lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (11/09/84)
[One of two articles. Due to its size, it does not respond to all of Wyant's points. Article 2 is a reprint from the San Jose Mercury-News (not exactly a bastion of creationism).] Ethan: > I note that Larry comments on how lazy those who disagree with him are % grep lazy * % > I'm not particularly interested in spending time reading the > creationist literature. I'm spending enough time on this as it is. And perhaps I shouldn't bother reading the evolutionist literature? In his classic Christian apologetic _Therefore Stand_, Wilbur Smith addressed this very succinctly: After a young man has been through four years of college, and heard his teachers in psychology, and philosophy, and biology deny the very existence of God, day after day, week after week, and has been open to every conceivable device of collegiate life to crush the faith of that person's hear, NO TWENTY-PAGE PAMPHLET WILL BE ABLE TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS WHICH ARE IN THIS YOUNG MAN'S MIND. [Emphasis in original] BTW, I don't exactly have an abundance of time, either. The time and attention to Usenet in general and this in particular are beginning to affect other areas. I'm not looking for sympathy - just a warning in case I'm forced to cut back and cannot respond as soon and as fully as I'd like. > If Larry were to convince me that a valid case could be made for > creationism, I'd find the time. Honestly, I'd suggest that reading something like A.E.Wilder-Smith's _The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution_, Bolton Davidheiser's _Evolution and Christian Faith_, or _The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories_ (the book referenced in the parallel article) would do much more in much less time than net.origins. If you prefer something from non-creationists, try Pierre Grasse's _L'Evolution du Vivant_ (The Evolution of Life). Dobzhansky's review in _Evolution_ noted that it was "a frontal attack on all kinds of 'Darwinism.' ... Now one can disagree with Grasse' but not ignore him. [Dobzhansky proceeds to recognize Grasse's grounds for authority.]" BTW, <censored> != "skeptic." Closer to "con artist for setting up a straw man" - the classic is to use something from Biblical creation and call it "scientific creation." *Scientific* Creationism does not force a 6000-year-old earth. (Biblical creationism can purport that for time since the Fall.) > I found it interesting that Larry Bickford chose to ignore [theistic > evolution]... Dick Dunn and others have pointed out that if evolution accomplishes it, who needs deity? [On continental movement] > ...he suggested that if they were [moving persistently] then the > continents would move in a straight line across the globe i.e. not > colliding "repeatedly" but exactly once. Apparently I wasn't clear - if the continents have been moving for such long, and in such a manner that collisions have resulted, why are the continents still so far apart? The age-estimates for the earth mentioned in an earlier article are those resulting from applying the same assumptions used to calculate the age of the earth for the evolutionist model. That these should show such a distinct difference *should* be cause for notice in the scientific community. That they are not indicates a *philosophical* problem shown by accepting what fits and not mentioning what doesn't. [And the evolutionists accuse the creationists of this?] Decay of Earth's Magnetic Field - Result of research by Thomas Barnes during his tenure as Physics Professor at UTEP. Published in _Origin and Destiny of Earth's Magnetic Field_, 1973. Barnes notes the measured values over the last 150 years and models according to uniformitarian principles. Influx of Radiocarbon into earth system - research by Melvin Cook (PhD. physical chemistry, Yale), formerly professor of Metallurgy at Utah. Published in Creation Research Society Quarterly 10/68. Some figures noted in _Scientific Creationism_ (p.165) include the 18.4 atoms/gram/ minute formation rate and 13.3 a/g/m decay rate. Further evidence from Libby (who founded the radiocarbon technique), also Lingenfelter, Suess, and Switzer. Efflux of He-4 into atmosphere - Cook, published in Nature (1/26/57 p213). SC gives some details (p.151) of 3E9 gm/yr generation and current atmospheric content of 3.5E15 gm. It is only the time span forced by the assumption of evolution that gives rise to the belief that He4 is leaving the exosphere. In _Nuclear Geology_, Henry Faul calculated base rates 100 times those that Cook used, which would indicate an earth 1/100th the age. Decay lines of Galaxies - Halton Arp in _Science_ Vol. 174 (12/17/71 pp. 1189-1200). Expanding Interstellar Gas - Hughes and Routledge in Astronomical Journal, Vol. 77 #3 (1972) pp.210-214. I am in the process of checking up on many of Morris's and Gish's references (including from Acts&Facts). The San Jose library has had some; hopefully I can get to San Jose State for the others (although I doubt they will have Barnes' or Cook's work). Ray Mooney: > I am still waiting for a creationist to address the problem of their > complicated ontology and answer the question "Who created the Creator > and where is he/she?" "Complicated ontology"? Creation is by far the simpler ontology. The latter question will be answer when "science" answers the issue of First Cause. Alternatively, one can ask where the material for the Big Bang (or the Inflationary Universe) came from. Pat Wyant: > If the creationism-evolution controversy were a matter of science, it > would be readily resolved. Evolutionists and creationists have argued > as if the issues were scientific ones, resolvable by appeal to the data. > Since creationism predates evolutionism, and the debate goes on, the > cause of the conflict must lie elsewhere. Davidheiser's last sentence in _Evolution and Christian Faith_ (yes, I'm plugging it): "It is not a matter of refusing to xamine facts. It is a matter of substituting one faith for another." [Davidheiser takes some heavy shots at evolutionism. Besides showing that evolution needs a faith of its own, he goes down the criteria usually cited to support evolution one by one.] Except perhaps for G.A.Kerkut (whom I quoted at length in an earlier article), few evolutionists are willing to admit their own philosophical biases when approaching this subject. It does make it to the surface at times, however - and it does not go unnoticed by creationists. Besides, if data was all, why hasn't the gradualist/PE dispute been resolved? Or why are evolutionists disdaining the fossil record (Mark Ridley in New Scientist) or putting forth models that relegate natural selection and competition to very minor roles (Roger Lewin's review of Brooks and Wiley in _Science_)? This reminds of Danson's letter to _New Scientist_: "...Can there be any other area of science, for instance, in which a concept as intellectually barren as embryonic recapitulation could be used as evidence for a theory?" Or is it more as Ridley also stated, that evolution is held because there is "no coherent alternative"? This is nothing new, for in 1929(!), the president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science said evolution was "a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." Watson went one step further than Ridley's remark. Ridley looked for a coherent alternative - Watson viewed what he already had as not having coherent evidence! -- The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford {amd,decwrl,sun,idi,ittvax}!qubix!lab You can't settle the issue until you've settled how to settle the issue.
brianp@shark.UUCP (Brian Peterson) (11/19/84)
X From: lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick)
X Lines: 160
X
X Ethan:
X > I note that Larry comments on how lazy those who disagree with him are
X
X % grep lazy *
X %
Maybe Ethan is using a different word which means the same thing
as was said by Larry. The English language is very rich.
X > I'm not particularly interested in spending time reading the
X > creationist literature. I'm spending enough time on this as it is.
X
X And perhaps I shouldn't bother reading the evolutionist literature? In
X his classic Christian apologetic _Therefore Stand_, Wilbur Smith addressed
X this very succinctly:
X After a young man has been through four years of college, and
X heard his teachers in psychology, and philosophy, and biology
X deny the very existence of God, day after day, week after week,
X and has been open to every conceivable device of collegiate life
X to crush the faith of that person's hear, NO TWENTY-PAGE
X PAMPHLET WILL BE ABLE TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS WHICH ARE IN THIS
X YOUNG MAN'S MIND. [Emphasis in original]
I think that there are assumptions made by people on the net:
People on the net are intelligent.
People on the net have the ability to summarize.
People on the net have some understanding of the side of an
argument which they support.
Therefore, people on the net can summarize the concepts they
are arguing in favour of.
Starting the defense of a set of concepts with a summary of
those concepts and "support" of those concepts is like
top-down design of programming. It is easier to understand the
position as a whole. Lower level details can either be agreed
upon by both sides (eg fish swim, continents drift), or they
can be filled in during later refinements in the argument.
One can be called lazy for not going out to gather a whole bunch
of facts and ideas not organized for whatever discussion is at hand.
One can also be called lazy (or worse) for not being able to
present the main points of the position one is defending.
X You can't settle the issue until you've settled how to settle the issue.
And how do you decide how to settle how to settle the issue?
It looks like some people want you to summarize your positions and
their supports, rather than to point your finger to other people's
arguments in print.
X [On continental movement]
X > ...he suggested that if they were [moving persistently] then the
X > continents would move in a straight line across the globe i.e. not
X > colliding "repeatedly" but exactly once.
X
X Apparently I wasn't clear - if the continents have been moving for such
X long, and in such a manner that collisions have resulted, why are the
X continents still so far apart?
The straight/persistence of movement might not have been constant
over all eternity. Maybe the continents bounce. Maybe they were
real small, going in different directions, and haven't gotten
completely stuck together yet.
If (assumptions you use above), then (results predicted 6-7 lines ago).
However, (results predicted) is false.
Therefore, (assumptions used) don't quite match reality.
Whose assumptions these are, I don't know. I just think that
situation calls for some more info or research to be injected
into the discussion. It doesn't call for failure labelling
or flaming (inferred, if not implied).
X The age-estimates for the earth mentioned in an earlier article are those
X resulting from applying the same assumptions used to calculate the age of
X the earth for the evolutionist model. That these should show such a
X distinct difference *should* be cause for notice in the scientific
X community. That they are not indicates a *philosophical* problem shown
X by accepting what fits and not mentioning what doesn't. [And the
X evolutionists accuse the creationists of this?]
Since this is an accusation of foul play (so I infer), please mention
what the assumptions were,
the method of calculating earth's age, (evolutionists' model)
and the method ... age, (some other unidentified model).
X Decay of Earth's Magnetic Field - Result of research by Thomas Barnes
X Influx of Radiocarbon into earth system - research by Melvin Cook (PhD.
X Efflux of He-4 into atmosphere - Cook, published in Nature (1/26/57
X Decay lines of Galaxies - Halton Arp in _Science_ Vol. 174 (12/17/71 pp.
X Expanding Interstellar Gas - Hughes and Routledge in Astronomical
If you have read these, certainly you can do at least as much as a
high-school book report. If you either don't remember the arguments
in them, or didn't understand them, why are you listing their titles?
X I am in the process of checking up on many of Morris's and Gish's
X references (including from Acts&Facts). The San Jose library has had
X some; hopefully I can get to San Jose State for the others (although I
X doubt they will have Barnes' or Cook's work).
Thank you. At least one person has to read a work before it can
be summarized for others on the net. If we all were to read all
the works, none of us would have the time for what we were hired for.
X Ray Mooney:
X > I am still waiting for a creationist to address the problem of their
X > complicated ontology and answer the question "Who created the Creator
X > and where is he/she?"
X
X "Complicated ontology"? Creation is by far the simpler ontology.
X The latter question will be answer when "science" answers the issue of
X First Cause. Alternatively, one can ask where the material for the Big
X Bang (or the Inflationary Universe) came from.
(note: The following is discussing the general concept "god did it".
It does not deal with any particular sects of Creationism.
And MAIL flames to me. Don't clutter the net.)
I don't think it is a matter of simplicity, but rather of
building a useful explanation of the world we observe.
Creation is just sweeping all questions under the rug called "god".
Creation may be simple, but it doesn't explain anything.
It puts a cover over observations of the world in order to unify them,
in order to give a single name to all that is not understood.
It doesn't suggest any relationships >between< observations,
relationships which could be used in predicting the further nature
of the world.
(besides, where DID your god come from? I dare you to show
me, where it came from, and where it is.)
X Pat Wyant:
X > If the creationism-evolution controversy were a matter of science, it
X > would be readily resolved. Evolutionists and creationists have argued
X > as if the issues were scientific ones, resolvable by appeal to the data.
X > Since creationism predates evolutionism, and the debate goes on, the
X > cause of the conflict must lie elsewhere.
X
X Davidheiser's last sentence in _Evolution and Christian Faith_ (yes, I'm
X plugging it):
X "It is not a matter of refusing to xamine facts.
X It is a matter of substituting one faith for another."
I don't know what faith it is that you (in quoting Davidheiser) claim
evolutionists have.
I think that faith in
what one observes with his body,
and that the nature of the world seems to have patterns,
is enough to live on (wrt relating to reality).
And I think that is all science is supposed to have.
X "a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by
X logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only
X alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."
Evolution has more evidence for it (I'm sure y'all've seen SOME, anyway)
than creationism (I have seen no evidence FOR creationism).
So evolution is only "kinda-sortof true".
The world is not black and white. It is complicated.
Simple, absolute, packaged answers to life, the universe, and
everything are silly, since the world is neither simple, absolute, nor
packaged for your convenience.
Brian Peterson {ucbvax, ihnp4, } !tektronix!shark!brianp
^friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (11/20/84)
In article <1154@shark.UUCP> brianp@shark.UUCP (Brian Peterson) writes: > >X [On continental movement] >X > ...he suggested that if they were [moving persistently] then the >X > continents would move in a straight line across the globe i.e. not >X > colliding "repeatedly" but exactly once. >X >X Apparently I wasn't clear - if the continents have been moving for such >X long, and in such a manner that collisions have resulted, why are the >X continents still so far apart? > >The straight/persistence of movement might not have been constant >over all eternity. Maybe the continents bounce. Maybe they were >real small, going in different directions, and haven't gotten >completely stuck together yet. > If (assumptions you use above), then (results predicted 6-7 lines ago). > However, (results predicted) is false. > Therefore, (assumptions used) don't quite match reality. >Brian Peterson {ucbvax, ihnp4, } !tektronix!shark!brianp > ^ Brian is on the right track here, continents are moving persisitantly but *not* uniformly! Why should continents move in a straight line? - they have no momentum of thier own to keep them moving, they are being moved *actively* by convection currents in the deep parts of the earth - called the mantle. Look at the best known example of large scale convestion to see how complex this can be. look at the wind, note the following: a) The horizontal component comes nowhere close to moving in a straight line - therefore it is reasonable to suppose that continents driven by such a mechanism would not move straight. b) The pattern of convection cells(called Highs and Lows) *changes* continually - in all probability so does the convection pattern in the mantle. Why are the continents so far apart? Because they have been moving outward from a common center(Pangea) for a long time now. This common center apparently formed by *collision* of previously seperate continents. They did not exeactly *bounce* - the new seperation is different than the old. Probably the relationship of the supercontinent to the underlying mantle changed to pull them apart. Stanley Friesen
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (11/22/84)
From Q-Bick:
================
Apparently I wasn't clear - if the continents have been moving for such
long, and in such a manner that collisions have resulted, why are the
continents still so far apart?
Decay of Earth's Magnetic Field - Result of research by Thomas Barnes
during his tenure as Physics Professor at UTEP. Published in _Origin and
Destiny of Earth's Magnetic Field_, 1973. Barnes notes the measured
values over the last 150 years and models according to uniformitarian
principles.
Influx of Radiocarbon into earth system - research by Melvin Cook (PhD.
physical chemistry, Yale), formerly professor of Metallurgy at Utah.
Published in Creation Research Society Quarterly 10/68. Some figures
noted in _Scientific Creationism_ (p.165) include the 18.4 atoms/gram/
minute formation rate and 13.3 a/g/m decay rate. Further evidence from
Libby (who founded the radiocarbon technique), also Lingenfelter, Suess,
and Switzer.
Efflux of He-4 into atmosphere - Cook, published in Nature (1/26/57
p213). SC gives some details (p.151) of 3E9 gm/yr generation and current
atmospheric content of 3.5E15 gm. It is only the time span forced by the
assumption of evolution that gives rise to the belief that He4 is
leaving the exosphere. In _Nuclear Geology_, Henry Faul calculated base
rates 100 times those that Cook used, which would indicate an earth
1/100th the age.
================
Are ice-floes of Larry Bickford all in one mass because they keep
moving? Sure, continents have been all together several times in
the past. The most recent PanGea is often known as Gondwanaland.
Continents break apart, just as much as they come together. At present,
Africa is rifting apart through Somalia, Ethiopia and Kenya, but it
(like India) is mashing itself into Eurasia. We are talking only
hundreds of millions of years for movements that cross large fractions
of the earth's surface, but 4.6 billion years for the whole pattern
to date.
The Earth's magnetic field has reversed many times, and the dates
are known to within a few thousand years for the most recent reversals.
The timing pattern fits a multiple-cell random walk with hysteresis.
Why should one be surprised if the intensity fluctuates on the same
kind of time scale?
Influx of radiocarbon into the earth system?? There may be some, but
by far the most is caused by cosmic rays right here. We know well that
the kind and rate of cosmic ray flux at the earth's surface depends on
the solar (and probably the terrestrial) magnetic field, which changes
over both short and long time spans. C-14 dates are routinely corrected
for this effect, whose magnitude is well calibrated over the time span
for which radiocarbon dating is useful.
"It is only the time span forced by evolution that gives rise to the
belief that He-4 is leaving the exosphere"!! Jesus Christ, what kind
of physics do they teach you at school? The problem is to explain
how there is any left, not why some has gone. If there were an argument
here, it would be that the atmosphere should have NO measureable helium
after a purportedly long time, and we would have to find sources for
it to account for any that we find.
I conclude that Q-Bick (what an appropriate pseudonym) has neither
interest nor appreciation of elementary physics. It is this kind
of argument that leads me to answer Paul Dubois that indeed, creationists
should NOT be allowed to determine how their children are schooled.
The children should not be punished by a denial of their potential
heritage, simply because their immediate family glories
in their ignorance.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt