ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (09/20/84)
[] >I have neither seen nor heard of any *scientific model* for creation >that existed before the 1960's. we're still waiting to hear about the one that's supposed to exist now. >Yawn...either *all* the processes *were* natural, or *at least one* >*wasn't*. Simple logic. Either all the processes were natural, in which case some scientific theory can explain them; or at least one process was not, in which case some religious theory must be called to explain. Now, how does that prove anything about any particular theory? >Living fossils disprove it. By evolutionary chronology, the most recent >coelacanth fossil is 70 million years old; the most recent tuatara >fossil is 135 million years old. Both are still alive. Living fossils? I have heard some wild claims, but this is the best yet! Please, cite the reference. Where can I go so see living stone? >" >...the evolutionary model has a multitude of secondary assumptions" >Okay I give up, what are those assumptions?" >Overthrusts, continual (and convenient) sedimentary buildup and erosion, >accumulation of micromutations to create new kinds, initial infusion of >matter/energy into the cosmos, disappearance of large groups of >transitional forms and initial cosmogony (preceding the "bang" or >whatever") are a few of the assumptions. In other words, the evolutionary model rests upon a solid foundation of science. The attack on evolution is really an attack on science. -- Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!ward ARPA: hplabs!hao!sa!ward@Berkeley BELL: 303-497-1252 USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307