lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (11/02/84)
[This responds to articles that arrived at qubix on or before 10/26. Among those that arrived later and I plan to address are two each by Pat Wyant, Richard Carnes, and Ethan, and one by Ray Mooney. At that time, I'll delve more into the young-earth data.] Don Heller discusses the subject of overthrusts by giving what he believes are examples, yet has only one statement to support a major evolutionist contention: > the fact that old rocks occur over young rocks is not disputed. ...but that is *exactly* the dispute. *Apart from the assumption of evolution*, how can he say which are older? Ethan Vishniac: > However, the best reading of the available evidence is that the common > ancestors of crocodiles and chickens lived in the Early Triassic, > whereas the lineage of snakes split off in the late Permian. What evidence? Has a missing link been found? Or is this an interpretation forced by the presumption of evolution? [later article on evolutionary anachronisms] > After a species has appeared in the fossil record, its subsequent > fossil record depends on the success of the species, the likelihood > that the environment in which it lives are conducive to fossil > formation, and the element of luck involved in its discovery. These seem more like apologies for inadequacies of the record. By these same measures, a creature could have existed well *before* the fossil record indicates. > To be more specific, about 26 million years back we start finding > fossils of large primates with characteristics reminiscent of the > great apes and of humans. Is this a hypothesis or a specific reference? > The [Richard] Leakey quote is both (probably) accurate and completely > bogus. I believe that he said that, but he was obviously speaking > about the details of *human* evolution. Humans are an example of a > line which has been poorly preserved in the fossil record. The line > from Homo Erectus to Homo Sapiens is very well understood. The > connections to be made back from that are tentative with the precise > relationships between different specimens sometimes uncertain. It is > being deliberately obtuse to confuse that with the question of whether > or not human beings evolved. Not obtuse, just skeptical of the basic assumption rampant through the quote: that evolution actually occurred. Evolution is being assumed in order to prove evolution. Ralph Hartley [till further notice], first discussing creationist models: > The second model is that before a certain unspecified time the laws of > physics didn't work and the universe was put together by some creator. > The main problem with this model is that it doesn't depend on evidence. > In fact, any evidence can be interpreted as something the creator did. For the last point, the model would be tautologous and thus useless as a model. The evidence to indicate that some different set of laws formerly prevailed is that the present set of laws and processes are insufficient to explain the phenomena found in the present world. Morris deals with this in "Uniformitarianism or Catastrophism?" in _Scientific Creationism_. > The third model is that the universe was created, in nearly its present > state, fairly recently. This is the theory the creationists keep > finding "evidence" for. The young-earth model is a separate one. Its significance is that evolution demands a long time, whereas creation doesn't. Aside from "fairly recently," I find no difference between this and Model #2. [commenting on me] > > Evolutionists thus neatly dodge some very basic issues, such as the > > origin of life > Dodge the origin of life? You must be kidding! The theory of evolution > is ABOUT the origin of life. I was recalling several net.origins articles by evolutionists saying that evolution didn't have to deal with the origin of *life*, merely of *species*. > > and the origin of the universe. > The current theory is that the universe started with a "big bang" from > which all matter originated. Well, you may ask, then what caused the > big bang? I don't know. There are speculations, but without evidence > there can be no real theory. Model #2 does about as well as any. "matter originated"? What happened to Conservation of Matter/Energy? Regarding universe-origin theories and "who made the Creator?", the naturalistic assumptions of evolution, although they may not immediately provide an answer, require any answer to be from those things found within the realm of science. For naturalism to allow Model #2 opens a proverbial Pandora's Box. [Other articles (e.g., Brian Peterson) have mentioned this issue, but the state of things at T0 or T(-oo) still must have an answer within the realm of science.] > There are a lot of observations backing up evolution and unless your > theory explains ALMOST ALL of them you need a LOT of new evidence. "observations"? Dobzhansky and others have flat-out stated that evolution has *never* been observed. Further, it is contended that the creation model *does* explain the evidence - better than evolution and with fewer secondary assumptions. [on radiometric dating] > Alas, many paleontologists have found that the radiometric dates of > the rocks that were "supposed" to prove their pet theories do NOT add > up to what they wanted. This is what keeps them honest. More like the other way around. Given a variety of radiometric dates to choose, paleontologists choose the one that gives the results they want. > > Yet from the observation of the data, global flooding combined with > > major geologic upheavals would account for the evidence. Given the > > evidence of the biosphere, about 5000 years is a possible time. > What data? What evidence? Reproducing ~20 pages of _Scientific Creationism_ (or more of _Genesis Flood_) would not be wise on the net (and run into copyright problems). Morris shows that the same strata which evolutionists love actually betrays them, as they must have been formed *rapidly*, with each layer coming relatively soon after the one before it. Formations eventually grade imperceptibly into other formations (else there would be a world- wide unconformity) indicating no major time break between them. The biosphere evidence looks at human population (more than enough growth rate), human record-keeping (e.g., Babylonian records), and age of oldest living organisms (sequoias and bristlecone pines). [commenting on the Anthropic Principle] > Sagan and co. sometimes go a little off the deep end. I think he's > trying to mix science with religion. So why is he given so much unanswered time on PBS? This raises another point with the responses regarding Fred Hoyle - if his work is so "outlandish," why do the standard science journals still publish his stuff (and deliberately blacklist Robert Gentry)? Mike Ward: > It is a lot easier to make such a claim for models, since models need > not explain everything... Huh? The *purpose* of models is to explain the evidence. > And Larry Bickford calls it hypocritical when there is a lag between > the very latest developments in science and what is taught in schools. "Punctuated equilibria" has been around for more than a little while (you don't have to go back as far as Goldschmidt). Steve Tynor: > Creationists must assume the existence of a supernatural Creator, > whereas science deals with the reproduceable natural world. See earlier on the problem of T(-oo). > Evolutionary theory *has* grown since its initial acceptance. And some > day (...maybe) scientists will be forced to abandon [it]. IF they are > forced to do so, they will have to replace it with better *scientific > theory* that better explains the evidence. Wanna bet? By and large, evolution will be twisted more and more, as Gould did to account for the gaps that creationists kept shoving into the evolutionists' faces. Or, as more and more of the French scientific community, led by Pierre Grasse', plus Colin Patterson (senior paleontologist @ British Museum of Natural History) are doing, it will be abandoned with nothing offered in its place. > [Creation is] Flexible, yes. But only in the 'minor' details. Ditto for evolution. > Its main precept is undefeatable on scientific grounds... I might double ditto, except I'm waiting for a copy of A.E.Wilder-Smith's _The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution_. -- 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.
bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (11/03/84)
In article <qubix.1503> lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) writes: >...The evidence to indicate that some different set of laws formerly >prevailed is that the present set of laws and processes are insufficient >to explain the phenomena found in the present world. I don't believe it! The above implies that we *know* all the laws and processes 'currently' operating. This is the kind of presumptiveness that Larry usually attributes to *science*. Distilled to it's essence, I read the above as saying "If we don't know how it happened, then the Deity musta done it." Aaarrrgghhh! -- Byron C. Howes {decvax|akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch