a form of >sign language, and have taught it to their offspring. I guess what >you mean is, no other animal has ever demonstrated the ability to >speak verbally. > No, I mean no other animal has the ability to learn a *complete* concept-oriented language simply by exposure. These ape-language experiments involve using ingenious, intensive training techniques to induce a chimp(or other ape) to learn a *subset* of the full range of human linguisitic performance. The most reasonible interpretation of these experiments is that apes are capable(under abnormal circumstances) of employing a form of simple sign-symbolism of concrete objects and actions. Thet also show that apes are very sensitive to "body-language" and are often cued subconsciously by the experimenter as to what is wanted, and they are *very* happy to oblige. There is no evidence of any capacity for unrestricted symbolization and abstraction, nor for "gramaticalization" of complex relationships. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
lief@hpfcla.UUCP (lief) (07/23/85)
>There is plenty of evidence, if you would only ALLOW yourself to >see it. Go to the Grand Canyon. Read Scientific American every month. >Read Nature every week. Read a good book about evolutionary biology, >or paleontology. Take a course on the subject. It's all there. But, >"There are none so blind as those who will not see." > > Bill Jefferys 8-% > Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) > {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) > bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET) > /* ---------- */ > Unfortunately, your evidence is nothing more than your interpretation of the factual data which all can see. The evolutionist and the creationist can both walk down the Grand Canyon, see the very same things, and come away with two completely different 'evidences', each claiming that the evidence he has supports his theory. Perhaps what we need to do is to focus more on the basis for interpretation of data rather than on the so called evidences. Lief Sorensen HP Fort Collins, CO Uucp ...!hpfcla!lief
lief@hpfcla.UUCP (lief) (07/23/85)
>>/***** hpfcrs:net.origins / umcp-cs!flink / 3:42 pm Jul 15, 1985*/ >>In article <323@phri.UUCP> fritz@phri.UUCP (Dave Fritzinger) writes: >>..., and I might add, extremely good evidence for evolution, >>is the rear leg bones of the whales. Even though they serve no purpose, >>and cannot be seen from the outside, WHALES HAVE LEGS!!! > >Indeed, many insect species have "vestigal" wings, which are small >non-functional organs sitting right where the wings were/are on the >closest related species. If there's a God who created all species >from scratch, He must be trying awful hard to trick us into believing >in evolution! >/* ---------- */ > Do these "vestigal" organs show "pregression" or "regression". In otherwords, can these mean that at one time whales could walk, but due to some mutation, the legs became useless? I would call this "regression". On the other hand, does this mean whales never could walk, but may in the future as the legs further develop? I would call this "progression". As a creationist, I believe that "vestigal" organs demonstrate "regression" of species over time, and serve no evidence for evolution. I may be all wet, but I really fail too see how "vestigal" organs serve as good evidence of evolution. Lief Sorensen HP Fort Collins, CO Uucp ...!hpfcla!lief
lief@hpfcla.UUCP (lief) (07/23/85)
>> On the >> other hand, measurements made at hundreds of sites >> worldwide [a,b] indicate that the concentration of >> radiocarbon in the atmosphere rose quite rapidly at some >> time prior to 3,500 years ago. > >I seem to remember it as not all that rapid, but go on... > >> If this happened, the >> maximum possible radiocarbon age obtainable with the >> standard techniques (approximately 50,000 years) could >> easily correspond to a TRUE age of 5,000 years. > >Wrong! If there used to be more C14 in the atmosphere than there is now, >it would make radiocarbon dates come out too *young*, not too old. At >least try to get the direction of the error right! > >Human: Gordon Davisson >ARPA: gordon@uw-june.ARPA >UUCP: {ihnp4,decvax,tektronix}!uw-beaver!uw-june!gordon >/* ---------- */ > Would you please read that again, Gordon? HE DID NOT STATE THAT THERE USED TO BE MORE C14 IN THE ATMOSPHERE THAN THERE IS NOW! On the contrary, he stated that the amount of C14 in the atmosphere has increased sometime during the last 3-4 thousand years. You are the one in error! Lief Sorensen HP Fort Collins, CO Uucp ...!hpfcla!lief
lief@hpfcla.UUCP (lief) (07/24/85)
>> 62. Geological formations are almost always dated by their >> fossil content, especially by certain INDEX FOSSILS of >> extinct animals. The age of the fossil is derived from the >> assumed evolutionary sequence, but the evolutionary >> sequence is based on the fossil record. This reasoning is >> circular [a-e]. Furthermore, this procedure has produced >> many contradictory results [f]. >> > > This is *not* how it is really done, as has been pointed out >several times already. The fossil content is used to *correlate* >spatially seperated strata. This correlation is then combined with >*observed* sequencing in the various regions and reference dates >provided by radiometeric dating for certain local strata to provide >an interpolated dating sequence for the whole geologic column. This >method is *not* circular. Admittedly some individual workers lacking >general training in geology and paleontology have not understood the >situation and erroniously used circular reasoning, but this is *not* >the accepted technique. >-- > > Sarima (Stanley Friesen) > >{trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen >or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen >/* ---------- */ > If an organism (fossil) is found in rock strata, and one wishes to get the age of the organism, what are the steps he goes through to arrive at a figure? My concern is that he would look at the age of the rock strata, and assume that since that organism was found within that rock strata, it too must be of the same age. In otherwords, if I were to be buried by some inorganic matter that was 2 billion years old, and my fossils were found within this matter 1 million years later, would scientists be able to say that I was 1 million years old, or would they say I am over 2 billion years old? Lief Sorensen HP Fort Collins, CO Uucp ...!hpfcla!lief
lief@hpfcla.UUCP (lief) (07/24/85)
>> 65. Many different people have found, at different times and >> places, man-made artifacts encased in coal. Examples >> include .... By evolutionary dating >> techniques, these objects would be hundreds of millions of >> years old; but man supposedly did not begin to evolve >> until 2-4 million years ago. Again, something is wrong. >> >> a) Rene Noorbergen, SECRETS OF THE LOST RACES (New York: >> The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1977), pp. 40-62. >> b) Harry V. Wiant, Jr., ''A Curiosity From Coal,'' >> CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY, Vol.13, No.1, >> June 1976, p. 74. >> c) J. R. Jochmans, ''Strange Relics from the Depths of >> the Earth,'' BIBLE-SCIENCE NEWSLETTER, January 1979, >> p. 1. >> d) Wilbert H. Rusch, Sr., ''Human Footprints in Rocks,'' >> CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY, March 1971, pp. >> 201-202. >> e) Frederick G. Wright, ''The Idaho Find,'' AMERICAN >> ANTIQUARIAN, Vol.II, 1889, pp. 379-381, as cited by >> William R. Corliss in ANCIENT MAN, A HANDBOOK OF >> PUZZLING ARTIFACTS (Glen Arm, Maryland: The Sourcebook >> Project, 1978), pp. 661-662. >> f) Frank Calvert, ''On the Probable Existence of Man >> During the Miocene Period,'' ANTHROPOLOGICAL INSTITUTE >> JOURNAL, Vol.3, 1873, as cited by William R. Corliss >> in ANCIENT MAN, A HANDBOOK OF PUZZLING ARTIFACTS (Glen >> Arm, Maryland: The Sourcebook Project, 1978), pp. >> 661-662. > >Hmmm, these seem to be mostly(or exclusively) highly partisan >creationist publications, I would like to see this stuff confirmed in >proper refereed journals! I place about as much faith in these finds >as I do in the Paluxy River "human footprints" - exactly none! >(Actually, the first reference sounds like it is even worse than >a creationist publication - a Von-Daenken-esque type pseudo-science >book) >-- > >Sarima (Stanley Friesen) > >{trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen >or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen >/* ---------- */ > I am sometimes amazed at folks who claim to be scientific and open minded. Lief Sorensen HP Fort Collins, CO Uucp ...!hpfcla!lief
lief@hpfcla.UUCP (lief) (07/24/85)
>/***** hpfcrs:net.origins / cadovax!keithd / 5:10 pm Jul 11, 1985*/ >................. >>Does anyone not see the contradiction between #63 and #67 repeated here? >> >>In article <388@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: >>> 63. Practically nowhere on the earth can one find the so- >>> called ''geologic column.'' [a] In fact, on the >> >>> 67. Since there is no worldwide unconformity in the earth's >>> sedimentary strata, the entire geologic record must have >> >>Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh > >Obviously they're so confused among themselves that we can now state that >Creationists disagree about the state of the ''geologic column'', and >cite this as a reference. > >Keith Doyle ># {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd >/* ---------- */ Sure looks funny to me too! Don't be to quick to jump on our case, however -- unless you would like to see a huge list of contradictions made by the evolutionists! Paul DuBois could produce one rather quickly, with references and all. Lief Sorensen HP Fort Collins, CO Uucp ...!hpfcla!lief
lief@hpfcla.UUCP (lief) (07/24/85)
>An interesting collection of anecdotal and circumstantial >"evidence" of no scientific value whatever! Really such partisan >authors as Josephus!(A Jew no less). But as a matter of fact many >ancient historians were veru uncritical of thier sources and generally >included myths and unsubstantiated tales as "facts". Then of course >there are these people who saw the Ark and waited 30 yeaers to tell >someone, and when they did it was for financial gain(being hired as >guides by a gullible foreigner)!! I have seen some of these photos, >they are about as clear and unambiguous as the photos of pyramids >on Mars! Really, none of these accounts is of any value, none would >even be acceptible in a court of law, let alone a serious historical >textbook! What with "lost reports" and distant rumours I see no reason >to take any of this seriously. Especially in the light of recent >expeditions and analyses which have consistantly failed to find the >Ark, and which have shown that the "piece of wood from the Ark" is >in fact no such thing! >-- > >Sarima (Stanley Friesen) > >{trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen >or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen >/* ---------- */ > In case you didn't know, Josephus (who was a Jew) had no reason to help the Jewish cause. In fact, he fought with the Romans aginst the Jews. So why should he want to lend validity to a Jewish book? You complain about the ambiguity of the data above. Yet some of the very theories you are backing with your life have even more ambiguity tied to their evidence than that above. Why is it that you can be so open minded with some theories that have questions left open, and so closed minded on other theories that may still have questions? Or are you basically bias against anything that hints at Creation? Lief Sorensen HP Fort Collins, CO Uucp ...!hpfcla!lief
lief@hpfcla.UUCP (lief) (07/29/85)
>The fact is that evolution can provide testable explanations of why and >when such "degeneration" occurs, whereas creationists can only say things >like "Gawds curse". > >Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh >/* ---------- */ > Alright. When did man degenerate into monkeys? And why? :-) Lief Sorensen HP Fort Collins, CO Uucp ...!hpfcla!lief
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (08/01/85)
In article <14600028@hpfcrs.UUCP> lief@hpfcla.UUCP (lief) writes: > Do these "vestigal" organs show "pregression" or "regression". In otherwords, > can these mean that at one time whales could walk, but due to some mutation, > the legs became useless? I would call this "regression". On the other hand, > does this mean whales never could walk, but may in the future as the legs > further develop? I would call this "progression". Whales have abundant organs that you would classify as "progressive". Such as the flukes of the tail, the insulating layer of blubber, the melon (oil filled chamber in the head for the directional reception of sonar), baleen (the filters of mysticete whales), and others. Most of these don't make any sense for land-living animals, just as legs don't make sense for whales. > As a creationist, I believe that "vestigal" organs demonstrate "regression" of > species over time, and serve no evidence for evolution. I may be all wet, but > I really fail too see how "vestigal" organs serve as good evidence of > evolution. They serve as evidence of the history of the ancestral line. Presumably the organs were once functional in a homologous way to homologous organs in other animals. There are a number of practical problems with theories of regression or degeneration (as well as theological problems.) The major one is that we should be able to find evidence of regression if it occurred in as short a span as the past 10000 years (assuming a young-earth creationism.) But we don't find recent bones of "non-regressed" animals. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (08/01/85)
In article <14600030@hpfcrs.UUCP> lief@hpfcla.UUCP (lief) writes: > If an organism (fossil) is found in rock strata, and one wishes to get the > age of the organism, what are the steps he goes through to arrive at a figure? > My concern is that he would look at the age of the rock strata, and assume > that since that organism was found within that rock strata, it too must be of > the same age. In otherwords, if I were to be buried by some inorganic matter > that was 2 billion years old, and my fossils were found within this matter 1 > million years later, would scientists be able to say that I was 1 million > years old, or would they say I am over 2 billion years old? There are two major ways these sorts of things can happen. The first, intrusion, is when a hole occurs in an old layer and is filled by something newer. The second (that you describe) is a form of conglomeration. Both are easily identifiable by the nature of the formation and the types of rock. Intrusion will often cut across layers with sharp borders between the intrusive rock and the parent matrix. Conglomeration produces characteristic rock that contains both old and new material. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (08/01/85)
In article <14600031@hpfcrs.UUCP> lief@hpfcla.UUCP (lief) writes: > Sarima (Stanley Friesen) > >Hmmm, these seem to be mostly(or exclusively) highly partisan > >creationist publications, I would like to see this stuff confirmed in > >proper refereed journals! I place about as much faith in these finds > >as I do in the Paluxy River "human footprints" - exactly none! > >(Actually, the first reference sounds like it is even worse than > >a creationist publication - a Von-Daenken-esque type pseudo-science > >book) > > I am sometimes amazed at folks who claim to be scientific and open minded. I beg your pardon, but the subject of these publications is exactly what we are debating here. To assume they are true or correct is a prime case of begging the question. Skepticism and demands for confirmation are entirely appropriate. (And scientific and open-minded. Check a dictionary, and you will see that skepticism and open-mindedness are not incompatible. Nor do either of them rule out judgement of value.) -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (08/01/85)
In article <14600032@hpfcrs.UUCP> lief@hpfcla.UUCP (lief) writes: > >Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh > >>Does anyone not see the contradiction between #63 and #67 repeated here? > Sure looks funny to me too! Don't be to quick to jump on our case, however -- > unless you would like to see a huge list of contradictions made by the > evolutionists! Paul DuBois could produce one rather quickly, with references > and all. Bald contradictions in one work are a prime example of the fallacy of argument of having your cake and eating it too. The fact is that the author didn't even have the honesty to point out that the two contradicted, but instead cites them all as evidences against evolution despite the fact that at least one has to be blatantly false. Paul can doubtless find scientific reversals, etc. He probably couldn't make much of a list of blatant contradictions within the same paper. However it's common in creationist literature to use a shotgun approach of listing all possible objections, rather than selecting only a set which is compatible, or noting which are incompatible. Creationists frequently mix old-earth and young-earth and all sorts of other incompatable models in their publications. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (08/02/85)
In article <14600031@hpfcrs.UUCP> lief@hpfcla.UUCP (lief) writes: >>[Me] >> Hmmm, these seem to be mostly(or exclusively) highly partisan >>creationist publications, I would like to see this stuff confirmed in >>proper refereed journals! I place about as much faith in these finds >>as I do in the Paluxy River "human footprints" - exactly none! >>(Actually, the first reference sounds like it is even worse than >>a creationist publication - a Von-Daenken-esque type pseudo-science >>book) >>-- >> >I am sometimes amazed at folks who claim to be scientific and open minded. > Well, as a matter of fact there is a *reason* for making such a big deal of refereed publications, human subjectivity! The purpose of these journals is to provide at least a weak check on the tendency of humans to see what they want to see by checking that there is at least resonable supporting evidence before publishing something. I do not restrict this criterion to Creationist writings, I use it regularly, when I want to know something the *first* place I look is a refereed journal. I may read Science News, but I take everything in ot with a large grain of salt! And if the quality of the 116 Reasons Pamphlet is at all indicative of the quality of unrefereed Creationist publications then I have good reson to be skeptical, it included some of the most ridiculous junk I have seen in years! I have also looked at the work of people like Von Daeniken, they seem to go out of thier way to explain things according to thier pet theory even when a perfectly good, standard explanation is available(look at all the things V.D. claims were made by E.T.s when there is no real reason not to assume we humans did it!) Also, when a Creationist *does* get published in a refereed journal I take him more seriously. Did you see me reject Dr. Gentry's Polonium Halos out of hand? That is because he got the data published in a refereed journal. which suggests to me that he actually has some real evidence for *something*. I may(and indeed do) disagree with part of his interpretation of his data, but I treat it with respect as verifiable results. Quite unlike the stuff I was refering to above! -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (08/02/85)
In article <14600033@hpfcrs.UUCP> lief@hpfcla.UUCP (lief) writes: > > >An interesting collection of anecdotal and circumstantial >>"evidence" of no scientific value whatever! Really such partisan >>authors as Josephus!(A Jew no less). But as a matter of fact many >>ancient historians were veru uncritical of thier sources and generally >>included myths and unsubstantiated tales as "facts". Then of course >>there are these people who saw the Ark and waited 30 yeaers to tell >>someone, and when they did it was for financial gain(being hired as >>guides by a gullible foreigner)!! I have seen some of these photos, >>they are about as clear and unambiguous as the photos of pyramids >>on Mars! Really, none of these accounts is of any value, none would >>even be acceptible in a court of law, let alone a serious historical >>textbook! >> >You complain about the ambiguity of the data above. Yet some of the very >theories you are backing with your life have even more ambiguity tied to >their evidence than that above. Why is it that you can be so open minded >with some theories that have questions left open, and so closed minded on >other theories that may still have questions? Or are you basically bias >against anything that hints at Creation? > You missed the main point, which is *not* the ambiguity but the *anecdotal* *nature* of this so-called evidence. Such word-of-mouth stories have *no* *scientific* *standing* at all, not because of ambiguity, or anything like that, but because they are *in principle* unverifiable and untestible. Humans(including scientists) are immensly gullible, and our senses can be easily fooled(ever watch a stage magician?). So I, and scientists in general, insist on *repeatibility* or some equivalent form of *verification*, which is missing in all of the accounts I was discussing above. Really, if this standard of evidence maintained by Creationists they have not progressed beyond Aristotle and the ancient historians! Or to put it in legal terms, all of the accounts refered to above were *hearsay* evidence and not admissible in court for the same reasons scientists reject it. >In case you didn't know, Josephus (who was a Jew) had no reason to help the >Jewish cause. In fact, he fought with the Romans aginst the Jews. So why >should he want to lend validity to a Jewish book? > Well, perhaps since he was raised a Jew, he had Jewish preconceptions about the world. Besides you again missed part of what I was saying, that is that ancient historians *in* *general* are unreliable because they had no concept of *substantiating* an account before reporting it as "true". They often included hearsay and anecdotes uncritically because they fit into thier preconcieved world view. This error goes back to Aristotle and his A Priori approach to knowledge. When he wanted to know how many teeth a horse had he tried to *reason* it out from first principles, it *never* occured to him to actually go out and *count* the teeth in a real horse. This same approach was used almost universally until the birth of science in the late Renaisance, and so *any* historian prior to modern times must be treated *very* skeptically, and independent validation must be required. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (08/02/85)
In article <14600030@hpfcrs.UUCP> lief@hpfcla.UUCP (lief) writes: >> >If an organism (fossil) is found in rock strata, and one wishes to get the >age of the organism, what are the steps he goes through to arrive at a figure? >My concern is that he would look at the age of the rock strata, and assume that >since that organism was found within that rock strata, it too must be of the >same age. In otherwords, if I were to be buried by some inorganic matter that >was 2 billion years old, and my fossils were found within this matter 1 million >years later, would scientists be able to say that I was 1 million years old, >or would they say I am over 2 billion years old? > This shows little understanding of the actual conditions under which fossils are found. Material incorporated into sediment while it is still unconsolidated shows a quite different relationship to the resulting rock stratum than would material inserted *after* the sediment is consolidated. If you had ever actually watched fossils extracted from sedimentary rock it would be obvious that the fossils were incorporated in the sediment at the time of deposition, *not* at a later time. Since the age of a sedimentary stratum is the time since deposition, *not* the age of the source material, the kind of error you are talking about simply can not occur. Of course if you *were* talking about being buried in new sediment derived from billion year old source material you are again totally unfamiliar with dating techniques. This factor is *routinely* taken into account. That is why so few actuallly fossiliferous strata can actually be dated *directly*, radiometric dating must be applied to untransported material(such as volcanic rock) to generate valid results. The age of the sedimentary strata must then be estimated by interpolation. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
lonetto@phri.UUCP (Michael Lonetto) (08/03/85)
> Do these "vestigal" organs show "pregression" or "regression". In otherwords > can these mean that at one time whales could walk, but due to some mutation, > the legs became useless? I would call this "regression". On the other hand, > does this mean whales never could walk, but may in the future as the legs > further develop? I would call this "progression". > > As a creationist I believe that "vestigal" organs demonstrate "regression" of > species over time, and serve no evidence for evolution. I may be all wet, but > I really fail too see how "vestigal" organs serve as good evidence of > evolution. > Has it ever occurred to you that for a creature who swims, and which has the ability to use it's body and tail for this purpose (like a fish or a WHALE) legs could increase drag and thus be a disadvantage. The degener- ation of said legs would lead to a more steamlined form, and thus be an example of a series of small beneficial mutations and selection over time leading to the creation of a new form. You needn't call this evolution. But I would. -- ____________________ Michael Lonetto Public Health Research Institute, 455 1st Ave, NY, NY 10016 (allegra!phri!lonetto) "BUY ART, NOT COCAINE"
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (08/04/85)
> >Hmmm, these seem to be mostly(or exclusively) highly partisan > >creationist publications, I would like to see this stuff confirmed in > >proper refereed journals! I place about as much faith in these finds > >as I do in the Paluxy River "human footprints" - exactly none! > >(Actually, the first reference sounds like it is even worse than > >a creationist publication - a Von-Daenken-esque type pseudo-science > >book) > I am sometimes amazed at folks who claim to be scientific and open minded. Scientists have given the Creationists every opportunity to demonstrate that the alleged "mantracks" at Paluxy and other sites are what the Creationists claim. WHEN THE CREATIONISTS SHARE THE EVIDENCE (which is not often), it turns out that the alleged "mantracks" are of other, natural, identifiable origin: dinosaur tracks, worm burrows, and the like. Some are obvious frauds. NONE have the characteristics one would expect of man tracks. When confronted with this, the Creationists say, "Yeah, but you should see the one that we saw last week, but which was washed out by the recent flooding of the river", or some other such fish story. See the most recent issue of *Creation/Evolution* for details. So who is closed minded? -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (08/04/85)
> You complain about the ambiguity of the data above. Yet some of the very > theories you are backing with your life have even more ambiguity tied to > their evidence than that above. Why is it that you can be so open minded > with some theories that have questions left open, and so closed minded on > other theories that may still have questions? Or are you basically bias > against anything that hints at Creation? IF the creationists actually have evidence FOR creation, they haven't presented it. As a scientist, I would be interested to see it. What Creationists don't seem to understand, however, is how to distinguish evidence from the bogus ideas that pass for evidence in Creationist circles. Until they do so, they will be doomed to be laughed at by scientists who can tell the difference. It's not a matter of being open or closed minded. It's a matter of the quality of the evidence. -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (08/04/85)
> Unfortunately, your evidence is nothing more than your interpretation of the > factual data which all can see. The evolutionist and the creationist can both > walk down the Grand Canyon, see the very same things, and come away with two > completely different 'evidences', each claiming that the evidence he has > supports his theory. > > Perhaps what we need to do is to focus more on the basis for interpretation > of data rather than on the so called evidences. I agree. And I think this has already been done. The basis for evolutionists' interpretation of the data is scientific. The basis for Creationists' interpretation of it is religious. When the Creationists attempt to put their interpretation on a scientific footing, they end up with bad science *and* bad religion. Let me give you an example. Henry Morris wants to explain the entire geologic column, including the Grand Canyon, by the Noachian Deluge. He waves his hands, calls the rain out of nowhere, makes the water disappear into nowhere, and presto! The geologic column. No calculations. No hydrodynamics, no hydrology, no physics, just a bunch of words. WHERE, IN ALL THE CREATIONIST LITERATURE, IS THERE EVEN AN ATTEMPT TO DEAL WITH THIS FUNDAMENTAL CREATIONIST ASSERTION USING THE TOOLS OF PHYSICS? Answer: Nowhere will you find it. That's why one can't credit this idea with being scientific. Frankly, I don't care a hill of beans what any Creationist reading this message believes. Or any evolutionist, for that matter. Your beliefs, religious or otherwise, are your own business. But I do object when Creationists try to get this stuff put into the public schools as science! It is NOT science, and it won't be until and unless the Creationists stop behaving as apologists and start behaving as scientists! -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (08/04/85)
> Do these "vestigal" organs show "pregression" or "regression". In otherwords, > can these mean that at one time whales could walk, but due to some mutation, > the legs became useless? I would call this "regression". On the other hand, > does this mean whales never could walk, but may in the future as the legs > further develop? I would call this "progression". > > As a creationist, I believe that "vestigal" organs demonstrate "regression" of > species over time, and serve no evidence for evolution. I may be all wet, but > I really fail too see how "vestigal" organs serve as good evidence of > evolution. > Your distinction between "progression" and "regression" is semantic gameplaying, not science. From a point of view of genetics, there is no distinction. The vestigialization of an organ is no simpler, genetically, than the formation of a new organ. Both are examples of evolution, pure and simple, and whether you believe it or not, when you accept the fact that organs can vestigialize, you have accepted evolution. (Unless I miss my guess, Paul Dubois understands this quite well, judging from his terse response to Dan's proposal about Whale legs). For the record, in the case of whales, the fossils, which form a very complete sequence, show "progressive" changes (development of swimming organs and the Whales' "blowhole" - needed for its aquatic mode of life) simultaneously with the vestigialization of its hind legs. So you can't have the one without the other. -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (08/04/85)
> As a creationist, I believe that "vestigal" organs demonstrate "regression" of > species over time, and serve no evidence for evolution. I may be all wet, but > I really fail too see how "vestigal" organs serve as good evidence of > evolution. I missed this the first time through, but Leif's wording here is significant. *Since* he is a Creationist, *Therefore* he believes thus-and-so. In other words, it doesn't matter what the evidence is. If the evidence contradicts Creationism, Creationists will try to explain it away. The scientist takes the evidence as primary. If the evidence contradicts the theory, it is the theory that has to give way, not the evidence. So far, Creationists have presented a lot of alleged "evidence" for Creationism (Ron's 116 reasons). Lots of it is plain wrong. Lots of it is irrelevant. NONE of it stands up to critical examination. Therefore I remain an evolutionist. -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (08/04/85)
> >Hmmm, these seem to be mostly(or exclusively) highly partisan > >creationist publications, I would like to see this stuff confirmed in > >proper refereed journals! I place about as much faith in these finds > >as I do in the Paluxy River "human footprints" - exactly none! > >(Actually, the first reference sounds like it is even worse than > >a creationist publication - a Von-Daenken-esque type pseudo-science > >book) > > > I am sometimes amazed at folks who claim to be scientific and open minded. I have to add to my previous remarks on this subject. For a number of very good reasons, scientists are unlikely to pay much attention to an article unless it has been at least submitted to a refereed journal. Articles in unrefereed journals, or even more, in the house organ of an outfit like the ICR, simply don't carry much weight. This may appear to be scientific snobbery, but it is not. Experience has shown that the best way to separate the wheat from the chaff, scientifically speaking, is to subject it to rigorous scrutiny by independent, anonymous referees prior to publication. I know from personal experience how greatly my own publications have been improved by this process. Therefore, scientific research gains its legitimacy by being published in a refereed journal. This does not mean that the research or its conclusions are correct - lots of stuff slips by that should not have been published, and lots of research is quickly outdated by new work (facts that Creationists seem to have a hard time learning!) Nor is it true that rejection of a work means that it is wrong. There are numerous examples of research that was rejected, but later on turned out to be correct. But submission of work to a refereed journal does mean that the author of thought highly enough of it to allow experts in the field to evaluate it critically. On the other hand, if one fails to submit ones research to such scrutiny, one as much as admits that it is not worthy of serious consideration. Creationists sometimes complain that their work would be automatically rejected, but the fact of the matter is that they have barely put that hypothesis to the test. A recent study showed that Creationists have submitted *hardly anything* for publication in refereed journals (except for submissions, not related to Creationism, in their own fields of expertise). The very few articles on Creationism that were submitted were in fact mostly rejected, not for their content, but because they did not even come up the the minimal standards of scholarship that any paper must pass. Several articles were still being reviewed. One editor volunteered that he would surely publish papers giving evidence for creationism if they were otherwise up to the standards of his journal, but that none had come across his desk. I am sure that this is true of most journals. So when Sarima complains that the referenced works appeared in unrefereed sources, he is not being closed minded. He is merely setting a very minimal standard. -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (08/04/85)
> >Obviously they're so confused among themselves that we can now state that > >Creationists disagree about the state of the ''geologic column'', and > >cite this as a reference. > > > >Keith Doyle > ># {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd > >/* ---------- */ > Sure looks funny to me too! Don't be to quick to jump on our case, however -- > unless you would like to see a huge list of contradictions made by the > evolutionists! Paul DuBois could produce one rather quickly, with references > and all. > > Lief Sorensen That's ok, we have our own. It's at least 116 lines long. Tell you what, why don't the creationists throw the list in our faces, and see how we deal with the list? Now you get nothing for nothing, so why don't you sweeten the deal for us (with all the trauma involved in the mass desertion of the evolutionist ranks that will ensue, we should get something in return - it's only fair), how about one scientific proof of creationism? You know, the kind that doesn't rely on attacking evolution, divine revelation, or on sacred books. Padraig Houlahan.
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) (08/05/85)
[This line intentionally left blank] >Do these "vestigal" organs show "pregression" or "regression". In otherwords >can these mean that at one time whales could walk, but due to some mutation, >the legs became useless? I would call this "regression". On the other hand, >does this mean whales never could walk, but may in the future as the legs >further develop? I would call this "progression". > >As a creationist I believe that "vestigal" organs demonstrate "regression" of >species over time, and serve no evidence for evolution. I may be all wet, but >I really fail too see how "vestigal" organs serve as good evidence of >evolution. Do you believe that at the time the legs were useful to "whales", they also had fully developed tails and other swimming apparatus? I sure doubt it. (If it's true, they must've been d*mn long legs!! :-) As the legs "regressed", the tail and related stuff "progressed". Is "progression" also not good evidence of evolution? [This blank line, however, was an accident] -- --JB (Beth Christy, U. of Chicago, ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth) All we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.
fritz@phri.UUCP (Dave Fritzinger) (08/05/85)
> > > Do these "vestigal" organs show "pregression" or "regression". I think that you, and by that I mean most creationists, tend to look at these things wrong. The sort of thing that we have been discussing, that is to say vestigal leg-bones in whales, represent neither progression nor regression. What they do represent is adaption to new circumstances (also known as *Natural Selection*). Since the legs serve no purpose in the water, but streamlining is a definite advantage. By the way, even if it is regression that is taking place, the bottom line is still the same-formation of new species!!!!!!!!!!!!! That sounds like evolution to me. -- Dave Fritzinger Public Health Research Institute NY,NY {allegra!phri!fritz} "Blasting, billowing, bursting forth with the power of 10 billion butterfly sneezes..." Moody Blues
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (08/07/85)
In article <488@utastro.UUCP> bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) writes: > Experience has shown that >the best way to separate the wheat from the chaff, scientifically speaking, >is to subject it to rigorous scrutiny by independent, anonymous referees >prior to publication. I know from personal experience how greatly my >own publications have been improved by this process. Therefore, scientific >research gains its legitimacy by being published in a refereed journal. Quite true, as I also know from painful experience. And, despite thinking my own ideas are excellent, my rejection by refereed journals has only *increased* my respect for them. >This >does not mean that the research or its conclusions are correct - lots of >stuff slips by that should not have been published, and lots of research is >quickly outdated by new work (facts that Creationists seem to have a >hard time learning!) Nor is it true that rejection of a work means that >it is wrong. > A *very* important point. This is why I make it a point to use Science Citation Index to generate *forward* references from any articlle older than about 5 years! This way I can get more recent thinking on the subject and see how well it has stood up to th test of time. I also evaluate the evidence in each article on its own merits, and often decide that the conclusions stated are over-extended on the basis of presented evidence! Remember "Science Citation Index", a very necessary tool for good science. >On the other hand, if one fails to submit ones research to such >scrutiny, one as much as admits that it is not worthy of >serious consideration. Creationists sometimes complain that their >work would be automatically rejected, but the fact of the matter is that >they have barely put that hypothesis to the test. A recent study >showed that Creationists have submitted *hardly anything* >for publication in refereed journals (except for submissions, not related >to Creationism, in their own fields of expertise). > And in fact some Creationists *do* get published in refereed journals, look at all the references to Dr. Gentry in the 116 Reasons pamphlet. These come the *closest* of anything in it to being real evidence. At least I feel I must treat them seriously. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
lief@hpfcla.UUCP (08/13/85)
In article <14600030@hpfcrs.UUCP> lief@hpfcla.UUCP (lief) writes: >> >>If an organism (fossil) is found in rock strata, and one wishes to get the >>age of the organism, what are the steps he goes through to arrive at a figure? >> Sarima (Stanley Friesen) replied: > > This shows little understanding of the actual conditions under >which fossils are found. Material incorporated into sediment while it >is still unconsolidated shows a quite different relationship to the >resulting rock stratum than would material inserted *after* the >sediment is consolidated. If you had ever actually watched fossils >extracted from sedimentary rock it would be obvious that the fossils >were incorporated in the sediment at the time of deposition, *not* >at a later time. Since the age of a sedimentary stratum is the time >since deposition, *not* the age of the source material, the kind of >error you are talking about simply can not occur. > Of course if you *were* talking about being buried in new >sediment derived from billion year old source material you are again >totally unfamiliar with dating techniques. This factor is *routinely* >taken into account. That is why so few actuallly fossiliferous strata >can actually be dated *directly*, radiometric dating must be applied >to untransported material(such as volcanic rock) to generate valid >results. The age of the sedimentary strata must then be estimated by >interpolation. >-- It's true that I am not familiar with dating techniques as such. I had always assumed that it was the source material itself that was being dated rather than the time of deposition. Obviously, radiometric techniques are not used directly for dating the time of deposition, right? If interpolation is used, then that means that there exists at least 2 fixed known points to be used as reference. What is usually used for these reference points? And how can one interpolate unless he assumes uniformation? Lief Sorensen HP Fort Collins, CO Uucp ...!hpfcla!lief
lief@hpfcla.UUCP (08/13/85)
[MIKE HUYBENSZ] >Whales have abundant organs that you would classify as "progressive". Such >as the flukes of the tail, the insulating layer of blubber, the melon (oil >filled chamber in the head for the directional reception of sonar), baleen >(the filters of mysticete whales), and others. Most of these don't make >any sense for land-living animals, just as legs don't make sense for whales. > [LIEF SORENSEN] > As a creationist, I believe that "vestigal" organs demonstrate "regression" of > species over time, and serve no evidence for evolution. I may be all wet, but > I really fail too see how "vestigal" organs serve as good evidence of > evolution. > [MIKE HUYBENSZ] >They serve as evidence of the history of the ancestral line. Presumably >the organs were once functional in a homologous way to homologous organs >in other animals. > >There are a number of practical problems with theories of regression or >degeneration (as well as theological problems.) The major one is that we >should be able to find evidence of regression if it occurred in as short a >span as the past 10000 years (assuming a young-earth creationism.) But >we don't find recent bones of "non-regressed" animals. First Mike, I would like to challange your first assertation that whales show many "progressive" organs. How do you know they are "progressive"? I think that in order to make this claim you need to firmly establish that: 1) Fossils of whales which prelived today's whales did not have said organs (at least not in the currently developed mode). 2) Present whales could not survive or at least would be severely hampered without said organs. The second requirement should be easy to establish, but the first one may be a little difficult since soft tissue organs don't exist in fossil form. It's interesting that you said that "I would classify these organs as progressive." Does that mean you would? I think I would if I could meet these two criteria. A case in point. I would classify the black pigment skin of the negro as progressive. As a creationist, I don't believe Noah had son's of three different races. I believe that a mutation which caused dark skin pigment to occur in the human race was what some might classify as a good mutation, though I too would have to agree that what we define as good and not good is subjective. Presumably, white skinned people could not survive the extreme ultra-violet radiation of equatorial regions of the world (died off of skin cancer, etc.) while the dark skinned people could survive just fine. Thus, white skinned folks tried to avoid living in such climates. This meets both criteria above. To say that "there are a number of theological problems with degeneration or regression" is just plain wrong. Don't you agree that the creation model, which theology asserts, claims that life was created in a perfect form, and that sin has been causing a general degeneration of life since its inception? I'm not asking if you agree with the creation model, but whether you agree that theology teaches that life forms are degenerating? If you disagree, could you show me where I'm wrong? You have got to admit that Genesis teaches that before Noah's flood, man's life span was almost 1000 years. Certainly we don't live that long now. How can this mean anything other than degeneration? Your last point is well taken -- we have not found any fossils which can be attributed to non-regressed animals. Wouldn't I love it if we would find an anti-diluvian man (since the Bible teaches that these men were giants). On the otherhand I would like to submit to you that Bison never roamed the plains of the United States, because we have never found a fossil of one. Lief Sorensen HP Fort Collins, CO Uucp ...!hpfcla!lief
lief@hpfcla.UUCP (08/13/85)
>> > Sarima (Stanley Friesen) >> >Hmmm, these seem to be mostly(or exclusively) highly partisan >> >creationist publications, I would like to see this stuff confirmed in >> >proper refereed journals! I place about as much faith in these finds >> >as I do in the Paluxy River "human footprints" - exactly none! >> >(Actually, the first reference sounds like it is even worse than >> >a creationist publication - a Von-Daenken-esque type pseudo-science >> >book) >> (Lief Sorensen) >> I am sometimes amazed at folks who claim to be scientific and open minded. > (Mike Huybenz) >I beg your pardon, but the subject of these publications is exactly what we >are debating here. To assume they are true or correct is a prime case of >begging the question. Skepticism and demands for confirmation are entirely >appropriate. (And scientific and open-minded. Check a dictionary, and you >will see that skepticism and open-mindedness are not incompatible. Nor do >either of them rule out judgement of value.) Actually, all the data about Noah's ark (arial photo's and some peasant's sightings, including a sliver of wood) really is severely questionable. Even Morris in his book "The Genesis Flood" passes up this data as doubtful. I too am skeptical about such data. However, the thing I don't like is the attitude taken that "if it's creationist, it must be unscientific and ridiculous -- no need to even check it out!" And besides, I like to pick on Stanley Friesen. (He's got a good last name!) Lief Sorensen HP Fort Collins, CO Uucp ...!hpfcla!lief
lief@hpfcla.UUCP (08/13/85)
I like this from Padraig Houlahan: >.......................................... how about one scientific proof of >creationism? You know, the kind that doesn't rely on attacking evolution, >divine revelation, or on sacred books. Have you ever ordered guacamole dip, but asked them to leave out the avocado? Lief Sorensen HP Fort Collins, CO Uucp ...!hpfcla!lief
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (08/13/85)
In article <14600034@hpfcrs.UUCP> lief@hpfcla.UUCP (lief) writes: > >The fact is that evolution can provide testable explanations of why and > >when such "degeneration" occurs, whereas creationists can only say things > >like "Gawds curse". > > Alright. When did man degenerate into monkeys? And why? :-) Apparently some men have been made into monkeys by belief in creationism. :-) -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (08/24/85)
> It's true that I am not familiar with dating techniques as such. I > had always assumed that it was the source material itself that was being > dated rather than the time of deposition. > > Obviously, radiometric techniques are not used directly for dating > the time of deposition, right? If interpolation is used, then that means > that there exists at least 2 fixed known points to be used as reference. > What is usually used for these reference points? And how can one interpolate > unless he assumes uniformation? I don't see how it is possible to interpolate between 350 million years and 380 million years and get 5000 years. Perhaps Leif would enlighten us. -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
fritz@phri.UUCP (Dave Fritzinger) (08/26/85)
> > First Mike, I would like to challange your first assertation that whales > show many "progressive" organs. How do you know they are "progressive"? I Two points, Lief. First of all, let's get off of this talk about "progressive" vs. "regressive" changes. If a change takes place that helps to improve a species chance to live and reproduce, it is by definition a "progressive" change. If it hinders an organisms chance for survival and reproduction, it is a "regressive" change. However, the odds are that we will not see any regressive changes, since the organisms carrying them have all died!!!!! Second point. You have talked about whales losing their legs as a "regressive" change. I think that even you will admit that a "current edition" of a whale could not mate with the former edition that had legs. Therefore, *by definition*, speciation has occured, and YOU ARE ADMITTING THAT EVOLUTION TAKES PLACE. Thank you for admitting this, and the argument of evolution vs. creationism appears to be over. -- Dave Fritzinger, Public Health Research Institute, NY,NY {allegra!phri!fritz} "I think. I think I am. Therefore, I am,...I think." Moody Blues
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (08/26/85)
In article <14600039@hpfcrs.UUCP> lief@hpfcla.UUCP writes: > [MIKE HUYBENSZ] > >Whales have abundant organs that you would classify as "progressive". Such > >as the flukes of the tail, the insulating layer of blubber, the melon (oil > >filled chamber in the head for the directional reception of sonar), baleen > >(the filters of mysticete whales), and others. Most of these don't make > >any sense for land-living animals, just as legs don't make sense for whales. [Note here that I am referring to someone Lief's ideas of regression and progression. Evolution doesn't much concern itself with those ideas: instead it considers everything adaptations.] > [LIEF SORENSEN] > > As a creationist, I believe that "vestigal" organs demonstrate "regression" > > of species over time, and serve no evidence for evolution. I may be all > > wet, but I really fail too see how "vestigal" organs serve as good evidence > > of evolution. > > > [MIKE HUYBENSZ] > >They serve as evidence of the history of the ancestral line. Presumably > >the organs were once functional in a homologous way to homologous organs > >in other animals. > > > >There are a number of practical problems with theories of regression or > >degeneration (as well as theological problems.) The major one is that we > >should be able to find evidence of regression if it occurred in as short a > >span as the past 10000 years (assuming a young-earth creationism.) But > >we don't find recent bones of "non-regressed" animals. > > First Mike, I would like to challange your first assertation that whales > show many "progressive" organs. How do you know they are "progressive"? They are progressive by the standards of the note I was responding to. Which, unfortunately, I no longer have. In evolution, progression is seldom used except in the chronological sense. > I think that in order to make this claim you need to firmly establish that: > > 1) Fossils of whales which prelived today's whales did not have said > organs (at least not in the currently developed mode). > > 2) Present whales could not survive or at least would be severely > hampered without said organs. > > The second requirement should be easy to establish, but the first one > may be a little difficult since soft tissue organs don't exist in fossil > form. It's interesting that you said that "I would classify these organs > as progressive." Does that mean you would? I think I would if I could meet > these two criteria. Soft tissue organs do occaisionally fossilize, though I don't know of any for whales. However, organs such as the melon of whales are clearly reflected in the anatomy of the skulls of whales. I don't know offhand whether fossil whale skulls which have been found show this organ. > A case in point. I would classify the black pigment skin of the negro > as progressive. As a creationist, I don't believe Noah had son's of three > different races. I believe that a mutation which caused dark skin pigment > to occur in the human race was what some might classify as a good mutation, > though I too would have to agree that what we define as good and not good > is subjective. Presumably, white skinned people could not survive the > extreme ultra-violet radiation of equatorial regions of the world (died off > of skin cancer, etc.) while the dark skinned people could survive just fine. > Thus, white skinned folks tried to avoid living in such climates. This > meets both criteria above. What makes you think that dark skin came from light skin? Why couldn't Adam and Eve (or Noah and family) have been black? :-) From the evolutionary point of view, both colors of skin are adaptive for the environments in which they evolved, regardless of order (probably white from black.) The idea of white-skinned folks trying to avoid living in the tropics BC is ludicrous: migration across those distances was quite difficult, assuming that white skinned people knew enough to avoid skin cancer by migrating north. > To say that "there are a number of theological problems with degeneration > or regression" is just plain wrong. Don't you agree that the creation model, > which theology asserts, claims that life was created in a perfect form, and > that sin has been causing a general degeneration of life since its inception? > I'm not asking if you agree with the creation model, but whether you agree > that theology teaches that life forms are degenerating? If you disagree, > could you show me where I'm wrong? You have got to admit that Genesis teaches > that before Noah's flood, man's life span was almost 1000 years. Certainly > we don't live that long now. How can this mean anything other than > degeneration? Ok, theological problem number 1: why did the life span decrease to todays in one step after the flood? Creationists sometimes posit a physical explanation (elimination of the hypothetical "vapor barrier") but this doesn't explain why their god decided to saddle humans with yet another disability. It sounds to me as if the "covenant" had a hidden clause. After all, an omnipotent god didn't have to use a flood to kill off all those people. > Your last point is well taken -- we have not found any fossils which > can be attributed to non-regressed animals. Wouldn't I love it if we would > find an anti-diluvian man (since the Bible teaches that these men were > giants). On the otherhand I would like to submit to you that Bison never > roamed the plains of the United States, because we have never found a fossil > of one. I'm glad to see you've conceeded one point. But you are wrong about bison fossils. There are abundant deposits of bison bones in varying states of fossilization. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (08/27/85)
In article <702@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >> A case in point. I would classify the black pigment skin of the negro >> as progressive. As a creationist, I don't believe Noah had son's of three >> different races. I believe that a mutation which caused dark skin pigment >> to occur in the human race was what some might classify as a good mutation, >> though I too would have to agree that what we define as good and not good >> is subjective. Presumably, white skinned people could not survive the >> extreme ultra-violet radiation of equatorial regions of the world (died off >> of skin cancer, etc.) while the dark skinned people could survive just fine. >> Thus, white skinned folks tried to avoid living in such climates. This >> meets both criteria above. > >What makes you think that dark skin came from light skin? Why couldn't >Adam and Eve (or Noah and family) have been black? :-) An interesting theory, but the "mark" that was placed on Cain when he was banished into the world (filled with people who mysteriously appeared) was that he was made black. This is why the mormon church did not allow blacks in their congregations for a long time. Any creationist can tell you that the original humans were white (and republican christians!). That's immaterial, really. I have a more important question for Lief. We know that the weak sun up north encourages very light skin because the absorption of UV helps produce vitamin E and thus white people are healthier in extreme lattitudes than black people. Thus, the farther north you go, the lighter the natives get. But what about the black people living up north now and the whites living in the equatorial regions? Shouldn't they be dieing off? What? They have clothes to protect them? What? The blacks eat cultivated foods up north that keep them healthy? I don't understand. Why, the first thing Adam and Eve did was put on clothes and start farming, so why would skin color, which is (as can be shown today) a minor factor in environmental adaptation come out so strongly? Surely you wouldn't suggest that human beings lived for millions of years as naked, wild animals causing in them a need to be as specialized as possible. What a ludicrous theory! (And don't call me Shirley). >>I'm not asking if you agree with the creation model, but whether you >>agree that theology teaches that life forms are degenerating? If you >>disagree, could you show me where I'm wrong? You have got to admit that >>Genesis teaches that before Noah's flood, man's life span was almost >>1000 years. Certainly we don't live that long now. How can this mean >>anything other than degeneration? Genesis could be wrong, but I don't suppose that occurred to you. It's funny, when a model doesn't work, science tends to look at the model and fix it. That way, accurate models are maintained. Creationism is the other way around: first assume the model is correct, and then alter reality to fit it. I wish all the creationists the Grace of G-d, 'cause they picked a tough course of action. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "We pray to Fred for the Hopelessly Normal Have they not suffered enough?" from _The_Nth_Psalm_ in _The_Book_of_Fred_
pamp@bcsaic.UUCP (pam pincha) (08/27/85)
In article <14600038@hpfcrs.UUCP> lief@hpfcla.UUCP writes: >In article <14600030@hpfcrs.UUCP> lief@hpfcla.UUCP (lief) writes: >>> >>>If an organism (fossil) is found in rock strata, and one wishes to get the >>>age of the organism, what are the steps he goes through to arrive at a figure? >>> >Sarima (Stanley Friesen) replied: >> >> This shows little understanding of the actual conditions under >>which fossils are found. Material incorporated into sediment while it >>is still unconsolidated shows a quite different relationship to the >>resulting rock stratum than would material inserted *after* the >>sediment is consolidated. If you had ever actually watched fossils >>extracted from sedimentary rock it would be obvious that the fossils >>were incorporated in the sediment at the time of deposition, *not* >>at a later time. Since the age of a sedimentary stratum is the time >>since deposition, *not* the age of the source material, the kind of >>error you are talking about simply can not occur. Note:This is only one type of fossil formation! There are fossils that can date deposition. There are several cases of fossils being IN SITU meaning that they were buried by sediment formed at the same time they lived (or at the momment they died - not just after. For instance marine and deltaic storm deposites killing and burying bivalves, echinoids and corals. That is why it is very important to determine this (whether the fossil is in situ or transported) at time of collection. YOU ARE RIGHT about absolute dating methods, though. Another reason to use things like ash layers and lava flows besides that fact that their formation is rather quick, is that they are often rich in the material neede to perform radiometric dates. NOTE though even the radiometric dates are teamed with more relative dating methods to provide a more valid assesment of the age. > It's true that I am not familiar with dating techniques as such. I >had always assumed that it was the source material itself that was being >dated rather than the time of deposition. >Lief Sorensen >HP Fort Collins, CO >Uucp ...!hpfcla!lief You are right under specific circumstances, and with certian methods. C-14 dating requires the fossil source material to be used. The longer half-life dating methods require generally mineral sources that were formed under flash (geologically speaking) momments, such as ash deposites,and lava flows. ---------------------------------------------------------------- P.M.Pincha-Wagener (bcsaic!pamp) (usual disclaimer) ----------------------------------------------------------------
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (08/29/85)
In article <702@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: > >> Your last point is well taken -- we have not found any fossils which >> can be attributed to non-regressed animals. Wouldn't I love it if we would >> find an anti-diluvian man (since the Bible teaches that these men were >> giants). On the otherhand I would like to submit to you that Bison never >> roamed the plains of the United States, because we have never found a fossil >> of one. > >I'm glad to see you've conceeded one point. But you are wrong about bison >fossils. There are abundant deposits of bison bones in varying states of >fossilization. Yes indeed, in fact for a good sample of them on prominent display why not try the La Brea Tar Pits Museum. And not only fossil Bison, but fossil wolves and numerous other forms. As for the "anti-diluvian man" business, what about Gigantopithecus, a rather large man-like ape known from a few fragmentary fossils? :-) -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
lief@hpfcla.UUCP (09/30/85)
>>> Your last point is well taken -- we have not found any fossils which >>> can be attributed to non-regressed animals. Wouldn't I love it if we would >>> find an anti-diluvian man (since the Bible teaches that these men were >>> giants). On the otherhand I would like to submit to you that Bison never >>> roamed the plains of the United States, because we have never found a fossil >>> of one. >> >>I'm glad to see you've conceeded one point. But you are wrong about bison >>fossils. There are abundant deposits of bison bones in varying states of >>fossilization. > > Yes indeed, in fact for a good sample of them on prominent >display why not try the La Brea Tar Pits Museum. And not only fossil >Bison, but fossil wolves and numerous other forms. > As for the "anti-diluvian man" business, what about >Gigantopithecus, a rather large man-like ape known from a few >fragmentary fossils? :-) >-- > > Sarima (Stanley Friesen) > >/* ---------- */ Ah, you got me there! Thanks. Lief Sorensen HP Fort Collins, CO Uucp ...!hpfcla!lief
lief@hpfcla.UUCP (09/30/85)
>Oh boy, now he's making a fool of himself: > >> By the way, could you give me the calculations and physics involved >> in explaining to me why the bumble-bee can fly? >> Or why man uses less than 1/6 th of his brain? >> Or perhaps share with us the chemical formula and >> the synthetic equations needed to produce life from non life? >> Perhaps give us the calculations that tell us why this planet has an >> atmosphere of Nitrogen and Oxygen and the others don't. >> How about using the "TOOLS OF PHYSICS" to tell me why I am writing this? > You guys really didn't have to answer this! But still I thought it was neat that you actually tried! By asking these questions I was trying to convey the idea that science cannot answer all of man's questions -- instead one needs to look elsewhere for answers in many cases (for example, psychology would be a necessary field for answering matters of the brains, and in most cases the answers would only be models based on conjecture, not absolute truth.) In other words, the "TOOLS OF PHYSICS" cannot be used for 100% of all answers. I know that the above questions all have answers (just don't ask me what they are ) but to assume that we will find all the answers from just one myra is too simplistic for me. Lief Sorensen HP Fort Collins, CO Uucp ...!hpfcla!lief
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (10/08/85)
In article <14600048@hpfcrs.UUCP> lief@hpfcla.UUCP writes: >> >You guys really didn't have to answer this! But still I thought it was neat >that you actually tried! By asking these questions I was trying to convey >the idea that science cannot answer all of man's questions -- instead one needs >to look elsewhere for answers in many cases (for example, psychology would be >a necessary field for answering matters of the brains, and in most cases the >answers would only be models based on conjecture, not absolute truth.) In >other words, the "TOOLS OF PHYSICS" cannot be used for 100% of all answers. > Well, I consider psychology to be a science, it certainly uses the scientific method. A better example of the kind of question that the scientific method cannot answer would be something like "What is the purpose of existance(if any)?", since the answer depends on factors beyind those observable by science. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa