hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (02/24/85)
============================================================================= > I do wish the evolutionists on this net would do some minimal amount > of self education before posting articles. Alas, that seems to be as > impossible as trying to find evidence of transitional forms. But, for > Stan's benefit: ICR, as I pointed out, is *not* a membership organization. > CRS is, but not ICR. Dr. Gish is an *employee* of ICR; he is a member > (presumably) of CRS, BSA, etc. ICR is extremely influential, but consists > of a small group of scientists on staff. CRS is less influential, but > has a membership of several hundred scientists. It's the same difference > as your own job, Stan, and groups like AAAS, ACM, etc. But, on to a > different subject ... I wish you would stop wasting your breath on trivial concerns like whether the ICR is a membership organization or not. You know it, as well as, as anyone, that that issue is of no concern. The fact still stands, the ICR insists on accepting the literal interpretation of the Bible. How anyone could support that as scientific is beyond my imagination. The ICR is influencial because it claims to be a scientific organization and has managed to fool many people into believing so. I think our beloved president is one of these fools. It is living off of the reputation of searching and discovering reality that scientists enjoy. It is a disgrace to an intelligent community. > Someone passed the following into my hands the other day. It, of course, > should remind everyone of the Paluxy River data, which is fatal to the > presumed evolutionary geological sequence. One extra note, however: no > one can accuse the Soviet Union of having a "creationist bias". In fact, > this is the *last* thing I would expect to see in Pravda. > > ... [MORE] I have no idea how the data presented and implied could possibly support creationism. This is a clear example of a creationist technique: Picking at examples that evolution may not fully explain. This type of argument does NOT support creationism. I have yet to see positive support for creationism. It seems that all you people ever do is debunking, most of the time, theories that YOU make up! So when are you going to provide some POSITIVE proof of creationism?! In fact, when are you going to provide a clear description of the theory of special creation?! It seems that creationists have avoided that to give themselves the ability to be vague and self-contradicting. And please answer this: Why do the NSF and other science organizations reject creationism?! Is it because they are not Christians?! Once again, don't waste your time on the ICR membership issue! It is NOT relevant! Keebler =============================================================================