ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (04/20/85)
[] >Since net.origins was created, I have seen 154 creationist articles posted or >received (by uiucdcsb). Anyone who hasn't gotten a pretty good idea of at least >the major points in that time is simply not reading. More likely, >it's simply easier to whimper "Golly, I don't understand" than to deal with >the issues presented by the creationists. The body of creationist postings to this newsgroups give me a pretty good idea that the creationists believe that 1) Evolution is wrong, and 2) God created the earth and all creatures on it. There have been hints of other beliefs, such as a worldwide flood, but no real exposition of just what these are and what they mean. Surely there must be more to it than this. >Although it may be true that not *all* net creationists have stated exactly >where they stand on minor subtopics such as progressive/special,old/young >earth, etc. it also remains true that NO net evolutionist, so far as I can >recall, has stated his particular position on evolutionary disagreements, >e.g., gradualism/PE, Leakey/Johanson's view of Australopithecus, etc. I think that it's more important for creationists to let us know what these subtopics are and what they mean, and which they think are reasonable; than to say what they personally believe. I was taught evolution in school, and since then I have kept up on the field by way of casual reading. The creationists consistently show that they are aware of the issues that are being discussed in this area of science (even if they do choose to ignore much of it). Because I did not go to a bible school and am not a member of a fundamentalist church, I have not been taught creationism. I have looked in the local commercial and University bookstores and have found no creationist literature. What we need to know is not what it is that you personally believe, but what is it that is creation science. Dr. Gish stated that "our science is as good as theirs". What science is this? Where is to be found? This is what we want to know. >Now I have 2 comments to make >on such name calling, and then I'll stop for this week. >1) Such tactics really demonstrate the poverty of the evolutionists' position. > It would be far better to discuss the evidence for evolution than to resort > to silly name calling. Since there is none, however, pure emotionalism is > employed as a defensive measure. >2) I don't think anything at all can be accomplished once someone has reached > such a state. People stop arguing with their minds and instead argue from > their hearts. Further discussion is fruitless. >THEREFORE, I can't speak for other creationists on the net, but from now on I >intend to *not respond* to anyone at the first sign of name calling or >excessive emotion/flame/mud. While there have been occasions when flaming has taken over this discussion, by far the greatest number of postings have dealt with the arguments of creationists and scientists. Ray seems to have missed all of the ones that have been posted by those on the side of science, since he indicates that he has seen no evidence for evolution (actually, he says that there is no evidence for evolution, but I'll pass on that one). Since he has failed to notice, much less respond to, serious and well thought-out responses to his postings, his threat to *not respond* to mud slinging does not mean much. It should be noted in passing that Ray does his share when it comes to the slinging of mud. I hope that this statement of policy is an indication that he intends to do this no longer: >No doubt after reading what follows, he will claim it was planted 143 years >ago for little ol' me to come along & find it, and that there is an abolition- >ist and creationist conspiracy. Right.) ..... >Now that I've dealt with the topic of what creationists believe It should be noted that Ray "dealt" with this issue by denying that he had to deal with it. The paragraph that begins this posting is Ray's "dealing". The issue has still not been addressed. >it's time to return to the Paluxy ... >Do the lamination lines follow the contours of the depression or do they inter- >sect the contours? Since the lamination lines can only be made to follow the >surface if it is compressed when the mud has not yet become hard, it is a rela- >tively trivial thing to cross-section the prints (including the toe regions) >and check for authenticity. I remember that many months ago this topic was discussed at length. Unfortunately I've only recently started saving articles from this net. It would be a service to us all if Ray or someone else would post a recapitulation of this discussion to the net. I would like to know who it was who discovered the Paluxy prints, who examined the lamination lines, and a summary of the positions different people have taken on this issue. > "This article is about a videotape (hereafter abbreviated `video') which >disputes the claim that human and dinosaur tracks have been found together >along the Paluxy River (near Glen Rose, Texas)..." This issue is very similar to the scissoring incident raised by Paul DuBois. The charges made are very serious, and if true should be brought to light immediately. Unfortunately, we have no way of verifying the verity or quality of this review, since we have been given no hint to the identity of the video. No way to know who made it, not even a title. To avoid the confusion that seems to have arisen when similar complaints were raised in the scissoring incident, let me say that I am not claiming that the video is not as bad as depicted by Dr. Hinderliter. There is no doubt in my mind that there are people and organizations who will go to any length to put forth their point of view. But without knowing who it is that made this video, there is no way we can judge whether it really is unworthy. If it is as bad as the review makes out, then we should all join in condemning it. Propaganda is a tool of the political, it doesn't ever help science. Scientists - real scientists - often find it impossible to let go of a theory that they have grown up with. The acceptance of a new and revolutionary theory often requires that the old guard pass away so that the new can take over. This is how Plate Tectonics gained ascendency, and is, I suspect, how Punctuated Equilibrium will do the same. Sooner or later, men of science look at the facts and make their decisions based on them. If the Paluxy footprints are genuine, then they will, sooner or later, be accepted as such. The braying of the fundamentalists may delay that acceptance, but sooner or later the site will be examined by someone without an axe to grind. By the way, thanks are due to Paul for relaying Ray's articles. Let's hope that it is some technical problem that's keeping Ray from posting his own. The last thing we need is censorship on the net.