dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (08/20/84)
Creationists brandishing probability arguments against evolution have been told that probability cannot meaningfully be applied to the question "how did what's here happen to become as it is". If this is true, then it would appear a reasonable reply to request that evolutionists refrain from such arguments as well. I refer specifically to articles excerpted below, all of which attempt, in rather, shall we say, imprecise terms, to show that formation of complex organic molecules is not really so improbable after all. But if probabilistic considerations are inadmissible as evidence, then such arguments are as fatuous as those of the creationists are alleged to be. Right? > From: brianp@shark.UUCP (Brian Peterson) > Once the right reactions get going, there should be lots of > proteins getting formed every millisecond... "Should be." > sdcrdcf!alan > A small probability means a finite probability. Maybe the universe > developed the right combination of chemicals a few minutes after the > 'big bang.' That seems a lot more probable then having gotten here by > having some God say 'poof! life exists!' "Maybe. Seems." > From: alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll) > What you attempt to calculate in your article is the probability > of *life as we know it* resulting from random combinations of the > elements. What if there are many "right" combinations, that is, > many combinations which could lead to intelligent life? In that "What if." > From: laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) > No matter which theory you use, however, your figures are not going > resemble the random combinations model. (and they had better not -- the > problem isn't in getting polymers in the first place, which is fairly > easy, but in getting them in such quantity and getting them to not > immediately decompose). The development of life thus seems far more > likely no matter which model you use (though some models make it more > likely than others.) "Seems." > Victor Milenkovic research!vjm > I think the formation of life is a virtual certainty for Earth-like planets > and many other kinds also. One protein per SECOND isn't too generous "I think." > From: lmc@denelcor.UUCP (Lyle McElhaney) > 2) The proteins were undoubtedly put together before the specific use for > that protein became apparent. Thus, the first hemoglobin protein's oxygen > binding site probably "fell into place" randomly before there was a > requirement for it. Biological inertia kept it around until, one day, its > ability to carry oxygen was "written into the script" of some organism, and > from then on natural selection improved it's effeciency to do that one > task. That hemoglobin happens to be the common oxygen carrying protein for > all vertebrates does not mean that other mechanisms could not do it; it > happened to be the one that was handy when the time was ripe. "Undoubtedly. Probably. Interia kept it around. Improved its efficiency. The one that was handy." There were better arguments than these, such as the one concerning water formation, but I trust you get the point. Evolutionists insist that their arguments are valid while those of creationists are not. The above shows otherwise. "Maybe there was a creator." "What if God did such-and-such?" You don't like that, I suppose. What puts any of the above excerpts in a different class? Only that they were offered by members of the "scientific" side of the question -- and so therefore are not to be questioned!! ---- P.S. I realize I haven't dealt at all with "what are the scientific arguments for creation", which seems to be the burning question at the moment. I shall attempt it at a later date. The question is admittedly difficult. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois And he is before all things, and by him all things consist... Colossians 1:17
rcc@imsvax.UUCP (08/21/84)
[> = Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois]
[>> = assorted other people]
>Creationists brandishing probability arguments against evolution
>have been told that probability cannot meaningfully be applied
>to the question "how did what's here happen to become as it is".
>If this is true, then it would appear a reasonable reply to
>request that evolutionists refrain from such arguments as well.
>I refer specifically to articles excerpted below, all of which
>attempt, in rather, shall we say, imprecise terms, to show that
>formation of complex organic molecules is not really so improbable
>after all. But if probabilistic considerations are
>inadmissible as evidence, then such arguments are as fatuous
>as those of the creationists are alleged to be. Right?
>> From: brianp@shark.UUCP (Brian Peterson)
>> Once the right reactions get going, there should be lots of
>> proteins getting formed every millisecond...
>"Should be."
>> sdcrdcf!alan
>> A small probability means a finite probability. Maybe the universe
>> developed the right combination of chemicals a few minutes after the
>> 'big bang.' That seems a lot more probable then having gotten here by
>> having some God say 'poof! life exists!'
>"Maybe. Seems."
[edited out for space's sake, I think you all get the idea]
>There were better arguments than these, such as the one concerning
>water formation, but I trust you get the point. Evolutionists
>insist that their arguments are valid while those of creationists
>are not. The above shows otherwise.
>
>"Maybe there was a creator."
>"What if God did such-and-such?"
>
>You don't like that, I suppose.
>What puts any of the above excerpts in a different class?
>Only that they were offered by members of the "scientific"
>side of the question -- and so therefore are not to be questioned!!
>----
>P.S. I realize I haven't dealt at all with "what are the
>scientific arguments for creation", which seems to be the burning
>question at the moment. I shall attempt it at a later date.
>The question is admittedly difficult.
To those of you still with me, pardon the length of the above excerpt.
Now, on with the show...
ARRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHHH !!
This is worse than simply attacking evolution in order to justify creation.
This is STUPIDITY of the highest order !! If you want to attack an argument
by bandying semantics, then head on over to net.philosophy where people are
debating over "What is truth?", "When can we say we 'know' something?",
"What can we 'know'?" and "Can we 'know' anything at all?" The whole point
behind (Dick Dunn's article, I believe) the article requesting information
about scientific creationism was to get information and arguments that
attempt to support creationism on its own merits, not by disproving other
theories and saying "Well, we're all you've got left...". Nobody claims
the evolution is absolutely correct or even partially correct. Supporters
of evolution believe that it is the best theory to operate by seeing as
it does the best job of explaining known facts, and predicting other facts,
while not necessitating a large change in the present world-view. (The
present world-view may not be correct either, but from an operational
point of view, it seems to be working better than anything else so far,
including the Middle-Age Christian world-view that went out with the
Renaissance.)
And the cry goes out again, "Where is the evidence FOR creationism?"
"We want FACTS..."
"We want FACTS..."
"We want FACTS..."
P.S. -- If you're going to deal with "The scientific arguments for
creationism" the same way you dealt with the "Probability and creationism",
don't bother. You'll just waste everybody's time.
P.P.S. -- The question (scientific arguments for creationism) shouldn't
be difficult. If it is, that just means you believe in creationism
because that what you want to believe in, not because there's any
objective evidence for it. In that case, why don't you go believe the
world is flat, too?
--
The preceding message was brought to you by --
Ray Chen
UUCP: {umcp-cs!eneevax || seismo!rlgvax!elsie}!imsvax!rcc
USnail: Integrated Microcomputer Systems, Inc.
Suite 400
6100 Executive Blvd.
Rockville, MD 20852gino@voder.UUCP (Gino Bloch) (08/21/84)
>> P.S. I realize I haven't dealt at all with "what are the >> scientific arguments for creation", which seems to be the burning >> question at the moment. I shall attempt it at a later date. >> The question is admittedly difficult. Replace `difficult' with `impossible'.
lmc@denelcor.UUCP (Lyle McElhaney) (08/22/84)
> Creationists brandishing probability arguments against evolution have > been told that probability cannot meaningfully be applied to the question > "how did what's here happen to become as it is". If this is true, then > it would appear a reasonable reply to request that evolutionists refrain > from such arguments as well. ...But if probabilistic considerations are > inadmissible as evidence, then such arguments are as fatuous as those of > the creationists are alleged to be. Right? Now, wait a minute. I've not seen anyone say that probability arguments are inadmissable. The point is that probability, like any tool, is subject to gigo - the results obtained are only as valid as the input supplied. The argument against the the "probability arguments against evolution" applies to the assumptions made, not to the statistics derived therefrom. The assumptions of the argument are: - that all possible combinations of any two (atoms, amino-acids) are equally probable; - that there is only one possible right combination which will fulfill any given protein's function; The "fatuousness" of the argument is in the assumptions, not the statistics. The assumptions are demolished; the argument is invalid. Any similar argument not based on these assumptions is not affected. > "Undoubtedly. Probably. Interia kept it around. Improved its > efficiency. The one that was handy." Yes, I guess I could be accused of looseness in my language, but that's the way I like to write (and read) net news. If you want turgid thesis-style wording and bullet-proof logic, I'll have to bow out of this one -- I have neither the time nor the inclination to make my wording unassailable. Net.origins is hard enough to read and follow without driving away the audience with the kind of iron-clad verbage available in the referenced books. I prefer to keep the wording light, and strike the points of the arguments, rather than belabor them. -- Lyle McElhaney (hao,brl-bmd,nbires,csu-cs,scgvaxd)!denelcor!lmc
kissell@flairvax.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (08/22/84)
Yeah, thats the funny thing about science. It doesn't require certainty.
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (08/22/84)
>[Ray Chen] >This is worse than simply attacking evolution in order to justify creation. >This is STUPIDITY of the highest order !! If you want to attack an argument >by bandying semantics, then head on over to net.philosophy where people are >debating over "What is truth?", "When can we say we 'know' something?", >"What can we 'know'?" and "Can we 'know' anything at all?" The whole point >behind (Dick Dunn's article, I believe) the article requesting information >about scientific creationism was to get information and arguments that >attempt to support creationism on its own merits, not by disproving other >theories and saying "Well, we're all you've got left...". Excuse me, please. Perhaps I was not clear enough. (i) I was not replying to Dick Dunn. The P.S. explicitly indicated that the article was not a response to his question. (ii) "Bandying semantics"? Not at all. Those on the side of evolution maintain creationist arguments to be absurd, illogical, founded upon speculation, etc. That's your right. But it is my right to point out that many of the pro-evolution arguments are subject to the same charges. The reason I cited so many previous articles was to demonstrate this. If you wish to object, then *refute the demonstration*, as that was the main thrust of my article. The objection beginning "what is truth" is a non sequitur. >Nobody claims >the evolution is absolutely correct or even partially correct. That's certainly true. Especially Messrs. Not-dogmatic-about-evolution, Stephen Gould and Carl Sagan (for instance). Give me a break. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois And he is before all things, and by him all things consist... Colossians 1:17
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (08/22/84)
>> [Paul DuBois] >> Creationists brandishing probability arguments against evolution have >> been told that probability cannot meaningfully be applied to the question >> "how did what's here happen to become as it is". If this is true, then >> it would appear a reasonable reply to request that evolutionists refrain >> from such arguments as well. ...But if probabilistic considerations are >> inadmissible as evidence, then such arguments are as fatuous as those of >> the creationists are alleged to be. Right? > [Lyle McElhaney] > Now, wait a minute. I've not seen anyone say that probability arguments are > inadmissable. I quote Bill Jefferys: First, picking a given protein (e.g., insulin) and showing that the probabilities of evolving one of a particular group of insulin molecules is small (however large the group), fails because probability theory tells us nothing about what *has* been observed, only about what *may be observed in the future*. This sounds to me like "probability is inapplicable to the past". Perhaps I'm reading too much into it. Mr. Jefferys may wish to respond here. > The point is that probability, like any tool, is subject to > gigo - the results obtained are only as valid as the input supplied. The > argument against the the "probability arguments against evolution" applies > to the assumptions made, not to the statistics derived therefrom. The > The > assumptions of the argument are: > > - that all possible combinations of any two (atoms, amino-acids) are > equally probable; > - that there is only one possible right combination which will fulfill > any given protein's function; > > The "fatuousness" of the argument is in the assumptions, not the statistics. > The assumptions are demolished; the argument is invalid. Any similar argument > not based on these assumptions is not affected. Failure on our part to demonstrate the validity of our argument (although I haven't conceded that) doesn't validate the proposition that complex organic compounds arose by non-directed processes. The point of my article was to indicate that no evidence has been put forth to demonstrate such a proposition, and that the arguments for it proceed along the lines of speculation (as they necessarily must). The ideas advanced within those arguments may be based on known and accepted scientific phenomena, but they prove nothing relative to the validity of the proposition. Because organic processes occur in certain ways, given that the organic compounds exist today, proves zero about how they got that way in the first place. If it's so easy to get these compounds together, someone please submit references regarding their creation (unfortunate word) in the laboratory from the raw materials. And also regarding what keeps them from decomposing as fast as they arise. Please observe that I do not put this forth as an argument *for creation*, but rather as a reason not to be satisifed with the evolutionary arguments. >> "Undoubtedly. Probably. Interia kept it around. Improved its >> efficiency. The one that was handy." > Yes, I guess I could be accused of looseness in my language, but that's the > way I like to write (and read) net news. If you want turgid thesis-style > wording and bullet-proof logic, I'll have to bow out of this one -- I have > neither the time nor the inclination to make my wording unassailable. > Net.origins is hard enough to read and follow without driving away the > audience with the kind of iron-clad verbage available in the referenced > books. I prefer to keep the wording light, and strike the points of the > arguments, rather than belabor them. My impression from this side is that many of those on the other side want iron-clad verbiage. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois And he is before all things, and by him all things consist... Colossians 1:17
liberte@uiucdcs.UUCP (08/23/84)
#R:uwmacc:-20900:uiucdcs:45500005:000:999
uiucdcs!liberte Aug 22 21:21:00 1984
/**** uiucdcs:net.origins / dubois@uwmacc / 12:44 am Aug 22, 1984 ****/
But if probabilistic considerations are
inadmissible as evidence, then such arguments are as fatuous
as those of the creationists are alleged to be. Right?
Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
/* ---------- */
Probabilistic considerations certainly are not inadmissible to me.
In fact, it seems to me that any scientist who does not use probability
is probably not a good scientist.
Also, I see no problem with creationists (or anyone else) speculating about
what God did or probably did or whatever.
Science and religion both come down to faith - faith in materialism or
spiritualism. We know so little about the world that speculation is
necessary. However, I believe (I have faith) that everything can be
known in an absolute sense eventually.
Daniel LaLiberte (ihnp4!uiucdcs!liberte)
U of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Computer Science
{everything is relative - in an absolute sense}brianp@shark.UUCP (08/23/84)
Paul DeBois' article denouncing loose terminology makes me think that
he does not know what science is.
First, he ???-->says<--??? that attacking the >use< of probability in
creationists' arguments and also attacking their particular >values< for
those probabilities is contradictory. It is not. The creationists say
"if the chances for life naturally occurring are small, then life
did not occur naturally". (this proposition is equivalent to saying that
all small numbers are equal to zero) When other people say that creationists
should not use probability, they are really attacking this proposition
(or so I believe). When they are showing better means of determining
probabilities, they are showing areas of misunderstandings held by
the creationists. These two methods of attack on the creationists'
arguments are not contradictory, rather they reinforce each other.
The more important point in my mind is that he is attacking the
uncertainty in the arguments on the non-creationists' side. The
answers given by science are not absolute, because not all people
have sensed in every way possible all the stuff of the entire universe
and all the events that have ever happened. (and people don't have
the brains to understand all information, either) In other words, we have
a limited window into reality. Admitting the uncertainty is being honest.
Religious explainations of whatever claim to be "absolute". They are
"THE" truth. Gilded, with sugar-sweetened angels. Trust in
"The Answer", and life will be easy, for you will not have to look
at the world, nor will you have to think about the world (esPECially if
something turns up that is not already in your picture of the world).
We all depend on our senses to detect what the world is like,
and we have to use our brains to figure out what is going on.
If anyone has the inside scoop on "absolute truth", then could
you please let us in on it?
And don't use any religious tenets as your axioms,
because we do not agree that they are valid axioms.
That which we perceive with our senses is valid to use in
understanding the "real" world, because
it seems that that which is perceived by the senses is common to everyone.
Brian Peterson {ucbvax, ihnp4, } !tektronix!shark!brianprlh@cvl.UUCP (Ralph L. Hartley) (08/23/84)
>> >> The point is that probability, like any tool, is subject to >> gigo - the results obtained are only as valid as the input supplied. The >> argument against the the "probability arguments against evolution" applies >> to the assumptions made, not to the statistics derived therefrom. The >> The >> assumptions of the argument are: >> >> - that all possible combinations of any two (atoms, amino-acids) are >> equally probable; >> - that there is only one possible right combination which will fulfill >> any given protein's function; >> >> The "fatuousness" of the argument is in the assumptions, not the statistics. >> The assumptions are demolished; the argument is invalid. Any similar >> argument not based on these assumptions is not affected. >Failure on our part to demonstrate the validity of our argument >(although I haven't conceded that) doesn't validate the >proposition that complex organic compounds arose by non-directed >processes. The point of my article was to indicate that no >evidence has been put forth to demonstrate such a proposition, >and that the arguments for it proceed along the lines of >speculation (as they necessarily must). The ideas advanced >within those arguments may be based on known and accepted >scientific phenomena, but they prove nothing relative to the >validity of the proposition. Because organic processes >occur in certain ways, given that the organic compounds exist >today, proves zero about how they got that way in the first >place. If it's so easy to get these compounds together, >someone please submit references regarding their creation >(unfortunate word) in the laboratory from the raw materials. >And also regarding what keeps them from decomposing as fast >as they arise. What we have here is not just failure to demonstrate the validity of the argument. The argument is invalid. In particular the second assumption, "that there is only one possible right combination which will fulfill any given protein's function", is known to be false. Pig insulin is not identical to human insulin but works just as well even in humans (the human immune system sometimes reacts to it because it is not present during fetal development). In fact virtually all proteins (all that have been tested) vary from species to species in varying degrees. Hemoglobin (which was also used as an example) is so variable that in many species it is barely recognizable (in mollusks and some insects copper is even used instead of iron). Also note that a protein does not have to be generated all at once. As soon as even a rough approximation is in use an optimal protein will be produced in a relatively short time (millions of years) by the replacement of one amino acid at a time. I can guess a 10 digit number in an average of 50 guesses if I can guess each digit independently. Note that new proteins have been "created" within the last century. In particular, enzymes that deactivate pesticides in insects. Resistance to DDT was non-existent at the turn of the century; now almost all insect pests have it. >Please observe that I do not put this forth as an argument >*for creation*, but rather as a reason not to be satisfied >with the evolutionary arguments. And the above is not evidence for evolution. It is only a refutation of an argument against evolution. Argument for evolution follows. I haven't seen much of the evolutionary evidence on this net. This should not be taken as a sign that such evidence does not exist. It only shows that we (you may have guessed already that I believe in evolution) do not state our case very well. To most scientists ("evolution scientists" the existence of any other kind has not yet been established) being asked to prove that the world is more than 10,000 years old is like being asked to prove that the world is not flat. They don't know where to start. Also remember that flat earthers and creationists have more practice at defending there views. I probably should not have written this paragraph. It is not intended as a personal attack. It is only an explanation of the way many people see the situation. One argument for evolution concerns the variability of proteins described above. Biologists have sorted all known species into families and sub-families on the basis of physical characteristics. The theory of evolution says that these families are actually genetic relationships. If changes not effecting the function of a protein happen at an approximately constant rate the theory predicts that close relatives (according to the physical characteristics) should have more similar proteins than distant relatives. This prediction was made before, and was the immediate reason for doing, the first maps of the variation of proteins between species. The actual data fits the theory almost exactly. The difference between the protein sequences of two species increases with distance in the "family tree". This in effect produces a second "fossil record". In order to refute evolution you must refute or discount both this and "conventional" fossils. Of course God could have created all the plants and animals with this "family tree" built in. I see no reason for him to do so except, perhaps, to throw us off the track. I.e., God created the earth and designed it to look like it had evolved (he apparently did a good job in that respect). Of course, if you believe this there is no way it can be disproven. I await your scientific evidence for creation. Ralph Hartley rlh@cvl siesmo!rlgvax!cvl!rlh
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (08/23/84)
> I quote Bill Jefferys: > > First, picking a given protein (e.g., insulin) and showing that > the probabilities of evolving one of a particular group of insulin > molecules is small (however large the group), fails because probability > theory tells us nothing about what *has* been observed, only about > what *may be observed in the future*. > > This sounds to me like "probability is inapplicable to the past". > Perhaps I'm reading too much into it. Mr. Jefferys may wish > to respond here. I will be happy to expand on my point, which is not entirely clear from the quotation. Let me give an example. I, Bill Jefferys, have a unique complement of genes, inherited from my parents. Through processes which are well understood, each pair of genes in my DNA consists of one randomly selected from that site in my father's DNA, and one similarly selected from my mother's. The probability that I inherited that particular pair of genes is easily calculated to be 1/4. But I have thousands of genes. This means that the a priori probability that my parents would have given birth to an individual with my precise complement of genes is only (0.25)**n, where n is several thousands, at least. This is a number which is at least as small as the one in 10**400 kind of number that is constantly being bandied about by creationists in their probabilistic arguments alleging to show that proteins couldn't have arisen by chance. There is no doubt about it: I am a unique individual, and my particular complement of genes will, almost certainly, never appear again in the future history of the universe. It is equally unlikely that it ever occurred in the past. One cannot conclude from this fact that my genes were not selected by random processes. Furthermore, as has been pointed out by others, the assumptions used by creationists to calculate the probabilities of obtaining biologically active proteins are invalid. There is considerable evidence that biologically active macromolecules form a rather substantial fraction of the set of all the possibilities. This includes the facts that (1) in typical proteins, only a handful of sites must be occupied by particular amino acids for the protein to have its normal function; (2) examples are known of nucleic acid sequences that code for entirely different proteins, simply by reading them shifted by one base unit (that would be like taking this article and parsing it shifted by one letter to obtain a meaningful article on another, completely different subject); (3) the sequence of bases that specify some of the most ubiquitous proteins actually consist of very short - and therefore highly probable - sequences that have been duplicated and reduplicated. > Failure on our part to demonstrate the validity of our argument > (although I haven't conceded that) doesn't validate the > proposition that complex organic compounds arose by non-directed > processes. The point of my article was to indicate that no > evidence has been put forth to demonstrate such a proposition, > and that the arguments for it proceed along the lines of > speculation (as they necessarily must). The ideas advanced > within those arguments may be based on known and accepted > scientific phenomena, but they prove nothing relative to the > validity of the proposition. Because organic processes > occur in certain ways, given that the organic compounds exist > today, proves zero about how they got that way in the first > place. If it's so easy to get these compounds together, > someone please submit references regarding their creation > (unfortunate word) in the laboratory from the raw materials. > And also regarding what keeps them from decomposing as fast > as they arise. On the contrary, there is a good deal of evidence in the geological record that there was a period when life did not exist, a later period when only very simple forms of life existed under reducing conditions, and a still later period where oxygen slowly accumulated in the atmosphere and life forms became more and more complex. Each of these periods lasted for hundreds of millions to billions of years. There is also a very large body of laboratory experiments, going far beyond what Miller and his associates did many years ago (which is all many creationists seem to be aware of), which have greatly advanced our understanding of how life was formed. I will recommend again that instead of ignoring the existence of the geological and laboratory evidence, creationists would do well to learn about what has been accomplished. "Genesis on Planet Earth", by William Day (Yale 1984) is an excellent, somewhat technical summary of current understanding. It also has an excellent bibliography including literally hundreds of papers in the scientific literature which are relevant to these questions. -- Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) utastro!bill@ut-ngp (ARPANET)
gino@voder.UUCP (Gino Bloch) (08/25/84)
From Paul DuBois's latest: a. >> If it's so easy to get these compounds together, >> someone please submit references regarding their creation >> (unfortunate word) in the laboratory from the raw materials. b. >> And also regarding what keeps them from decomposing as fast >> as they arise. a. Cyril Ponnamperuma, at NASA, has created complex organics from raw stuff. I have no list of exact references, but his name is a start. If you find his articles, that should lead to references to other researchers who've done likewise. Astronomers have also detected complex organics in meteors (ones that have landed on earth) and in gas & dust clouds in space. Of course, such arguments can't override faith - god could have put those molecules there for some reason (I've heard christians say `to test our faith'). b. What keeps them from decomposing is the lack of organisms to decompose them. Read up on chemical equilibrium.
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (08/25/84)
*****************
"Maybe there was a creator."
"What if God did such-and-such?"
*****************
Scientists usually try to avoid stating theories as certainties. Creationists
usually indicate certainty. When you say "Maybe there was a creator",
and "What if God did such-and-such", then there begins to be a basis
for discussion. We can follow up the lead of "What if ..." but we
can't go anywhere with "This is so, because I believe it."
You (Paul Dubois) quote evolutionist arguments sarcastically because they
include "seems" and similar words of uncertainty. You should drop the
sarcasm, and learn from them.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmtdubois@uwmacc.UUCP (08/28/84)
> [Martin Taylor] > You (Paul Dubois) quote evolutionist arguments sarcastically because they > include "seems" and similar words of uncertainty. You should drop the > sarcasm, and learn from them. Not quite. I am not rejecting the uncertainty, am I? I am rejecting the completely and totally speculative nature of the arguments in which those terms were embedded, and using the terms to point that nature out. It's fine to speculate, certainly. No argument there. But it is unreasonable to expect me to be convinced by such propositions. You wouldn't be, would you? Should I? -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois Thy testimonies have I taken as an heritage forever: for they are the rejoicing of my heart. Psalm 119:111
ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (08/30/84)
-- >> P.S. I realize I haven't dealt at all with "what are the >> scientific arguments for creation", which seems to be the burning >> question at the moment. I shall attempt it at a later date. >> The question is admittedly difficult. >> Paul DuBois That's an understatement. Creationists seem to accept a universe of cosmologic scale, but in distance only, not time. Quite a trap-- the universe sure is big, and if so, the light from distant stars really is billions of years old. And if there were billions of years, then there was plenty of time for God to throw the biochemical dice and come up with you and me. 7 come 11! I've heard a real creationist with a real PhD (in something) say that the speed of light is changing, and used to be much higher, perhaps infinite. His "research" is provably bogus, however. And clearly, were the speed of light truly variable, *ALL* of post-Newtonian physics would have to be thrown out. Gadzooks--more than that! Do you know how many equations "c" figures into? -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 23 Aug 84 [6 Fructidor An CXCII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7261 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***
hawk@oliven.UUCP (09/01/84)
>And clearly, >were the speed of light truly variable, *ALL* of post-Newtonian physics >would have to be thrown out. Gadzooks--more than that! Do you know >how many equations "c" figures into? Point of Physics, Mr. Chaiman. As long as c is the same everywhere, there is not a problem, even if c changes over a period of time. Don't hang on to your post-Newtonian physics very hard, that mistake was made once before. *IF* c is declining, I would guess that that gives us a relation between temporal relativity (and I coin the term carelessly) and general relativity that is in some ways analagous to the differences between general and special relativity. As a side note, some scientists have suggested a large numbers theorey, maintaining continual creation of matter. It is based on speculations that noticed that a cerain big number (10**40?) shows up all over the place, and that perhaps this number is expanding instead of the universe growing. It is offered as an alternative to the big-bang theorey. -- rick (Rick Hawkins @ Olivetti ATC) [hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix]!oliveb!oliven!hawk