hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (03/15/85)
_________________________________________________________________
Okay. It seems that you creationists have proven your ability to
avoid issues that would positively wipe out your silly theory of
origins ...
So when will one of you be brave enough to tackle the problem of
a creator? In case you missed all of the other posts in which I
mentioned this problem in detail, read this:
[The theory of special creation requires, at its very foundation,
a creator. (I will simply skip over the possibility of more than
one creator, an irrelevant sidetrack.) The creator is, by defin-
ition, a supernatural one. Science deals strictly with the na-
tural. This quickly disqualifies the creator as anything remote-
ly scientific because the creator can bypass laws of nature.
Also, the creator is not scientifically falsifiable as one can
quickly resort to any number of pseudo-explanations like "He is
just fooling your eyes". In any case, a creator is not scientif-
ic. Therefore, any theory which require the use of a creator is
not a valid a scientific theory. Since creationism requires the
use of a creator, it is not scientific.]
So when are you guys going to deal with this problem?
_________________________________________________________________
Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (03/19/85)
In article <244@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA> hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA (Ernest Hua) writes: >_________________________________________________________________ > >Okay. It seems that you creationists have proven your ability to >avoid issues that would positively wipe out your silly theory of >origins ... > >So when will one of you be brave enough to tackle the problem of >a creator? In case you missed all of the other posts in which I >mentioned this problem in detail, read this: > >[The theory of special creation requires, at its very foundation, >a creator. (I will simply skip over the possibility of more than >one creator, an irrelevant sidetrack.) The creator is, by defin- >ition, a supernatural one. Science deals strictly with the na- >tural. This quickly disqualifies the creator as anything remote- >ly scientific because the creator can bypass laws of nature. >Also, the creator is not scientifically falsifiable as one can >quickly resort to any number of pseudo-explanations like "He is >just fooling your eyes". In any case, a creator is not scientif- >ic. Therefore, any theory which require the use of a creator is >not a valid a scientific theory. Since creationism requires the >use of a creator, it is not scientific.] > >So when are you guys going to deal with this problem? >_________________________________________________________________ > >Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa } TRUE, science can not prove the existence of a creator. However, science can observe EVIDENCE of a creation. This is what creation SCIENCE is doing. Both the creation model and the evolution model are unproven theorys. The question is, what does the scientific evidence point to? Creation or evolution? Creationists DO NOT have to prove the existance of a creator, they are merely collecting and dispursing the scientific evidence of a creation. For example, concerning the fossil record, the creation model would predict a sudden and abrupt appearance of highly complex forms of life without evidence of ancestral or transitional forms according to the evolutionary model. Since this is what the fossil record has produced, this would be scientific evidence of creation. Scientific creationism deals only with scientific evidence. To ask the creationist to prove the existence of God, is to ask him to step beyond the boundaries of science. Creationists only wish to present the scientific evidence for creation, not the theological implications of it. This can be done in a philosophy class, not a science class. Now, Mr. Keebler, I challenge you to offer me any clear, sound, and cut and dried proof of Evolution! Tell me the mechanism for Evolution? Give me some examples of upward mutations which have resulted in transmutation. Produce some fossil evidence of transitional forms or even ancestors of current species. Just as you evolutionsts like to say, I have never seen any REAL, SOUND, scientific evidence of Evolution, just pseudo-scientific debunking of religious items that have no bearing at all on the real issues! Dan Boskovich
bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (03/20/85)
In article <280@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) writes: > TRUE, science can not prove the existence of a creator. However, > science can observe EVIDENCE of a creation. This is what creation > SCIENCE is doing. Both the creation model and the evolution model > are unproven theorys. The question is, what does the scientific > evidence point to? Creation or evolution? > > Creationists DO NOT have to prove the existance of a creator, they > are merely collecting and dispursing the scientific evidence of a > creation. No! As has been said many times in this group this is simply not the case. Creationists collect and disperse information which supposedly refutes evolutionary theory. This is not the same as scientific evidence of a creation. To wit: > For example, concerning the fossil record, the creation model would > predict a sudden and abrupt appearance of highly complex forms of > life without evidence of ancestral or transitional forms according to > the evolutionary model. > > Since this is what the fossil record has produced, this would be > scientific evidence of creation. Note the failure to discuss spermata theory (the technical name for "little green men"-type theories) and the assertion (incorrect) that there are no ancestral or transitional forms in the fossil record. (Read other articles in this newsgroup to see how creationists insist that in order to be defined as a transitional form a fossil must have precisely the features they expect it to have...) > Now, Mr. Keebler, I challenge you to offer me any clear, sound, and > cut and dried proof of Evolution! Tell me the mechanism for > Evolution? Give me some examples of upward mutations which have > resulted in transmutation. Produce some fossil evidence of > transitional forms or even ancestors of current species. Just as you > evolutionsts like to say, I have never seen any REAL, SOUND, > scientific evidence of Evolution, just pseudo-scientific debunking of > religious items that have no bearing at all on the real issues! Now, unless G-d is a trickster (which I doubt) the overwhelming pre- ponderance of the evidence indicates the existance of evolutionary processes. Creationists dust of their comparatively small compendium of erroneous and (apparantly) anomalous data in terms of evolutionary predictions wave it about and assert that it somehow "proves" a creation. As no scientific theory is ultimately proveable (or ultimately refutable) reasonability leads me to go with the weight of the evidence rather than hanging around waiting for some "cut and dried" proof on any side. -- Byron C. Howes ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch