hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (02/16/85)
> 1) ICR is not, and never has been, a membership organization. Hence, any > discussion by the evolutionists of membership qualifications/characteristics > is moot. Membership or not, my position still stand upon the requirements for getting on the "staff" of ICR. (Don't waste your time trying to correct any grammatical technicallities. You are only missing the point.) To have to swear to believing in the absolute truth of the Bible is an insult to the mind, especially in a scientific organization. On this reason alone, the ICR cannot be considered as a scientific organization. (How many scientific organizations do you know that forces its members ... excuse me ... staff to swear that something holds the absolute truth? If you can, please tell me how they define truth. In the off chance that you do try to get some names, don't waste your time with Bible-research organizations such as the ICR or the CRS. If anything they are hoaxes to con the people into believing in fundamentalist Christianity.) I can give a lot of reasons why Creationism is BS, but I will just given you the basic problem below. If Duane Gish and his clan does not give up soon, either science will have to crush him, or the advancement science will be greatly impeded. ___________________________________________________________________ THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM OF CREATIONISM: When it comes down to the foundation of creationism, it is the divine creator that holds everything together. Without that, the theory is meaningless. Now, how in the world does one go about proving the existence of a creator (assuming that one is able to clearly define it in the first place)? What's more important, how does one go about disproving the existence of a creator? The answer is: You can't! A divine creator is supernatural; that is, it is beyond the norms of nature in its characteristics and/or behavior. It is impossible for any of the natural sciences to explain it. Therefore, to assume the existence of a creator, which the creationists are doing (refer to the membership requirements of the ICR and the CRS), is unjustifiable in science. Since one cannot assume it, one must prove it, being that everything else sits upon that assertion. Within science, that proof is impossible. [Reprinted from my first post.] ___________________________________________________________________ If you did not bother to read the insertion, I can understand it. Hard-core creationists like you have a tough time reading anything which they cannot misquote or otherwise exploit to support their foolish opinions. KEEBLER
johnston@spp1.UUCP (Micheal L. Johnston) (02/22/85)
> > THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM OF CREATIONISM: > > When it comes down to the foundation of creationism, it is the divine > creator that holds everything together. Without that, the theory is > meaningless. Now, how in the world does one go about proving the > existence of a creator (assuming that one is able to clearly define it > in the first place)? What's more important, how does one go about > disproving the existence of a creator? The answer is: You can't! > A divine creator is supernatural; that is, it is beyond the norms of > nature in its characteristics and/or behavior. It is impossible for > any of the natural sciences to explain it. Therefore, to assume the > existence of a creator, which the creationists are doing (refer to > the membership requirements of the ICR and the CRS), is unjustifiable > in science. Since one cannot assume it, one must prove it, being that > everything else sits upon that assertion. But all theories have their assumptions. Evolution bases quite a bit on fossil records and the age there of. Those ages, for the most part are based on radioactive dating techniques which assume that radioactive elements decayed in the same mannner that they do now. > Within science, that proof > is impossible. > KEEBLER Proof doesn't even pertain to the origins question. No proof is possible that something that happened in the past, before records, happened a certain way. All we can do is develop theories and see how the evidence matches those theories. Mike Johnston
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (02/26/85)
> > But all theories have their assumptions. Evolution bases quite a bit on > fossil records and the age there of. Those ages, for the most part are > based on radioactive dating techniques which assume that radioactive > elements decayed in the same mannner that they do now. > > > Within science, that proof > > is impossible. > > > KEEBLER > > Proof doesn't even pertain to the origins question. No proof is possible > that something that happened in the past, before records, happened a > certain way. All we can do is develop theories and see how the evidence > matches those theories. > > Mike Johnston The above argument seems to ignore a considerable amount of work that has been done on the constancy of physical law in the universe. As it happens we can observe the radiation coming from distant galaxies. The distance to these objects is determined by a chain of inference which, although it admits of some degree of error, leaves no doubt that the light from these objects has been travelling for billions of years. The fact that the radiation looks like light from nearby galaxies (allowing for the redshift) leaves no doubt that billions of years ago, in other parts of the universe, the same physics that applies here and now, applied with equal force then and there. There is, of course, the loophole that if *all* of physics conspired to change together in just the right way that this would be observationally indistinguishable from a old universe with unchanging physical laws. It would also be indistinguishable to anyone living at any earlier time in our universe. In fact, it is just a trivial redefinition of time and has no operational meaning. "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 Austin, Texas 78712 *Anyone who wants to claim these opinions is welcome to them*
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (03/03/85)
>> But all theories have their assumptions. Evolution bases quite a bit on >> fossil records and the age there of. Those ages, for the most part are >> based on radioactive dating techniques which assume that radioactive >> elements decayed in the same mannner that they do now. >The above argument seems to ignore a considerable amount of work that has >been done on the constancy of physical law in the universe. As it happens >we can observe the radiation coming from distant galaxies. The distance to >these objects is determined by a chain of inference which, although it >admits of some degree of error, leaves no doubt that the light from these >objects has been travelling for billions of years. The fact that the >radiation looks like light from nearby galaxies (allowing for the redshift) >leaves no doubt that billions of years ago, in other parts of the universe, >the same physics that applies here and now, applied with equal force then >and there. There is, of course, the loophole that if *all* of physics >conspired to change together in just the right way that this would be >observationally indistinguishable from a old universe with unchanging >physical laws. It would also be indistinguishable to anyone living at >any earlier time in our universe. In fact, it is just a trivial >redefinition of time and has no operational meaning. > >"Don't argue with a fool. Ethan Vishniac It was mentioned in either Science or Scientific American a few months ago that the existence of the Gabon reactor and its present state demonstrated the constancy of nuclear reaction rates over a period of some 2-billion plus years to within a very small range (I think it was parts per billion) -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt