Delphi Group - No flame, only logic

[bu...@primenet.com]

This post is for Delphi programers who have flamed the concept that it is
more reasonable to accept the Creationistic model than the Evolutionary.

The topic was brought up when I made an offhand comment which was flamed
severely. The challenge was then made on my part that anyone who did the
name calling should be willing to defend the theory of Evolution, or keep quiet.

Put up or shut up, in other words.

The flamers continued, yet without any facts, knowledge, reason, or logic to back
their opinions. My challenge was unheeded, but several said that they would very
much like to 'see me crushed' and mentioned talks.origin as the place.

For the 'regulars' here, PLEASE forgive the intrusion if this kind of posting isn't
wanted. I read some before writting this only after seeing it 'seemed' to fit.

Delphi is basically 'pascal', and this being WAY off the subject, it was thought best to
finally end the wasted bandwidth the flames were causing.

No doubt you will hear a different story from the 'attackers', but any posts that do
arise will eventually prove that I am explaining the situation correctly.

For the record, my stance is simply stated:

1. Neither Evolution or Creationism is 'scientific' in the absolute sense, ie., it is
not subject to the scientific method directly. Neither has been proven or disproven
directly, in that neither can (for now) be subjected to experimentally repeatable and
observable testing procedures. Being therefore 'outside' the realm of direct science,
it is only possible to discuss either as 'theories'.

2. The model of creation better fits the data we currently have. In fact using only
facts and logic, it is not reasonable to accept the theory of Evolution as it now
stands. While many simply do not want to accept the possibility of 'creation' on the
basis that a 'God' is involved, as Sherlock Holmes said, Once all of the possibilities
have been discarded, what remains must be the truth, no matter how incredulous it
may seem. BUT, let me state that neither do I think that Creation can be proven. It
is merely the best alternative of the models we have. It is rejected by many on a
wholy illogical basis. A TRUE scientist would neither accept or reject the possibility
of God existing as part of the equation. He only cares for the truth, whatever it may
be.

The rules of engagement for any from the Delph group are few, but 'sticky'. Posts with
mere flames are useless and will be discarded immediately. Only facts and logic will
be allowed in the discussion. This rule is in force because too many 'cowards' with
small minded opinions are drawn into a discussion such as this. By weeding out
flamers, we weed out a lot of wasted bandwidth, not to mention my time, which is
precious to me. Neither do I wish to waste the time of others with mere opinions.
Opinions are a dime a dozen with twelve thrown in for free. They mean nothing without
facts and reason.

My challenge was that none of the flamers would stand a chance in an argument based
on facts and logic. I don't like 'flamers' anymore than cowards in traffic give the
finger and treat people with disrespect in a way they would 'never' do in person.
(though I DO wish someone would invent a universal sign for 'You just made a
driving error, please review your last actions carefully and try to determine which
law was broken'. Giving 'the finger' unfortunately means complete disrespect for the
other person and cannot be accepted as a civilized way to behave. Neither is is
civilized to 'fight fire with fire'.)

Forgive the length of this post, and ESPECIALLY, the fact that IT contains no facts
or reason. It's sole purpose is a necessity though. The stance must be described
accurately and the challenge made. It will not happen again.

I would welcome others joining the discussion, but if you can avoid it for a little
while, I'd appreciate it. But if interested, please do keep track of what 'Delphinians'
join the discussion and whether they do it in accordance with civilized behaviour
and mutual respect. And feel free to enforce the rules, especially on 'me'. I will not
break them. Anything I say will be based on facts and reason.

I don't have time unfortunately now to defend this against anyone but the flamers from
delphi. If none of them show, I will be glad to talk to anyone interested.

Lastly, please forgive any 'attitude' you may be sensing! I'm sure everyone has been the
victim of 'thoughtless flames', poured out in quantity by the mental midgets who's
small intellects cannot fathom the concepts of reasonable discussion. If it were not that
the contents of their craniums produce methane, they could not even 'flame' anyone.
(I think the gnashing of the hardened tarter from their unbrushed teeth produces sparks
igniting the methane, which being under the severe pressure such small quarters
produce, gives them a momentary release as it violently escapes from their ears)

I feel better now (smile)

I do not begrudge anyone his opinion, and neither do I mind others disagreeing with my stand. Only the truth matters; opinions should change as prejudice gives way to
facts and reason. Since the truth is good, why should it not be embraced?

Argument (logical, not emotional) is the only way for good men disagreeing to determine
which is more prejudiced, and which holds more 'truth'. The fact that a man HAS the
truth does not make him better, and neither does a man with prejudice need fear the
truth. Truth is truth, it did not arise from any 'man', it simply 'is'.

Forgive me if this is reponded to, or even via e-mailing 'answered', without a reply
from me. Currently I am in 'Delphi only' mode, having little time even for that. But
with patience, time should be forthcomming eventually.

If I sound 'rough' on the flamers that attacked me, I am sorry. I simply despise
'small minded uncivilized behavior'.

This is not a religious based post, by the way. Religion is not to be involved other
than reference made to 'the Creator' when the Creationistic model is defended.
I don't wish to offend any christians at all, but the idea of 'faith' as many of them
believe it, is unacceptable in proper argumentation. How can I argue with a man who
tells me that 'He likes eggs'. I cannot argue, it is subjective and to be believed or
disbelieved based on the character and actions of that individual. One man says,
" I have faith ". Okay, that's fine, but it doesn't prove anything 'objectively', for
an observer. The observer can only determine whether or not he believes you have
faith.

Burt

[Bowen Simmons]

In article <4mc2bq$f...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, bu...@primenet.com wrote:

> ...

>
> For the record, my stance is simply stated:
>
> 1. Neither Evolution or Creationism is 'scientific' in the absolute
sense, ie., it is
> not subject to the scientific method directly. Neither has been proven

or disproven...

"Proving" things has nothing to do with the scientific method. Science
can never "prove" a theory to be true, but theories can (to a reasonable
certitude) be proven false.

> directly, in that neither can (for now) be subjected to experimentally
repeatable and
> observable testing procedures.

Evolution is an on-going process that can be, and is subject to
experimentation. The primary categories of evidence for evolution
(assuming that what you really mean here is common descent):

(1) Comparative morphology
(2) Comparative ontogeny
(3) Comparative bio-chemistry
(4) The fossil record (particularly when correlated with 1, 2 and 3)
(5) The world-wide distribution of plants and animals
(6) Direct observation of evolution in nature
(7) Experiments on evolution in the laboratory

The evidence for creation (guessing that what you mean is the Book of
Genesis, literally interpreted):

(1) The Book of Genesis, literally interpreted

> 2. The model of creation better fits the data we currently have.

I've given a list of 7 categories of evidence for evolution. Pick one and
show how it better supports "creation" (although it would help if you
defined more precisely what you mean by it) than evolution. In other
words, the choice of weapons is yours.

> [assertions and complaints about flames from third parties deleted]

--

Bowen Simmons
bo...@netgate.net

[Dwight Ritums]

In article <4mc2bq$f...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> bu...@primenet.com writes:

>1. Neither Evolution or Creationism is 'scientific' in the absolute sense, ie.,
>it is
>not subject to the scientific method directly. Neither has been proven or
>disproven
>directly, in that neither can (for now) be subjected to experimentally
>repeatable and
>observable testing procedures. Being therefore 'outside' the realm of direct
>science,
>it is only possible to discuss either as 'theories'.

One of the most important characteristics of a scientific theory is that it
must be falsifiable. That is, there must be some kind of test or question
which can have an outcome that disproves or falsifies that theory. This is
the biggest reason why Creationism cannot be considered a science. No one has
ever come up with a test which can falsify Creationism. Can you?

[Tim Thompson]

I have edited form for shorter line length, I have not altered
content in any way.

In article <4mc2bq$f...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, bu...@primenet.com writes:

> For the record, my stance is simply stated:
>
> 1. Neither Evolution or Creationism is 'scientific' in the absolute sense,
> ie., it is not subject to the scientific method directly. Neither has been
> proven or disproven directly, in that neither can (for now) be subjected to
> experimentally repeatable and observable testing procedures. Being therefore
> 'outside' the realm of direct science, it is only possible to discuss either
> as 'theories'.
>
> 2. The model of creation better fits the data we currently have. In fact
> using only facts and logic, it is not reasonable to accept the theory of
> Evolution as it now stands. While many simply do not want to accept the
> possibility of 'creation' on the basis that a 'God' is involved, as Sherlock
> Holmes said, Once all of the possibilities have been discarded, what remains
> must be the truth, no matter how incredulous it may seem. BUT, let me state
> that neither do I think that Creation can be proven. It is merely the best
> alternative of the models we have. It is rejected by many on a wholy illogical
> basis. A TRUE scientist would neither accept or reject the possibility of God
> existing as part of the equation. He only cares for the truth, whatever it may
> be.

[ ... ]

> I don't have time unfortunately now to defend this against anyone but the
> flamers from delphi. If none of them show, I will be glad to talk to anyone
> interested.

Well, I am certainly not a "flamer from Delphi", but I will say my piece
anyway, just in case the "flamers from Delphi" and their Oracle don't show up.

Mr. Burt's point #1 is certainly wrong, but also is a bit incomplete. The
principal processes of evolution are very commonly reproduced in laboratory
environments. However, it is unclear just what "experimentally repeatable and
observable testing procedures" are exactly. For instance, a common complaint
is the the actual evolution of modern humans from their pre-human ancestors
cannot be replicated in the laboratory, and that makes evolution "unscientific".
If this is what Mr. Burt has in mind, then it represents a misconception of
what is and is not "scientific". If it is not what he has in mind, we will need
to know more in order to compare what he is saying to what happens in
laboratories all over the world all the time.

As for point #2 all I can say is that in over 20 years I have yet to see any
"model of creation" at all, let alone any that "fit the facts and logic". It
will be interesting to see if we are about to see a new idea, a first time ever
"model of creation", or just the usual continuing repetition of arguments that
Mr. Burt may not realize stand long-since refuted.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Thompson, Timothy.J...@jpl.nasa.gov

California Institute of Technology, Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer.
Atmospheric Corrections Team - Scientific Programmer.

[Sean Eddy]

In my experience, people with strong creationist beliefs are not
readily persuaded by a few off-hand comments by a professional
geneticist. Nonetheless, I'll say a few words. If you're really keen
to get to the truth, you have to hit the library and do a lot of
critical reading on your own. Evolutionary theory is deceptively
simple to state, but the proof consists of a mass of evidence
accumulated over the last 200 years. You have to understand a lot of
biology before understanding evolution.

>1. Neither Evolution or Creationism is 'scientific' in the absolute
>sense, ie., it is not subject to the scientific method
>directly. Neither has been proven or disproven directly, in that
>neither can (for now) be subjected to experimentally repeatable and
>observable testing procedures.

This argument is a common one, and it is misguided. It rests on a
caricature of of scientific philisophy -- a belief that there is such
a thing as ultimate "proof" in any science, but there is not; and a
belief that there is such a thing as "scientific method", but there is
not. The fundamentals of evolutionary theory are so solidly supported
by the data that geneticists consider evolution to be a fact, though
we continue to work out many of the details. Evolution is a workable
theory that makes useful predictions. It could have been falsified by
any one of a number of different observations.

What's important to working geneticists is that creation theory fails
to generalize. It does not predict, one way or the other, what our
next observation will be or what our next experiment should be.
Anything is possible under creation theory. In contrast, evolutionary
theory is very restrictive about what could be true -- it therefore
gives us an extremely useful guide in how to proceed in investigating
the nature of life.

That said, evolutionary predictions are most definitely subjected to
experimentally repeatable and observable testing procedures. It's
hard for a layman to realize just how many experiments are done every
day -- definitely thousands, maybe millions; I'll do a couple myself
today -- which proceed from evolutionary predictions. If evolutionary
theory were false, many of those experiments would fail. Nothing's
more depressing than dead end, failed experiments. Trust me,
geneticists would've gotten pissed off and revolted against the theory
a long time ago if it didn't work.

>2. The model of creation better fits the data we currently have.

That's quite arguable. In one sense, you are right, because any
miraculous explanation can be made to fit the facts perfectly. But in
general, in the real world of experimental error and noise, more
complex hypotheses always fit the data better than simple hypotheses.
High-order polynomials fit experimental data on apples falling from
trees very much better than the correct square law, but we don't adopt
these complex hypotheses as a complicated model of gravity. Occam's
razor cuts here, and says we must seek simple hypotheses whenever
possible. Evolutionary theory fits the observed data extraordinarily
well, using simple natural processes and without invoking unexplained
miracles.

Another point is that your statement is in fact wrong in the first
place. There is no single "model of creation", and all of them that I
know of are inconsistent with the currently known facts of biology. I
can only agree with you in the trivial sense, that we could say that
the model of creation is as follows: "God created everything we have
seen, see now, and will see in the future." The strict Biblical model
of creationism is clearly at best a metaphorical account instead of a
model, with its peculiar ideas about grasshoppers, floods, and human
ribs.

>basis. A TRUE scientist would neither accept or reject the
>possibility of God existing as part of the equation. He only cares
>for the truth, whatever it may be.

No true scientist does completely reject the possibility of God, in my
opinion. Professional geneticists simply have no use for creationism
because it is not useful in making sense of our observations of the
world. Evolutionary theory fits the data, makes sense of our
observations, and makes new predictions which also turn out to agree
with data; therefore it is the truth in a practical sense.

Any real scientist would readily admit to you that creationism might
be true, just not terribly likely in his opinion. The key question is
then to ask if it's possible that the universe was created fifteen
seconds ago. Any real scientist would readily admit that this, too,
might be true, just not terribly likely. Science uses the most useful
theory available until that theory becomes untenable in the face of
data. For biology, that theory is evolutionary theory, and it is still
supported by almost all our data.

In my experience, many people have adopted a bastardized, popularized
view of evolution as an aggressive personal philosophy. They like to
argue. They like to make fun of religious people. They need a faith
that sounds hip and scientific and modern, and are happy with slogans
instead of critical thinking. Whatever. My advice to you is to ignore
these people. Take a higher view. Read the popular accounts of
evolution critically -- Gould, for instance, is appalling in how he
sets up obviously stupid straw men. Use them to leverage into the more
careful literature, like Weiner's _Beak of the Finch_; Ridley's _The
Red Queen_; Mayr's _One Long Argument_; or Darwin's _Origin of the
Species_ itself. Understand that beneath all the juvenile creation
vs. evolution debate is the entire community of professional
geneticists, some of whom are Christians, some of whom believe the
universe may have ultimately had a Creator, but almost all of whom
believe that Darwin opened our eyes and that almost undoubtedly all
species on this planet evolved from a common ancestor.

--
- Sean Eddy
- Dept. of Genetics, Washington University School of Medicine
- 660 S. Euclid Box 8232, St. Louis MO 63110, USA
- mailto://ed...@genetics.wustl.edu http://genome.wustl.edu/eddy

[Bruce Salem]

Here is the meat of Burt's post, as I see it.

In article <4mc2bq$f...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> bu...@primenet.com writes:

>[...]

>For the record, my stance is simply stated:
>
>1. Neither Evolution or Creationism is 'scientific' in the absolute sense,
>ie., it is not subject to the scientific method directly. Neither has been
>proven or disproven directly, in that neither can (for now) be subjected to
>experimentally repeatable and observable testing procedures. Being therefore
> 'outside' the realm of direct science,
>it is only possible to discuss either as 'theories'.

Having not defined any terms, you have waded into a morass. You
will find experimental and directly observed data discussed in references
in the FAQ files for Talk.origins under the general category of population
biology which are handily explained by evolution. As for "proof", nothing
is proved in science the way it is in mathematics or logic; wildly heald
conclusions of science are always heald provisionally, that includes theories
of evolution. If you can muster the data and the argument to refute them,
you can eventually pervail.

You have missed the broad category of what can be called historical
science. Here experimental work can be used to explain artifacts, or theory
can interpret them. Paleontology is an historical science, so is archeology.
No one demands that these sciences be done by building a time machine and
"witnessing" past events. In that sense not every science is experimental
and hands on. Some uniformatarian principles are necessary to make sense
of artifacts, but historical science is real and as valid as other science.

The last sentence in the quote above reveals a common non-scientist's
misunderstanding about science that it deals in the same kind of certainties
as math and logic. It does not and can not because of the inherit limitations
of human knowledge.

>2. The model of creation better fits the data we currently have.

>[...]

OK, recite your evidance. Oh, by the way, are you religious and
an engineer?

Bruce Salem

--
!! Just my opinions, maybe not those of my sponsor. !!

[Stuart Weinstein]

bu...@primenet.com wrote:
>

> For the record, my stance is simply stated:
>
> 1. Neither Evolution or Creationism is 'scientific' in the absolute sense, ie., it is
> not subject to the scientific method directly. Neither has been proven or disproven

Proof has nothing to with a scientific theory. Scientific theories can't ever be proven. This
is a meaningless point. Of course evolution is subject to the scientific method. It is
creationism that isn't. What observations have been made to buttress Creationism? How is
creationism testable? The bible isn't evidence for creationism, but the source of
creationism. Did you read Origin of Species? What observations led Darwin to the formation of
his theory? I doubt you know. Mutations, natural selection, and speciation are observed. What
more do you want?

> directly, in that neither can (for now) be subjected to experimentally repeatable and

Of course it is. Ask pharmaceutical companies.

> observable testing procedures. Being therefore 'outside' the realm of direct science,
> it is only possible to discuss either as 'theories'.

This is utterly wrong...

>
> 2. The model of creation better fits the data we currently have. In fact using only
> facts and logic, it is not reasonable to accept the theory of Evolution as it now
> stands. While many simply do not want to accept the possibility of 'creation' on the
> basis that a 'God' is involved, as Sherlock Holmes said, Once all of the possibilities
> have been discarded, what remains must be the truth, no matter how incredulous it
> may seem. BUT, let me state that neither do I think that Creation can be proven. It
> is merely the best alternative of the models we have. It is rejected by many on a
> wholy illogical basis. A TRUE scientist would neither accept or reject the possibility
> of God existing as part of the equation. He only cares for the truth, whatever it may
> be.
>

Look Burt, since your preamble was utterly wrong, I can see why you were flamed. I'm not
saying you deserved to be flamed, only that I see why. Your comments imply that you
understand evolution but reject it anyway. But your preamble indicates you do not understand
evolution or science. SO what is the point of having a debate with you when you ignorant of
the fundamentals. Read some books on evolution, written by scientists, not creationists and
then come back if you still feel the same way. At least then you'll have some idea of what
you're talking about as well as some idea of what we're talking about....
>
>
> Burt

--
Stuart A. Weinstein stu...@kaku.soest.hawaii.edu
Geology and Geophysics
University of Hawaii

"To err is human..
But to really foul things
up requires a creationist"

[Gordon Davisson]

[I'm mailing this as well as posting, since burt appears not to read
talk.origins regularly.]

In article <4mc2bq$f...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, <bu...@primenet.com> wrote:
>For the 'regulars' here, PLEASE forgive the intrusion if this kind of
>posting isn't wanted. I read some before writting this only after seeing
>it 'seemed' to fit.

Talk.origins is devoted to the creation/evolution contraversy and related
topics, so it is indeed the right venue for your posting. (However,
*please* keep your lines well under 80 characters long -- 72 is a good
limit. Long lines are extremely hard to read on fixed-width terminals.
I had to reformat your posting somewhat before replying to it.)

>For the record, my stance is simply stated:
>
>1. Neither Evolution or Creationism is 'scientific' in the absolute
>sense, ie., it is not subject to the scientific method directly.
>Neither has been proven or disproven directly, in that neither can
>(for now) be subjected to experimentally repeatable and observable
>testing procedures. Being therefore 'outside' the realm of direct
>science, it is only possible to discuss either as 'theories'.

I think you are under a misapprehension about how science works. Science
*never* proves its theories (at least, not in the same sense that
mathematics does). Theories can be tested by comparing their predictions
to observations, and if they match, the theory is supported *but not
proven*. Also, there's no requirement that the observations be direct
(indeed, there isn't really any such thing as direct observation --
everything is filtered through our senses, instruments, etc... as well
as our understanding of what we're measuring. As the philosophy of
science types put it, observation is theory-laden).

Let me give you an example to underscore that last point. Consider the
recent detection of the top quark by researchers at Fermilab. Did they
observe the top directly? Well, no, the top quark decays too soon after
being produced. But theory tells us what it should decay into, so they
looked for *those* particles. Is it possible that something else could
have produced those particles? Yes, but we don't know of any explanation
(other than top quarks) for how often that pattern of particles was
observed.

Of course, they didn't observe the decay products directly, either. They
observed signals from a detector array that match what theory tells them
they should see if that sort of collection of particles went through. Is
it possible tht something else could make the detectors put out that
signal? Yes, but we don't know of anything that'd do so.

Of course, they didn't observe the signals directly, either...

Anyway, hopefully you take my point about this sort of indirection being
allowed (indeed, inevitable) in science.

Also, please be careful about which parts of evolution you are talking
about. Evolution is often referred to as a theory, but it's really a
subject, about which there are many theories (and facts, hypotheses,
laws, etc). Evolution is simply inheritable biological change (or to be
more technical, a change in allele frequencies in a population). Some of
the theories about it are:

1) Evolution happens.
2) Selection can produce evolution.
3) Mutation can produce evolution.
4) Genetic drift can produce evolution.
5) Evolution can produce new species.
6) All living organisms are descended from a common ancestral population,
and their differences are due to evolution.

Numbers 1 through 5 have all been observed (with various degrees of
directness) both in the lab and in the wild. #5 (speciation) is hard to
reproduce, but it has been seen several times. #1-4 are pretty easy to
reproduce, especially in organisms with short generation times, such as
bacteria.

Number 6 (sometimes called common descent, or common ancestry) is in a
somewhat different position, but I see no basis for considering it
unscientific. It can be (and has been) used to make predictions, and
those predictions can be (and have been) tested against observation.
Common ancestry itself is not reproduceable, but the tests are, and that
is what matters. We can go out and dig up more fossils and see if they
fit into the single family tree that common ancestry implies exists. We
can find more living organisms and see if they fit. We can examine new
aspects (e.g. anatomy, embryology, biochemistry, geographic distribution,
etc) of organisms and see if they fit the patterns predicted by common
ancestry.

>2. The model of creation better fits the data we currently have. In
>fact using only facts and logic, it is not reasonable to accept the
>theory of Evolution as it now stands.

Commom ancestry (#6 above) has been extensively tested, and is
supported by a large and diverse collection of evidence. While it
cannot be proven absolutely, I would have to say that it has been
proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Note that this may not rule out creation (depending on exactly what you
mean by "creation"). Many people believe that evolution is the method
God used to produce the diversity of life we see today.

>While many simply do not want to accept the possibility of 'creation'
>on the basis that a 'God' is involved, as Sherlock Holmes said, Once
>all of the possibilities have been discarded, what remains must be the
>truth, no matter how incredulous it may seem. BUT, let me state that
>neither do I think that Creation can be proven. It is merely the best
>alternative of the models we have. It is rejected by many on a wholy
>illogical basis. A TRUE scientist would neither accept or reject the
>possibility of God existing as part of the equation. He only cares for
>the truth, whatever it may be.

While I have no doubt that some people reject creation because they
reject the possibility of God, there are many theists of all religions
who find the evidence for evolution overwhelming, and see no conflict
between this and their theological beliefs. I personally am an agnostic
with atheist leanings, but that's not particularly relevant to my views
on evolution.

You imply that evolution can be ruled out. In the first place, every
attempt I've seen to do so has fallen apart under examination. In
the second place, even if evolution were ruled out, it wouldn't
make creation scientific. A scientific theory must be able to make
predictions that can be tested against observation; since God is
supposed to be omnipotent and beyond human understanding, He's very
hard to build a scientific theory around. If you can put creation into
the form of a scientific theory, I (and a lot of other talk.origins
regulars) would be very interested in seeing it. (There's been a
standing request for an actual scientifically testable theory of
creation for a long time, and nobody's even come close to providing
one.)

>The rules of engagement for any from the Delph group are few, but
>'sticky'. Posts with mere flames are useless and will be discarded
>immediately. Only facts and logic will be allowed in the discussion.
>This rule is in force because too many 'cowards' with small minded
>opinions are drawn into a discussion such as this. By weeding out
>flamers, we weed out a lot of wasted bandwidth, not to mention my time,
>which is precious to me.

Talk.origins is an open, unmoderated group, so it's pretty much
impossible to exercise any strict control over postings. Postings that
generate a lot of replies (which creationist postings tend to, since
there are far more evolutionists than creationists here) will generally
get a broad spectrum of replies, ranging (sometimes) from carefully
argued technical replies, to sloppy brush-offs, to flat-out flames. You
can't completely control this, but since you are likely to be running one
side of the discussion, you have a fair bit of control over where the
thread of discussion leans. People will tend to reply to what you write,
in kind. If you stay focused on issues and ignore personalities, the
replies you get are likely to tend the same direction. If you get into
personalities (even if you aren't, yourself, flaming anyone) the entire
thread is likely to bog down and degerate into flames.

As long as I'm at it, here are some more strategy and tactics suggestions.
Too often, I see promising creationst debaters get lost, in part because
they don't understand what it takes to put forth a solid argument in
talk.origins.

First, always argue from a position of knowledge, not ignorance. Stick
to topics you know well; do your research; check out the talk.origins
FAQs (http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/) to find out what the evolutionist
position and evidence is on a subject before discussing it.

Second, go for depth rather than breadth. You're outnumbered here, so if
you try to argue a broad topic (or worse, several at once) you're going
to wind up fighting on too many fronts at once, and you'll get swamped.
Try to pick topics that can be discussed reasonably well in isolation,
where the discussion won't digress all over the place.

Third, be aware of your own fallibility, and be prepared to recognize and
retract your mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes, and if you stick around
on talk.origins very long, it's quite likely you'll make one here (I know
I have!). Eating crow in public ain't fun, but it does wonders for your
credibility (especially compared to the alternatives). Even if you just
find you can't fully defend a position you've taken, it's better to post
that you aren't going to defend it (e.g. "You haven't convinced me you're
right, but I guess I'm not going to convince you either. Consider the
argument dropped... at least for the moment."), than to just quietly drop
it and hope nobody notices.

>I would welcome others joining the discussion, but if you can avoid it
>for a little while, I'd appreciate it.

Too late! :-)

Seriously, any discussion in talk.origins is going to get joined by lots
of howler monkies (the evolutionist regulars). They can't pass up a good
c/e argument; that's why they're here. On the other hand, they're
probably a lot better able to defend evolution than your "friends" from
the Delphi groups, so what's wrong with arguing with them instead?

--
Human: Gordon Davisson ><todd>
HASA: Member, S division. o o
Internet: davi...@saul.u.washington.edu

[Jonathan W. Hendry]

"Delphi regular" wades in...

Gordon Davisson wrote:

<snip>

>
> In article <4mc2bq$f...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, <bu...@primenet.com> wrote:
> >For the 'regulars' here, PLEASE forgive the intrusion if this kind of
> >posting isn't wanted. I read some before writting this only after seeing
> >it 'seemed' to fit.

<snip>

> >For the record, my stance is simply stated:
> >
> >1. Neither Evolution or Creationism is 'scientific' in the absolute
> >sense, ie., it is not subject to the scientific method directly.
> >Neither has been proven or disproven directly, in that neither can
> >(for now) be subjected to experimentally repeatable and observable
> >testing procedures. Being therefore 'outside' the realm of direct
> >science, it is only possible to discuss either as 'theories'.
>

<excellent explanation of science with example deleted >

> Also, please be careful about which parts of evolution you are talking
> about. Evolution is often referred to as a theory, but it's really a
> subject, about which there are many theories (and facts, hypotheses,
> laws, etc). Evolution is simply inheritable biological change (or to be
> more technical, a change in allele frequencies in a population). Some of
> the theories about it are:
>
> 1) Evolution happens.
> 2) Selection can produce evolution.
> 3) Mutation can produce evolution.

Burt firmly believes that mutation is *always* harmful.

> 4) Genetic drift can produce evolution.
> 5) Evolution can produce new species.
> 6) All living organisms are descended from a common ancestral population,
> and their differences are due to evolution.
>
> Numbers 1 through 5 have all been observed (with various degrees of
> directness) both in the lab and in the wild. #5 (speciation) is hard to
> reproduce, but it has been seen several times. #1-4 are pretty easy to
> reproduce, especially in organisms with short generation times, such as
> bacteria.

In comp.lang.delphi.misc, Burt was given examples of evolution, including
the evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. He responded with the 'always-there'
argument, that the bacteria had *always been* resistant and that the antibiotic
just wiped out their competition. He hasn't explained why the resistant bacteria
are only now becoming a problem, or how that difference came about in the first place.

Any thoughts, Burt?

<snip>

> You imply that evolution can be ruled out. In the first place, every
> attempt I've seen to do so has fallen apart under examination. In
> the second place, even if evolution were ruled out, it wouldn't
> make creation scientific. A scientific theory must be able to make
> predictions that can be tested against observation; since God is
> supposed to be omnipotent and beyond human understanding, He's very
> hard to build a scientific theory around. If you can put creation into
> the form of a scientific theory, I (and a lot of other talk.origins
> regulars) would be very interested in seeing it. (There's been a
> standing request for an actual scientifically testable theory of
> creation for a long time, and nobody's even come close to providing
> one.)

I'd like to see one. Burt?

Actually, Burt has said he doesn't think science supports
creation either. But if he denys evolution on account of
what he sees as a lack of evidence, how can he fail to
deny creation on the same grounds?

- Jonathan

[bu...@primenet.com]

In <4mdlh8$1...@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>, t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson) writes:

>> 1. Neither Evolution or Creationism is 'scientific' in the absolute sense,
>> ie., it is not subject to the scientific method directly. Neither has been
>> proven or disproven directly, in that neither can (for now) be subjected to
>> experimentally repeatable and observable testing procedures. Being therefore
>> 'outside' the realm of direct science, it is only possible to discuss either
>> as 'theories'.
>>
>> 2. The model of creation better fits the data we currently have. In fact
>> using only facts and logic, it is not reasonable to accept the theory of
>> Evolution as it now stands. While many simply do not want to accept the
>> possibility of 'creation' on the basis that a 'God' is involved, as Sherlock
>> Holmes said, Once all of the possibilities have been discarded, what remains
>> must be the truth, no matter how incredulous it may seem. BUT, let me state
>> that neither do I think that Creation can be proven. It is merely the best
>> alternative of the models we have. It is rejected by many on a wholy illogical
>> basis. A TRUE scientist would neither accept or reject the possibility of God
>> existing as part of the equation. He only cares for the truth, whatever it may
>> be.

> Well, I am certainly not a "flamer from Delphi", but I will say my piece

>anyway, just in case the "flamers from Delphi" and their Oracle don't show up.

So far none, and I have a few moments.

Please forgive the dissection of your paragraph. I hope I don't mess up the
context.

> Mr. Burt's point #1 is certainly wrong, but also is a bit incomplete. The
>principal processes of evolution are very commonly reproduced in laboratory
>environments.

Could you list a few of the main ones you refer to so we have a basis for
concrete discussion? A 'process of evolution' by definition would 'beg the
question' and so I don't go off on a tangent, specifics would help.

I would imagine you mean that mutation is easily demonstratable (for instance...)?

If so (forgive me if you didn't mean this!), my comment would simply be that
mutation is not any evidence of evolution at all. A created 'biological machine'
as complex enough to require dna or rna coding is no doubt easily 'fouled up' in
the sense of 'being mutated' by altering the genetic code. The process is there,
but it cannot be construed to be evidence for or against evolution or creation.
It WOULD be 'proof' that evolution could not occur if such mutation did not
occur, but that is all.

Perhaps you mean something different though. Perhaps you have a series of
beneficial muations (not mere genetic selection of present properties, of
course) in mind? Very worthy of discussion, that.

>ver, it is unclear just what "experimentally repeatable and
>observable testing procedures" are exactly. For instance, a common complaint
>is the the actual evolution of modern humans from their pre-human ancestors
>cannot be replicated in the laboratory, and that makes evolution "unscientific".
>If this is what Mr. Burt has in mind, then it represents a misconception of
>what is and is not "scientific".

That is a basic problem that needs clarification. Neither creation nor evolution is
demonstratable on a level that would convince 'anyone' of the reality of either. You
can't make a man from slime and I can't create anything from nothing, in other
words.

Actually, even if either of us could, it would not be 'proof' that such is what actually
occured. That is a matter of 'history', so to speak.

I was only after a basis for conversation; that basis being that we should forgoe
'proof' in the discussion and rely on current data and which modal best and most
reasonably fits the scientifically gathered evidence.

>it is not what he has in mind, we will need
>to know more in order to compare what he is saying to what happens in
>laboratories all over the world all the time.

Any concrete evidence if perfectly acceptable in arriving at a conclusion.

> As for point #2 all I can say is that in over 20 years I have yet to see any
>"model of creation" at all, let alone any that "fit the facts and logic". It
>will be interesting to see if we are about to see a new idea, a first time ever
>"model of creation", or just the usual continuing repetition of arguments that
>Mr. Burt may not realize stand long-since refuted.

Hmm... then perhaps you are not set on the course I'm navigating. None of the
arguments I bring to the discussion have ever been refuted.

But then a creation proponent would easily say that very same thing about evolution.
I have never seen an evolutionistic argument that could not be refuted.

Since that is the very point at hand, maybe it would be best to avoid making
statements that lead away from concrete logic and data and towards posturing
and prejudice. Either side is equally qualified to bring opinion and ignorance of
facts and logical argumentation to bare. That is what I am trying to avoid.

For instance, if you have 'never seen a model of creation', logically you would not
be fit to continue honestly with the rest of that sentence, and in fact the rest of
it would be a foregone conclusion and unnecessary to repeat.I'm sure what you
mean is simply that you seriously doubt my ability or anyone's ability to
use logic and data to support the theory of creation, and that is how I took it.

If possible I'd like to avoid prejudical statements and stick to facts and reason only.
Experience, opinion, etc., are irrelevent if one is not willing to realize that he has
not experienced everything, and that unless he is omniscient, it is conceivable that
he is 'wrong' about something.

For the record again, my only reason for being here is to quench the flames thrown
at me in another group by proving that those who flamed me did so out of prejudice
and a lack of understanding the very thing they accepted.

But thank you for replying and please, once no one comes here from delphi, etc., I will
be glad to 'hash it out' on your terms or anyone elses. I love a good fight, and if
it weren't for my ground rules I'd love to start one (or continue) one with you.

It gets messy but it's fun. (smile)

Burt

(by messy, I mean, assumptions without proofs, opinions, a slandering of character,
all in good fun during the demonstration of better verbal skills...)

[bu...@primenet.com]

In <u9iveds...@wol.wustl.edu>, ed...@wol.wustl.edu (Sean Eddy) writes:
>
>In my experience, people with strong creationist beliefs are not
>readily persuaded by a few off-hand comments by a professional
>geneticist. Nonetheless, I'll say a few words. If you're really keen
>to get to the truth, you have to hit the library and do a lot of
>critical reading on your own. Evolutionary theory is deceptively
>simple to state, but the proof consists of a mass of evidence
>accumulated over the last 200 years. You have to understand a lot of
>biology before understanding evolution.

> >2. The model of creation better fits the data we currently have.
>
>That's quite arguable. (and then why it sort of isn't...)

Your post was the most interesting so far, and therefore the one I am most interested in
answering. It is ALSO the fourth or fifth one tonight and the one I need the most time
to answer. Therefore please consider this an acknowledgement of your post and of
my desire to speak with you further.

I'm still desperately trying to be in 'delphi only' mode, though because everyone so far
has been so interesting to talk to I've spent WAY too much time here already and my
wife is not happy with me.

May I have a rain check? I should be able to answer within a few days hopefully.

Unfortunately I am only one person and a LOT of people responded. It's quite the
deluge.

By the way, you did pick on a few simplifications I made. Justly so in the sense of
purity, but not so in the sense that I did not have time to write a book. Twas only
an introduction.

BUT, you did hit the main point (I quoted you above) I am arguing, and for the record
I will describe the specific model of creation I speak of, and attempt to explain why
in actuality I am not so much 'convinced of creation' as I am 'convinced against
evolution'. Creation happens to be the only reasonable alternative. ( I speak in the
context of using only logic and reason on data rather than philosophical concepts, which
is another subject altogether).

Burt

[bu...@primenet.com]

In <4memvg$n...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>, sa...@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) writes:

Absolutely superb post. Nice of folks here to clarify the concepts overly simplified in
my 'challenge' to the flamers. I can only defend myself in that the context of my
argument with fellow Pascal programmers (Delphi is a sort of 'visual pascal' if you
will) did not require such specific language as is by the obviously more 'educated on
the subject' who have replied.

At least, my problem in Delphi was that flames were tossed about with no reasoning
given to back the statements. My post here was a challenge only to prove that they
flamed without being qualified to judge. They could not 'put up or shut up', or at
least "wouldn't", so I came here in demonstration.

I have to say that your post was wonderful to read. I do want to reply and hope you can
wait a bit. One person and so many replies... It was in anticipation of this that my
challenge went out to delphinians only, for now.

As to 'religious and an engineer', I am not religious at all in one sense, though I do
have a degree in theology. But religion has nothing to do with my posting here, as
I've explained (and I know you were only curious). As to occupation I am a Pascal
programmer, and before that I was the head Electronics Engineer at a Military
Defense Contractor.

Everyone who has used my as a diving board has been extremely interesting to read.
It's so nice to get into another environment, and I do understand that I am the
stranger here, using borrowed space. If the rent is responding to posts with a
different bent, then I will try to make the time. (smile)

I will try to answer you in detail, in the next week. If you follow this thread you will
perhaps understand my timing problem.

>In article <4mc2bq$f...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> bu...@primenet.com writes:
>>[...]

>>For the record, my stance is simply stated:
>>
>>1. Neither Evolution or Creationism is 'scientific' in the absolute sense,
>>ie., it is not subject to the scientific method directly. Neither has been
>>proven or disproven directly, in that neither can (for now) be subjected to
>>experimentally repeatable and observable testing procedures. Being therefore
>> 'outside' the realm of direct science,
>>it is only possible to discuss either as 'theories'.
>

> Having not defined any terms, you have waded into a morass. You
>will find experimental and directly observed data discussed in references
>in the FAQ files for Talk.origins under the general category of population
>biology which are handily explained by evolution. As for "proof", nothing
>is proved in science the way it is in mathematics or logic; wildly heald
>conclusions of science are always heald provisionally, that includes theories
>of evolution. If you can muster the data and the argument to refute them,
>you can eventually pervail.
>
> You have missed the broad category of what can be called historical
>science. Here experimental work can be used to explain artifacts, or theory
>can interpret them. Paleontology is an historical science, so is archeology.
>No one demands that these sciences be done by building a time machine and
>"witnessing" past events. In that sense not every science is experimental
>and hands on. Some uniformatarian principles are necessary to make sense
>of artifacts, but historical science is real and as valid as other science.
>
> The last sentence in the quote above reveals a common non-scientist's
>misunderstanding about science that it deals in the same kind of certainties
>as math and logic. It does not and can not because of the inherit limitations
>of human knowledge.
>

>>2. The model of creation better fits the data we currently have.

[Bowen Simmons]

In article <4mrm00$j...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, bu...@primenet.com wrote:

> In <bowen-03059...@d46.netgate.net>, bo...@netgate.net (Bowen

Simmons) writes:
> >"Proving" things has nothing to do with the scientific method. Science
> >can never "prove" a theory to be true, but theories can (to a reasonable
> >certitude) be proven false.
>

> Forgive my question, but are you from the Delphi forum?

Nope. Don't even know what the "Delphi forum" is. But your post was to
t.o. and only t.o. so I took it as fair game. Obviously whether or not
you choose to reply is your own affair.

> The name didn't look familiar
> but then there are a lot of unheard voices. I'm not trying to be rude
but my problem is
> one of time and I offered this challenge to flamers in that forum only,
for now, to get
> rid of that problem and then perhaps take time to get involved with
those in this forum.
>
> ...Please understand that my challenge is for
> now only to Delphi members who flamed me in that forum for my comments. I will
> be happy to respond to you if none of them show up or if time permits
now or later.
>
> Thank you VERY much for you comments. It is important to define the
common ground
> of argumentation and lattitude as you have started.
>

Feel free to drop the matter then if you choose. I don't generally
interpret silence as assent and certainly wouldn't in this case. If you
want to dig in, just post to t.o.

--

Bowen Simmons
bo...@netgate.net

[Gordon Davisson]

In article <4mmjq9$8...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>,
Gordon Davisson <davi...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>Some of the theories about [evolution] are:

>
>1) Evolution happens.
>2) Selection can produce evolution.
>3) Mutation can produce evolution.
>4) Genetic drift can produce evolution.
>5) Evolution can produce new species.
>6) All living organisms are descended from a common ancestral population,
> and their differences are due to evolution.
>
>Numbers 1 through 5 have all been observed (with various degrees of
>directness) both in the lab and in the wild. #5 (speciation) is hard to

>reproduce, but it has been seen several times. [...]

Since I recommended that Burt publicly correct any mistatements he might
make, I suppose I should probably follow that advice myself: as Tom
Scharle pointed out in the "Creationism?" thread, some researchers (Loren
Rieseberg et probably al) have gone and replicated the speciation of the
anomalous sunflower not once, not twice, but three times. Oh, well.

Actually, the mode of speciation involved here is an unusal one, even
among plants; I think my statement is still (mostly) true in general.

[Susan Brassfield]

In article <4mrm00$j...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, bu...@primenet.com wrote:

> Very genteel of you (and I do mean that). Please understand that my

challenge is for
> now only to Delphi members who flamed me in that forum for my comments. I will
> be happy to respond to you if none of them show up or if time permits
now or later.

I am among those who have no idea what the Delphi forum is. However,
reading and occasionally posting in talk.origins is one of my favorite
hobbies. Your approach to the topic of evolution/creation is very
interesting. There are a lot of creationists who post and they are almost
all really moronic. You are a refreshing change from that.

There is a point to this note other than to welcome you to the fray and
that is this: PLEASE download and read the talk.origins FAQ. Creationists
new to t.o often refuse to read the FAQs, not realizing that they are,
oddly enough, intended as a kindness to them, and end up wasting
everyone's time (including their own) and often embarrassing themselves in
the bargain. The FAQs will give you an idea of arguments that have been
covered ad nauseum in the past.

For the record I must tell you that I believe that "Creation Science" to
be a cold-blooded lie. It is not sientific in the slightest sense of the
word and is merely a political tool intended to inject Christian religious
doctrine into public schools thereby subverting the constitution and the
laws of the land.

In the weeks ahead, when you are posting to t.o please keep in mind that
Darwin, Wallace and their contemporaries were all creationists that they
were very perplexed that the evidence they were collecting at the time did
not in any way suggest a single creation event. Also keep in mind that
geologists, biologists, etc. have all contininued to collect evidence in
the 100+ years since and have, to date, found no evidence that seems to
suggest a single creation event. And, of course, no evidence has yet been
found that supports the existence of an ancient global flood.

--
Doubt cannot injure or even perturb the truth.
The truth is a citadel about which the breezes of doubt play.

[bu...@primenet.com]

In <Susan-Brassfield...@129.15.90.53>, Susan-Br...@uoknor.edu (Susan Brassfield) writes:
>In article <4mrm00$j...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, bu...@primenet.com wrote:
>> Very genteel of you (and I do mean that). Please understand that my
>challenge is for
>> now only to Delphi members who flamed me in that forum for my comments. I will
>> be happy to respond to you if none of them show up or if time permits
>now or later.
>
>I am among those who have no idea what the Delphi forum is. However,
>reading and occasionally posting in talk.origins is one of my favorite
>hobbies. Your approach to the topic of evolution/creation is very
>interesting. There are a lot of creationists who post and they are almost
>all really moronic. You are a refreshing change from that.

I'm not sure I fit into the strict 'creationist' camp to which you refer. From a 'science
and logic' point of view I simply can't accept evolution. Philosophically I have even
stronger arguments, but I'm not sure they fit the creationist camp either. In fact
I've found myself at odds with christians, by trying to explain that 'faith' is not
a reasonable basis for knowledge, but rather knowledge is the basis for 'faith'.

To illustrate my view of faith, I sit here in a chair. I have 'faith' in the chair, ie.,
that it is able to sustain my weight. If I had any facts pointing away from the
chairs 'structural integrity' (forgive me, I've been watching too much 'Star Trek'
lately), I would not have 'enough faith' to actually sit in the chair.

This view is to some christians, heretical. Faith to them is 'believing because I
believe', which to me is unnacceptable. In fact we have places for people who
think that way, usually on certain floors in certain hospitals where mental ilness
is treated.

I do not say that all christians are so unreasonable, and my definition of a christian
in the scope of this discussion is 'anyone who says they are one'.

>
>There is a point to this note other than to welcome you to the fray and
>that is this: PLEASE download and read the talk.origins FAQ. Creationists
>new to t.o often refuse to read the FAQs, not realizing that they are,
>oddly enough, intended as a kindness to them, and end up wasting
>everyone's time (including their own) and often embarrassing themselves in
>the bargain. The FAQs will give you an idea of arguments that have been
>covered ad nauseum in the past.

Good idea. Can you tell me where it is?

>
>For the record I must tell you that I believe that "Creation Science" to
>be a cold-blooded lie. It is not sientific in the slightest sense of the
>word and is merely a political tool intended to inject Christian religious
>doctrine into public schools thereby subverting the constitution and the
>laws of the land.

I agree entirely that Creation is not 'scientific'. By my understanding of the
terms, it simply cannot be.

That said, neither do I worship the God of Science, ie., A thing does not have to
be 'scientific' to be true. Science is extremely narrow in scope. It does not
pretend to have all of the answers. The people who think otherwise are actually
pseudo-scientists. They want science to be their guide and god. I speak from
personal experience here in that my childhood was spent with my nose in every
science book available. If I worshiped anything, it was 'science'. Later i came to
worship 'logic' instead.

When i say worship, I speak metaphorically. Religious men base their lives and
philosophy on their religion. I based my life on logic.

>
>In the weeks ahead, when you are posting to t.o please keep in mind that
>Darwin, Wallace and their contemporaries were all creationists that they
>were very perplexed that the evidence they were collecting at the time did
>not in any way suggest a single creation event. Also keep in mind that
>geologists, biologists, etc. have all contininued to collect evidence in
>the 100+ years since and have, to date, found no evidence that seems to
>suggest a single creation event. And, of course, no evidence has yet been
>found that supports the existence of an ancient global flood.

From the perspective on an unprejudiced mind, the 'Big Bang' theory may be the
equivilent of a single creation event. Creation may be a term in need of definition.

My definition is 'ex-nihilo', ie, 'from nothing'.

Inherent to ex-nihilo creation is the concept of 'apparent age'.

By example, if I 'create' a wooden chair identical to the one upon which I sit, no
examination, including carbon or potassium dating, could determine any difference
in the age of the two. Even the rings in the wood would indicate that they were
the same.

This would also be true for the planet, the solor system, and the universe itself.
Adam, though seconds old, would 'appear' to be in his mid-thirties, for instance.

I cannot fathom any view of creation aside from apparent age. It simply would be
'inoperable'. So when I speak of creation, these are my basic assumptions.

Nice talking to you,

Burt

[bu...@primenet.com]

In <bowen-08059...@d85.netgate.net>, bo...@netgate.net (Bowen Simmons) writes:
>Feel free to drop the matter then if you choose. I don't generally
>interpret silence as assent and certainly wouldn't in this case. If you
>want to dig in, just post to t.o.

>Bowen Simmons
>bo...@netgate.net

So far no one from Delphi has surfaced that I've seen, so until they do I'm fair game.

Burt

[bu...@primenet.com]

In <318FDC...@ix.netcom.com>, "Jonathan W. Hendry" <stee...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>"Delphi regular" wades in...

>In comp.lang.delphi.misc, Burt was given examples of evolution, including
>the evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. He responded with the 'always-there'
>argument, that the bacteria had *always been* resistant and that the antibiotic
>just wiped out their competition. He hasn't explained why the resistant bacteria
>are only now becoming a problem, or how that difference came about in the first place.
>
>Any thoughts, Burt?

Certainly. 'Resistant' bacteria are not only 'now' becoming a problem. They have always
been a problem, which is why there is a multi-billion dollar market for better and better
anti-biotics.

By the way, to remind you of the rules of engagement as stated in the Delphi Forum,
you must 'take me on' yourself. You are relying soley on the posts of those already
here who are not involved with this challenge. Please use your own 'intelligence' to
attack my position. If you do not, I will logically conclude that you cannot.

I do thank you for showing up though. So far you are the only one I have seen.

>
>> You imply that evolution can be ruled out. In the first place, every
>> attempt I've seen to do so has fallen apart under examination. In
>> the second place, even if evolution were ruled out, it wouldn't
>> make creation scientific.

Quite right.

>> A scientific theory must be able to make
>> predictions that can be tested against observation; since God is
>> supposed to be omnipotent and beyond human understanding, He's very
>> hard to build a scientific theory around. If you can put creation into
>> the form of a scientific theory, I (and a lot of other talk.origins
>> regulars) would be very interested in seeing it. (There's been a
>> standing request for an actual scientifically testable theory of
>> creation for a long time, and nobody's even come close to providing
>> one.)
>

>I'd like to see one. Burt?

I don't think you follow the thought here. My stance is that Creationism better fits the
evidence we have. I have never claimed that Creationism is scientific and have stated
so.

>Actually, Burt has said he doesn't think science supports
>creation either.

Science supports it in the sense that science provides the evidence I have, upon which
my reasonings are based. But strictly speaking, creation is certainly not 'scientific', no.

>But if he denys evolution on account of
>what he sees as a lack of evidence, how can he fail to
>deny creation on the same grounds?

That doesn't state the case correctly. It isn't a lack of evidence that makes me reject
evolution, it is rather the preponderance of the evidence I see. These are the things
that need to be discussed.

Creation is as i've stated, merely more reasonable than evolution. It is in fact the only
alternative. Since I only have two alternatives and one of them seems clearly unreasonable,
by definition I 'accept' the other.

Welcome to the forum, and good luck.

Burt

[Bruce Salem]

In article <4mrrnp$t...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> bu...@primenet.com writes:
>In <4memvg$n...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>, sa...@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) writes:

[...]

>As to 'religious and an engineer', I am not religious at all in one sense,

>though I do have a degree in theology. But religion has nothing to do with

>my posting here, as I've explained (and I know you were only curious).
>As to occupation I am a Pascal programmer, and before that I was the head
>Electronics Engineer at a Military Defense Contractor.
>

>[...]

>I will try to answer you in detail, in the next week. If you follow this
>thread you will perhaps understand my timing problem.

I await your reply. The issues I have are in the quote from me
below. I need to see a definition of science and some criteria by which
you can support the first assertion. I need some evidance that supports
the second assertion.

By your own admission you are running the risk of becomming yet
another data point for something called the "Salem Hypothesis" or "Salem
Conjecture" in which I noticed some time ago the number of people publically
supporting Creationism whether in Creationist publications or this group
claiming to be "scientists" were mostly engineers. Most of them had little
knowledge of the scientific disciplines that relate to the scientific
acceptance of evolution and an old earth. Many people have noticed
subsequently that while engineers as a group seem more inclined as a majority
to believe Darwin, those with a background in certain religions and
those concerned with intelligant design seemed predisposed to accept
Creationism or the arguments that support it.

So while not every one who accepts Creationist arguments is religious,
most of its apologists are and other sympathizers seem to favor arguments
about design, believing that nature without a pre-arranged plan cannot
achieve the kind of complexity manifest in living beings. I would like you
to address these points.

There is another class, very small but very vocal, of people who
have such a hatred of science and technology that they are here to attack
science in general terms, and evolution and historical sciences in particular.
Although I can see that religion does play a part in some of this reaction,
those involved do not have the usual religious agendas that support Creationism.

Bruce Salem

>>In article <4mc2bq$f...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> bu...@primenet.com writes:
>>>[...]

>>>For the record, my stance is simply stated:
>>>
>>>1. Neither Evolution or Creationism is 'scientific' in the absolute sense,
>>>ie., it is not subject to the scientific method directly. Neither has been
>>>proven or disproven directly, in that neither can (for now) be subjected to
>>>experimentally repeatable and observable testing procedures. Being therefore
>>> 'outside' the realm of direct science,
>>>it is only possible to discuss either as 'theories'.
>>

>> Having not defined any terms, you have waded into a morass. You
>>will find experimental and directly observed data discussed in references
>>in the FAQ files for Talk.origins under the general category of population
>>biology which are handily explained by evolution. As for "proof", nothing
>>is proved in science the way it is in mathematics or logic; wildly heald
>>conclusions of science are always heald provisionally, that includes theories
>>of evolution. If you can muster the data and the argument to refute them,
>>you can eventually pervail.
>>
>> You have missed the broad category of what can be called historical
>>science. Here experimental work can be used to explain artifacts, or theory
>>can interpret them. Paleontology is an historical science, so is archeology.
>>No one demands that these sciences be done by building a time machine and
>>"witnessing" past events. In that sense not every science is experimental
>>and hands on. Some uniformatarian principles are necessary to make sense
>>of artifacts, but historical science is real and as valid as other science.
>>
>> The last sentence in the quote above reveals a common non-scientist's
>>misunderstanding about science that it deals in the same kind of certainties
>>as math and logic. It does not and can not because of the inherit limitations
>>of human knowledge.
>>

>>>2. The model of creation better fits the data we currently have.

[Robert J. Pease]

bu...@primenet.com wrote:

: >Bowen Simmons
: >bo...@netgate.net

: Burt
*
**
Can you explain what any of this has to do with DELPHI??
I think the Name of the post is a troll.
Is the idea supposed to be:
"look, dudes, since I know DELPHI, that means I am also
An Expert at LOGIC and since I believe in CREATIONISM,
then it is ILLOGICAL to for everyone else NOT to do so !"

Kids, Can you find any fallicies in the above argument?
**
*

[Dwight Ritums]

In article <4mrn3l$l...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> bu...@primenet.com writes:

>Actually it was never my intent to say that Creationism could be scientifically
>proven true or false, but rather that for 'now', it far better fits the data we
>have
>insofar as applied reason is concerned.

>But yes, Creationism is falsifiable, at least as far as 'weight of the evidence'
>is concerned. I will have to think a bit more, but I do recall something vaguely
>in the back of my memory banks that would be a falsifiable test for creation.

>If I fail to recall it after some effort I will admit defeat in that, and it may
>be one
>of the reasons I have always argued based on data and a model that best fit it
>'reasonably'.

>Can you list the falsifiable components of Evolution? Off the cuff and not
>having
>considered it recently, it strikes me as a difficult thing to 'disprove' as
>well.

I am not a delphinian (actually, I'm a VBer), but in case you would like to
continue this discussion with others, here is my reply. My background is in
physics, not biology, but perhaps this example can help: If you have a
hypothesis that two organisms are closely related, you can do a genetic
comparison of their DNA. If it turns out that they have 99% of their DNA in
common, then it would not prove that the hypothesis is true (although it might
help support it). If, OTH, they share only 1% of their DNA, then it would
pretty much disprove that hypothesis. This is a test which has a possible
outcome of disproving the hypothesis. If you conduct many tests which have
the possibility of disproving the hypothesis, but don't, then it may come to
be accepted as a theory (and a scientific fact.)

However, 'Creation' is not falsifiable, depending on which version of the idea
you are talking about (it is important to define the terms). If one says that
the world is the way it is simply because God created it that way, there is no
way of disproving this idea, and it actually explains nothing. If one says
that God created the universe 10,000 years ago, then any evididence for a
+billion year old universe would disprove that, and it already has (unless you
believe in Last Thursdayism, which again is not falsifiable.)

>Actually I'd say in one sense I can give the one and only possible 'disproof'
>which
>itself started me on a quest for the truth on the subject. Actually I only
>proved to
>myself that evolution as taught 'factually' was a misunderstanding of my science
>teachers. It is merely a theory. Then I decided to see which theory best fit the
>evidence and concluded it was creation.

To say evolution is not a 'fact', but 'merely a theory' is a misunderstanding
of the scientific method. The terms 'fact' and 'theory' are used differently
in science than in the general population.

>I don't want to open too large of a can of worms here since very few people I've
>ever discussed this with have actually understood entropy and thermodynamics,
>but
>one of the most compelling 'disproofs' (reasonably) of evolution is that it goes
>against the foundation of accepted science (as mentioned in this sentence). I'm
>afraid a lot of people will now offer a large set of theories or demonstrations
>as
>to how this is not the case, but again, for now I only want to argue with
>Delphinians, who demonstrated by a lack of honest argument that they did not
>understand much more basic concepts, much less entropy and thermodynamics.

You are correct to say that you would be opening a very large can of worms.
Most people have a very poor understanding of thermodynamics.

>To you sir:
>Thank you for your reply. An excellent subject you brought up.

I appreciate your approach to the matter.

Dwight L. Ritums Space Vacuum Epitaxy Center
DRi...@uh.edu University of Houston

[Jonathan W. Hendry]

bu...@primenet.com wrote:

> I don't want to open too large of a can of worms here since very few people I've
> ever discussed this with have actually understood entropy and thermodynamics, but
> one of the most compelling 'disproofs' (reasonably) of evolution is that it goes
> against the foundation of accepted science (as mentioned in this sentence). I'm
> afraid a lot of people will now offer a large set of theories or demonstrations as
> to how this is not the case, but again, for now I only want to argue with
> Delphinians, who demonstrated by a lack of honest argument that they did not
> understand much more basic concepts, much less entropy and thermodynamics.

Would you care to elaborate on why entropy and thermo argue against evolution?

[Herb Huston]

In article <4muj58$f...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, <bu...@primenet.com> wrote:
}I don't think you follow the thought here.
} My stance is that Creationism better fits the
}evidence we have.

What evidence?

}That doesn't state the case correctly. It isn't a lack of evidence that makes me reject
}evolution, it is rather the preponderance of the evidence I see. These are the things
}that need to be discussed.

What evidence?

--
-- Herb Huston
-- hus...@access.digex.net

[Bowen Simmons]

In article <4muhb3$b...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, bu...@primenet.com wrote:

(BTW Burt, could you cut your lines a little shorter? 72 characters works well)

>
> So far no one from Delphi has surfaced that I've seen, so until they do
I'm fair game.
>

All right, let me get out your original reply:

> ...
> A proof is possible experimentally in the sense that one may demonstrate
> that the results of 'this plus that' will always yield 'dis ting here'.
> I do not in any way mean to imply this proof is 'absolute', but rather
> consistantly demonstratable to the point of acceptance in the context of
> this conversation.

This is largely acceptable, providing we both understand that such
"proofs" are always provisional. It is always possible that the next
experiment will blow a hole in any theory and kill it. Newton's theories
of motion held up for 200 years, but in the end could not hold up when
high velocities were tested (in fact, more precise measurements would have
revealed problems even at low velocities).

> Actually my comment about 'proof' was more or less to
> state in simple terms that neither evolution or creationism
> 'have been proven' and are both theories only.

(1) So far as I am aware, there is no "theory of creationism" to test. I
don't mean that as some sort of vague pejorative, I mean it as a simple
statement of fact. Suppose I want to conduct an experiment on the "theory
of creationism". Where is it stated? What falsifiable predictions does
it make? Thus, your statement fails in that it assumes the existance of
something which does not, in fact, exist.

(2) In so far as evolution goes, let me unpack the term a little bit. To
a biologist, evolution is defined as "change in the gene pool of a
population over time". Many people, however, use it when they are
referring to the "Theory of Common Descent", that is, that all life on
Earth shares a common ancestor. Creationists commonly use the term to
refer to the entire scientific re-construction of the history of the
Universe - with particular emphasis on the Big Bang, the age of the Earth,
abiogenesis, and common descent. I will address each of these in 2a, 2b,
and 2c.

(2a) Change in a gene pool. Generally, this is accepted by creationists
as a fact. For now, I will assume that you do too (please correct me if
I'm wrong) and skip this for now. What creationists usually do not accept
is that this process can result in speciation (the creation of new
species). Actually, speciation has been observed in both nature and the
lab. For references, see the faqs:

<URL=http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/faq-speciation.html> and
<URL=http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/speciation.html>

(2b) Common Descent. Creationists as a group do not accept this as a
fact; it may well be the distinguishing characteristic of this belief.
Within the scientific community, on the other hand, common descent enjoys
the status of a "fact" insofar as anything in science is a fact. This is
because of its ability to make accurate predictions about the fossil
record, biogeography, genetics, physiology, and developmental biology. So
far as the fossil record goes, see the faqs:

<URL=http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/faq-transitional.html>
<URL=http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/fossil-hominids.html>

The faqs are light on biogeography, but for the distribution of marsupials see:

<URL=http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/marsupials.html>

The faqs have little on genetics, but for a summary of some of the
findings from genetics that supports common descent, see:

Arthur Strahler, "Science and Earth History", pp. 347-355

You may not be able to easily find the above, so I will probably need to
excerpt from it at some future point in the discussion.

Insofar as physiology goes, I have nothing that addresses it explicitly,
but the evidence can be readily inferred from:

Robert L. Carrol, "Vertibrate Paleontology and Evolution"

I don't really have anything good on developmental biology, so I will pass
on it, unless you feel it is important to you, in which case I will see
what I can dig up.

(2c) Creationists sometimes do and sometimes don't accept the Big Bang and
the age of the Earth (the current trend among creationists is towards the
young earth approach, but it is by no means universal. For a summary of
the evidence supporting an old earth and against a young earth, see the
faq:

<URL=http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html>

> Evolution does have the advantage of being experimentally tested by man
> and that has never been questioned.

Well, no. Evolution was heavily questioned whenever it came up, with
increasing frequency through the nineteenth century. Darwin's version was
the first that was not actually rejected outright. His was accepted
because his theory included a plausible mechanism (natural selection) and
the weight of the evidence Darwin put behind it. Even after the
publication of "The Origin of Species", it was decades before evolution
reached a level of general acceptance.

> It was and is only my contention that the creationistic model
> better fits the current data.

Again, the first and most serious problem with this is the question of
what the "creationist model" is. Without an answer to that, it is
meaningless to discuss how well it fits the data.

> >(4) The fossil record (particularly when correlated with 1, 2 and 3)
>

> For the record I will state that the fossil record better supports
> creationism and will argue the case when I have more time.

Prior to marshalling evidence, you should present what you believe is the
creationist explanation for the fossil record. Only then will it be
possible to evaluate it.

> >(6) Direct observation of evolution in nature
> >(7) Experiments on evolution in the laboratory
>

> These two are the best topic in my view, though laboratory experiments are
> subject to much care in discussing results. The main point of my arguement
> is that data has been interpreted in a biased manner 'for evolution'.

Could you cite some experiments and the questionable interpretations?

> In fact the experiments sometimes have been inherently biased in that
> they are based on assumptions which are by definition of logic are faulty
> in determining aa conclusion. But experiments are valuable to discuss.

Pick some. The citations I have provided include some references to
experiments I feel provide important evidence in favor of evolution. I
believe that the ball is now in your court.

> ...
> Yes, but much more, historically in that almost every culture has a
> 'record' built in of creation and a 'flood' or major catastrophe that
> shaped the world as we know it.

Given that floods occur, it is hardly surprising that flood stories
exist. I would argue that similarities can often be traced to diffusion,
and that the stories often have few or no similarities beyond the bare
notion of a "catastrophe". What is more, many people have stories of
multiple catastrophes, which is inconsistent with the Biblical account.

In any case, if there was a global flood, we should be able to find
unmistakable, world-wide physical evidence of it, yet we do not.

>
> Thank you VERY much for you comments. It is important to define the
> common ground of argumentation and lattitude as you have started.

You're welcome. I await your reply. BTW, in case you don't know, the
general talk.origins FAQs are at:

<URL=http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/>

--

Bowen Simmons
bo...@netgate.net

[Alan Scott]

In article <4mufqa$9...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, <bu...@primenet.com> wrote:

<snippage>

>From the perspective on an unprejudiced mind, the 'Big Bang' theory may be the
>equivilent of a single creation event. Creation may be a term in need of definition.
>
>My definition is 'ex-nihilo', ie, 'from nothing'.
>
>Inherent to ex-nihilo creation is the concept of 'apparent age'.
>
>By example, if I 'create' a wooden chair identical to the one upon which I sit, no
>examination, including carbon or potassium dating, could determine any difference
>in the age of the two. Even the rings in the wood would indicate that they were
>the same.
>
>This would also be true for the planet, the solor system, and the universe itself.
>Adam, though seconds old, would 'appear' to be in his mid-thirties, for instance.
>
>I cannot fathom any view of creation aside from apparent age. It simply would be
>'inoperable'. So when I speak of creation, these are my basic assumptions.

This idea was first considered, I believe, some time in the nineteenth
century. The 'Omphalos' argument is internally consistent, but was
discarded by theologians as it implied a deceitful God. It was disregarded
by Scientists as untestable. Playfully named 'Last-Tuesdayism', 'Last-
Thursdayism' or 'Sidney the Catism' on talk.origins, there is no way to
disprove any version of this argument.

Here is a good response from my archives:

Begin Quote-----

From: bgar...@nrao.edu (Bob Garwood)
Message-ID: <CHDqs...@spss.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1993 23:33:36 GMT

[snippage...]

I am certain that the vast majority of t.o readers understand
that the christian God is Omnipotent and could have created the
universe in any amount of time God chose to do so (assuming that
such a God exists, I personally believe so - just to get that
out in the open, I also have a PhD in astrophysics, for what
thats worth). That isn't the problem.

As a christian who believes in evolution and an ancient universe,
let me relate what I have have a problem believing in a literal
6-day creation.

(1) God either created the universe as we observe it (i.e. when the evidence
points to the universe being 10-20 billion years old, it really is,
when the evidence points to the earth being ~4.5 billion years old, it
really is, when it appears that light is coming from something
millions of light years away, that things is really that far and the
light has really been intransit that long, when the evidence points to
a long history of life on earth and that evidence also clearly shows
that life has evolved, it really has).

(2) God created the universe at some point in the past with the appearance
that (a) it is much older than it really is and (b) things God created
really evolved (i.e. much of what we observe was mearly created that
way by God and doesn't indicate what really happened).

The problem I, as a scientist, have believing (2) is that there is
then absolutely NO way to tell when God created the universe. For if
God could mislead observers about what really happened in the past,
there is then absolutely no reason to believe ANYTHING from the
past, including the bible. In fact, there is then NO reason to
believe that the universe wasn't created 5 seconds ago, with this
note nearly complete (or already complete and you nearly done reading
it). And here's the kicker (as a christian) there is NO reason to
believe that Jesus really lived.

Either I believe EVERYTHING the universe has to tell us about the
past or I can't trust anything the universe has to tell us about the
past.

I choose to have faith that God was not deceptive in creating the
universe.

The evidence available to us clearly indicates that the universe
is very old and that life on earth has evolved. Either that evidence
was intentially created by God and is deceiving us (and hence, we can't
trust any evidence from the past, we can't trust God) or we can
follow where the evidence leads and accept that that points to what
really happened.

Cheers,
Bob Garwood bgar...@nrao.edu
National Radio Astronomy Observatory

--
end quote--------

--
--Al Scott-- Quoting Creationist Jeff Cox on the definition of evolution:
I have pointed out that the current definition includes things that are not
evolution, and so I have redefined the term to isolate this idea from other
ideas. That is what a definition must do.

[bu...@primenet.com]

I'm sorry, I don't respond to posts wich did not cost you anything, but which would
cost me very much.

I give as much as you do, but you gave me nothing.

so in answer to your redundant questions:

All of it.

Please do not post to this thread without putting thought, reasoning, and time into
the discussion. I will not answer you further if you do.

Burt

[bu...@primenet.com]

In <bowen-11059...@d19.netgate.net>, bo...@netgate.net (Bowen Simmons) writes:
>In article <4muhb3$b...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, bu...@primenet.com wrote:
>
>(BTW Burt, could you cut your lines a little shorter? 72 characters works well)

Oops, I'll try.

> > Actually my comment about 'proof' was more or less to
> > state in simple terms that neither evolution or creationism
> > 'have been proven' and are both theories only.
>
>(1) So far as I am aware, there is no "theory of creationism" to test. I
>don't mean that as some sort of vague pejorative, I mean it as a simple
>statement of fact. Suppose I want to conduct an experiment on the "theory
>of creationism". Where is it stated? What falsifiable predictions does
>it make? Thus, your statement fails in that it assumes the existance of
>something which does not, in fact, exist.

By proof, neither do I mean 'scientific only', though. I mean that evidence
gathered by scientific means may lead to a conclusion which is not
experimentally testable.

In other words, a subject not scientifically testable may still be true, and
may still fit the evidence better.

As I have stated, Creationism is not scientific. (actually we may end up in
an interesting argument in that even if evolution were demonstratable, such
a thing would not mean that is what happened historically. nah, I wouldn't
do that to you.)

>(2a) Change in a gene pool. Generally, this is accepted by creationists
>as a fact. For now, I will assume that you do too (please correct me if
>I'm wrong) and skip this for now. What creationists usually do not accept
>is that this process can result in speciation (the creation of new
>species). Actually, speciation has been observed in both nature and the
>lab. For references, see the faqs:
>
> <URL=http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/faq-speciation.html> and
> <URL=http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/speciation.html>

I'll have to look them up. A change in the gene pool, as in, a beneficial
mutation? Genetic damage, anyone must believe. Evolution however must
have multiple beneficial mutations to such a degree as to far outweigh
the damaging mutations.

>
>(2b) Common Descent. Creationists as a group do not accept this as a
>fact; it may well be the distinguishing characteristic of this belief.
>Within the scientific community, on the other hand, common descent enjoys
>the status of a "fact" insofar as anything in science is a fact. This is
>because of its ability to make accurate predictions about the fossil
>record, biogeography, genetics, physiology, and developmental biology. So
>far as the fossil record goes, see the faqs:
>
> <URL=http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/faq-transitional.html>
> <URL=http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/fossil-hominids.html>

Hmm...

Prefering to be openly 'overreasonable', let me say that any 'fact' of science I've
ever seen so far has eventually been determined to be fiction.

Actually the most bothersome annoyance for me is the unreasonable intrinsic
fallacy of 'science'. Science almost becomes a false philosophy in that many
who promote it appear to believe it is the only source of reliable truth.

Since creationism is not 'testable, for instance, many conclude that it must
be 'false'. that is most unreasonable.

>
>The faqs are light on biogeography, but for the distribution of marsupials see:
>
> <URL=http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/marsupials.html>
>
>The faqs have little on genetics, but for a summary of some of the
>findings from genetics that supports common descent, see:
>
>Arthur Strahler, "Science and Earth History", pp. 347-355
>
>You may not be able to easily find the above, so I will probably need to
>excerpt from it at some future point in the discussion.
>
>Insofar as physiology goes, I have nothing that addresses it explicitly,
>but the evidence can be readily inferred from:
>
>Robert L. Carrol, "Vertibrate Paleontology and Evolution"
>
>I don't really have anything good on developmental biology, so I will pass
>on it, unless you feel it is important to you, in which case I will see
>what I can dig up.
>
>(2c) Creationists sometimes do and sometimes don't accept the Big Bang and
>the age of the Earth (the current trend among creationists is towards the
>young earth approach, but it is by no means universal. For a summary of
>the evidence supporting an old earth and against a young earth, see the
>faq:
>
> <URL=http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html>

I'll take the young earth approach.

> > Evolution does have the advantage of being experimentally tested by man
> > and that has never been questioned.
>
>Well, no. Evolution was heavily questioned whenever it came up, with
>increasing frequency through the nineteenth century. Darwin's version was
>the first that was not actually rejected outright. His was accepted
>because his theory included a plausible mechanism (natural selection) and
>the weight of the evidence Darwin put behind it. Even after the
>publication of "The Origin of Species", it was decades before evolution
>reached a level of general acceptance.
>
> > It was and is only my contention that the creationistic model
> > better fits the current data.
>
>Again, the first and most serious problem with this is the question of
>what the "creationist model" is. Without an answer to that, it is
>meaningless to discuss how well it fits the data.

God created the universe, ex-nihilo, ie., out of nothing (insofar as this reality is
concerned). Inherent to creation from nothing is the idea of 'apparent age'. Example:
Adam being 1 second old, would appear to any method of age determination, to be
in his middle thirties. The same with the planet and the stars (being billions of miles
away, obviously God would have had to actually create the light 'from them' as though
the universe were actually very old. Else, how could Man see the glory of God's
creation?

Oops, I got long there, didn't I. 72 you say...

>(4) The fossil record (particularly when correlated with 1, 2 and 3)
> >
> > For the record I will state that the fossil record better supports
> > creationism and will argue the case when I have more time.
>
>Prior to marshalling evidence, you should present what you believe is the
>creationist explanation for the fossil record. Only then will it be
>possible to evaluate it.

sure. It will come up.

> > >(6) Direct observation of evolution in nature
> > >(7) Experiments on evolution in the laboratory
> >
> > These two are the best topic in my view, though laboratory experiments are
> > subject to much care in discussing results. The main point of my arguement
> > is that data has been interpreted in a biased manner 'for evolution'.
>
>Could you cite some experiments and the questionable interpretations?

The experiments were made expressly for determining whether evolution
'is possible'. Theories concerning what the environment was change, in
accordance with the results of experiments. We have built in circular
reasoning, and a pre-bias. I'm not saying this shouldn't be done, merely
that the method of reasoning should be suspect. Of all of the research
I've read, the obvious bias was hidden in a jargon I call 'evolutionese'.

My conclusion is to watch carefully for bad reasoning rather than good
results. But this doesn't answer your question, it justs gives you my
basic rules of treatment before I go to read the data you gave me
pointers to.

> > In fact the experiments sometimes have been inherently biased in that
> > they are based on assumptions which are by definition of logic are faulty
> > in determining aa conclusion. But experiments are valuable to discuss.
>
>Pick some. The citations I have provided include some references to
>experiments I feel provide important evidence in favor of evolution. I
>believe that the ball is now in your court.

To quote Curly, " Soitenly! nyuck nyuck..."

> > Yes, but much more, historically in that almost every culture has a
> > 'record' built in of creation and a 'flood' or major catastrophe that
> > shaped the world as we know it.
>
>Given that floods occur, it is hardly surprising that flood stories
>exist. I would argue that similarities can often be traced to diffusion,
>and that the stories often have few or no similarities beyond the bare
>notion of a "catastrophe". What is more, many people have stories of
>multiple catastrophes, which is inconsistent with the Biblical account.
>In any case, if there was a global flood, we should be able to find
>unmistakable, world-wide physical evidence of it, yet we do not.

Huh? Okay, I'll bite. Am I being baited here? (smile)

The whole of the fossil record 'is' world-wide evidence for a global
catastrophe.

Animal dies. Animal is eaten, remains decay. No fossil.

Plant dies, plant is eaten, remains decay. No fossil.

Insect...

Okay. Catastrophe. Animal buried. Animal preserved as minerals replace
the poor critter. Fossil.

Fossilization doesn't occur without a catastrophe, either local or global in
nature.

> <URL=http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/>

Thank you.

Burt

[bu...@primenet.com]

In <3193C1...@ix.netcom.com>, "Jonathan W. Hendry" <stee...@ix.netcom.com> writes:

>Would you care to elaborate on why entropy and thermo argue against evolution?

Forgive my question, but my answer will depend upon whether you are from the
Delphi forum or not.

If not, sure, I'd be glad to start a discussion.

If yes, then no, I am not willing to be led into making propositions determined by those
unwilling to 'make the first move'.

Forgive me. I am avoiding being reduced to mere 'entertainment' by the Delphinian
flamers. They seek constantly to 'bait me' here, since non of them actually understand
the reasoning for their flames.

Actually, a flamer is a fool who has no reason, he has only opinion and pride. I am trying
to demonstrate to them that they who flame are unreasoning (the greatest insult I can
hurl against any human being. I am sorry to use such strong language.)

I thought your name looked like a Delphi name.

Burt

[Marek Konski]

In <4n97da$5...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> bu...@primenet.com writes:

>
>I'm sorry, I don't respond to posts wich did not cost you anything,
but which would
>cost me very much.

Translation: I don't have any evidence. We liars don't like questions
of this kind and resent them.

Marek

[John Hendry]

bu...@primenet.com wrote:

: In <3193C1...@ix.netcom.com>, "Jonathan W. Hendry" <stee...@ix.netcom.com> writes:

: >Would you care to elaborate on why entropy and thermo argue against evolution?

: Forgive my question, but my answer will depend upon whether you are from the
: Delphi forum or not.

Yes, I am.

: If not, sure, I'd be glad to start a discussion.

: If yes, then no, I am not willing to be led into making propositions determined by those
: unwilling to 'make the first move'.

: Forgive me. I am avoiding being reduced to mere 'entertainment' by the Delphinian
: flamers. They seek constantly to 'bait me' here, since non of them actually understand
: the reasoning for their flames.

'Bait' you? More like 'try to pin you down to specifics which can
be discussed.' Your statements are very vague. Arguing vaguely
stated points is like nailing jello to a wall, since you are
free to claim 'that's not what I meant' at any time.

You said you feel that thermodynamics are evidence against evolution.
I would like to argue that point, but before I do, I'd like to
get a better idea of exactly why you think that, so that
I can adequately respond. I will not discuss the point if
you insist on using vague, nonspecific terms. I will not
discuss it if I am forced to interpret your vague statements.

Again, how do you think thermo disproves evolution? Specifically.
Here's your chance, Burt. Show, specificially, why evolution
is impossible.

: Actually, a flamer is a fool who has no reason, he has only opinion and pride. I am trying

: to demonstrate to them that they who flame are unreasoning (the greatest insult I can
: hurl against any human being. I am sorry to use such strong language.)

Pot. Kettle. Black. You've flamed your share, me boy, showed
more than enough foundless opinion and o'erreaching pride.

: I thought your name looked like a Delphi name.

It is. Please use shorter lines.

- Jon

[John Hendry]

bu...@primenet.com wrote:
: >(2a) Change in a gene pool. Generally, this is accepted by creationists

: >as a fact. For now, I will assume that you do too (please correct me if
: >I'm wrong) and skip this for now. What creationists usually do not accept
: >is that this process can result in speciation (the creation of new
: >species). Actually, speciation has been observed in both nature and the
: >lab. For references, see the faqs:
: >
: > <URL=http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/faq-speciation.html> and
: > <URL=http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/speciation.html>

: I'll have to look them up. A change in the gene pool, as in, a beneficial
: mutation? Genetic damage, anyone must believe. Evolution however must

Genetic damage, anyone must not believe.

: have multiple beneficial mutations to such a degree as to far outweigh
: the damaging mutations.

That's what selection is for, Burt. Weed out the feebs. Though there
are damaging mutations, there are also neutral and, to a lesser
extent, beneficial mutations. Damaging mutations lead to extinction.

Repeat over billions of years. Voila! Modern life.

: >
: >(2b) Common Descent. Creationists as a group do not accept this as a

: >fact; it may well be the distinguishing characteristic of this belief.
: >Within the scientific community, on the other hand, common descent enjoys
: >the status of a "fact" insofar as anything in science is a fact. This is
: >because of its ability to make accurate predictions about the fossil
: >record, biogeography, genetics, physiology, and developmental biology. So
: >far as the fossil record goes, see the faqs:
: >
: > <URL=http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/faq-transitional.html>
: > <URL=http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/fossil-hominids.html>

: Hmm...

: Prefering to be openly 'overreasonable', let me say that any 'fact' of science I've
: ever seen so far has eventually been determined to be fiction.

So gravity is fiction?

: Actually the most bothersome annoyance for me is the unreasonable intrinsic

: fallacy of 'science'. Science almost becomes a false philosophy in that many
: who promote it appear to believe it is the only source of reliable truth.

: Since creationism is not 'testable, for instance, many conclude that it must
: be 'false'. that is most unreasonable.

Not at all. The assertion that electrons are pushed around by
invisible microsocopic unicorns is as untestable as creationism.
By your logic, concluding that the unicorn hypothesis is false
is most unreasonable.

So you're a Last Thursdayist? How do you know that the world wasn't
created Last Thursday, or even five minutes ago? If God could create
light in transit from the stars, he could have created all of us
last week, with full memories. In that case, the Bible wasn't
real, and Jesus never lived - we just think he did. If the
Bible's not real, then there's no evidence for creation.

Furthermore, why should God lie? Why shouldn't God create the
laws of nature and physics, touch off the big bang, and stand
back? If he's omniscient, he'd know that humans would develop,
right? He wouldn't be forced to lie, since by the time
humans arose, the light from the stars would be 'just right'.

Later, of course, God would have his little 'talk'
with humans, and try to explain this.
God: 'Well, you see, there's this stuff called DNA, and it's...'
nomadic human: 'Huh? DNA?'
God: 'Hmmph. Should have waited till they got to molecular biology.
Let's just say I created the world in 6 days...'

: >(4) The fossil record (particularly when correlated with 1, 2 and 3)

: > >
: > > For the record I will state that the fossil record better supports
: > > creationism and will argue the case when I have more time.
: >
: >Prior to marshalling evidence, you should present what you believe is the
: >creationist explanation for the fossil record. Only then will it be
: >possible to evaluate it.

: sure. It will come up.

: > > >(6) Direct observation of evolution in nature
: > > >(7) Experiments on evolution in the laboratory
: > >
: > > These two are the best topic in my view, though laboratory experiments are
: > > subject to much care in discussing results. The main point of my arguement
: > > is that data has been interpreted in a biased manner 'for evolution'.
: >
: >Could you cite some experiments and the questionable interpretations?

: The experiments were made expressly for determining whether evolution
: 'is possible'. Theories concerning what the environment was change, in
: accordance with the results of experiments. We have built in circular
: reasoning, and a pre-bias. I'm not saying this shouldn't be done, merely
: that the method of reasoning should be suspect. Of all of the research
: I've read, the obvious bias was hidden in a jargon I call 'evolutionese'.

Would that obvious bias be a tendency to not assume supernatural causes?

: > > In fact the experiments sometimes have been inherently biased in that

: > > they are based on assumptions which are by definition of logic are faulty
: > > in determining aa conclusion. But experiments are valuable to discuss.
: >
: >Pick some. The citations I have provided include some references to
: >experiments I feel provide important evidence in favor of evolution. I
: >believe that the ball is now in your court.

: To quote Curly, " Soitenly! nyuck nyuck..."

: > > Yes, but much more, historically in that almost every culture has a
: > > 'record' built in of creation and a 'flood' or major catastrophe that
: > > shaped the world as we know it.
: >
: >Given that floods occur, it is hardly surprising that flood stories
: >exist. I would argue that similarities can often be traced to diffusion,
: >and that the stories often have few or no similarities beyond the bare
: >notion of a "catastrophe". What is more, many people have stories of
: >multiple catastrophes, which is inconsistent with the Biblical account.
: >In any case, if there was a global flood, we should be able to find
: >unmistakable, world-wide physical evidence of it, yet we do not.

: Huh? Okay, I'll bite. Am I being baited here? (smile)

: The whole of the fossil record 'is' world-wide evidence for a global
: catastrophe.

The whole of the fossil record? The whole thing? Must have
been a really really slow catastrophe, since it took
millions and millions of years.

: Animal dies. Animal is eaten, remains decay. No fossil.

: Plant dies, plant is eaten, remains decay. No fossil.

Plant dies, is covered by mud. (Stomped into mud by
dinosaur, say) Little or no decay. Fossil

: Insect...

: Okay. Catastrophe. Animal buried. Animal preserved as minerals replace
: the poor critter. Fossil.

A catastrophe created all those insects in amber? I didn't know
the flood myth involved a deluge of tree sap. ;)

: Fossilization doesn't occur without a catastrophe, either local or global in
: nature.

So how come there are multiple layers, deposited over millions of
years? How come you don't find fossils of complex organisms together
with earlier, more primitive organisms?

Of course, if you subscribe to Last Thursdayism, fossils were just
planted by a deceitful god, so the process of fossilization is
moot.

[Susan Brassfield]

In article <4mufqa$9...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, bu...@primenet.com wrote:

> Inherent to ex-nihilo creation is the concept of 'apparent age'.
>
> By example, if I 'create' a wooden chair identical to the one upon which
I sit, no
> examination, including carbon or potassium dating, could determine any
difference
> in the age of the two. Even the rings in the wood would indicate that
they were
> the same.
>
> This would also be true for the planet, the solor system, and the
universe itself.
> Adam, though seconds old, would 'appear' to be in his mid-thirties, for
instance.
>
> I cannot fathom any view of creation aside from apparent age. It simply
would be
> 'inoperable'. So when I speak of creation, these are my basic assumptions.

Gosh, Burt, I *really*, *really* hope you are not a strong proponent of
"it was all created in place at an arbitrary point in time." That argument
was discarded in the 19th century because it made God into a liar.

Susan

[Christopher Carrell]

Susan Brassfield writes:
-
-In article <4mufqa$9...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, bu...@primenet.com wrote:
-
-> Inherent to ex-nihilo creation is the concept of 'apparent age'.
->
-> By example, if I 'create' a wooden chair identical to the one upon which
-I sit, no
-> examination, including carbon or potassium dating, could determine any
-difference
-> in the age of the two. Even the rings in the wood would indicate that
-they were
-> the same.
->
-> This would also be true for the planet, the solor system, and the
-universe itself.
-> Adam, though seconds old, would 'appear' to be in his mid-thirties, for
-instance.
->
-> I cannot fathom any view of creation aside from apparent age. It simply
-would be
-> 'inoperable'. So when I speak of creation, these are my basic assumptions.
-
-Gosh, Burt, I *really*, *really* hope you are not a strong proponent of
-"it was all created in place at an arbitrary point in time." That argument
-was discarded in the 19th century because it made God into a liar.

Sounds like he is a strong proponent of our old friend Omphalism.

What burt should _really_ know is that everything was created last Thursday,
with appearance of age, all experiences implanted, all texts prewritten
(including the Bible). This is consistent with all of the evidence and it
cannot be disproven. As Last Thursday's Associate Professor of Protein
Structure at the U of E, I'm glad to see someone else express Last-
Thursdayism. =]

Sorry I'm not from Delphi, but when you post to the entire world...

Chris "Sidney the cat told everyone" Carrell

[Bowen Simmons]

In article <4n973u$5...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, bu...@primenet.com wrote:

> ...

> God created the universe, ex-nihilo, ie., out of nothing (insofar as
this reality is
> concerned). Inherent to creation from nothing is the idea of 'apparent
age'. Example:
> Adam being 1 second old, would appear to any method of age
determination, to be
> in his middle thirties. The same with the planet and the stars (being
billions of miles
> away, obviously God would have had to actually create the light 'from
them' as though
> the universe were actually very old. Else, how could Man see the glory
of God's
> creation?

Ah, Omphalism (from Omphalos, meaning navel). In case you didn't get the
reference: in 1857, Philip Gosse wrote a book called "Omphalos: An Attempt
to Untie the Geological Knot". In this book, he attempted to reconcile
Biblical literalism / inerrancy with geology. In this, he proposed that
the universe was created with the appearance of age (Adam was created with
a navel, although he had never been born, was the origin of the title).
He expected a great reception for his work, but was greatly shocked that
theologians and geologists alike scorned his work.

What went wrong?

From the point of view of the geologist, the problem was that any age of
the earth became equally likely; it could be argued that the Earth was
created a second ago, complete with all of our memories of a non-existant
past. Because it is completely untestable, is an idea without scientific
consequences and therefor of no interest.

From the point of view of the theologian, Omphalism was unacceptable
because it made God out to be a liar, in that the universe itself became a
gigantic lie, a record of events that never occured. Since truth is held
to be a fundamental attribute of God, the theory was held to be
inconsistent with the nature of God, and hence false.

Now, I can say that if you really want to take the Omphalist position, I'm
not sure how much we can have to discuss. There is little point to
discussing reality with someone who thinks that it is an illusion.

> In <bowen-11059...@d19.netgate.net>, bo...@netgate.net (Bowen
> Simmons) writes:

> >...

> >Given that floods occur, it is hardly surprising that flood stories
> >exist. I would argue that similarities can often be traced to diffusion,
> >and that the stories often have few or no similarities beyond the bare
> >notion of a "catastrophe". What is more, many people have stories of
> >multiple catastrophes, which is inconsistent with the Biblical account.
> >In any case, if there was a global flood, we should be able to find
> >unmistakable, world-wide physical evidence of it, yet we do not.
>
> Huh? Okay, I'll bite. Am I being baited here? (smile)
>
> The whole of the fossil record 'is' world-wide evidence for a global
> catastrophe.

The above argument is not an Omphalist one, so I'll respond to it. There
is a rather long faq that you should see at:

<http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html>

It poses questions for the global flood hypothesis. I'll post a few of my
favorites from it:

* How can a single flood be responsible for such extensively
detailed layering? One formation is six kilometers thick. If we
grant 400 days for this to settle, and ignore possible compaction
since the flood, we still have 15 meters of sediment settling *per
day*. And yet despite this, the chemical properties of the rock
are neatly layered, with great changes (e.g.) in percent carbonate
occurring within a few centimeters in the vertical direction. How
does such a neat sorting process occur in the violent context of a
universal flood dropping 15 meters of sediment per day? How
can you explain a thin layer of high carbonate sediment being
deposited over an area of ten thousand square kilometers for
some thirty minutes, followed by thirty minutes of low carbonate
deposition, followed by thirty minutes more of .... well, I think
you get the picture. [From: Bill Hyde; see also Kent & Olsen,
1992]

* How do you explain the formation of varves? The Green River
formation in Wyoming contains 20,000,000 annual layers, or
varves, identical to those being laid down today in certain lakes.
The sediments are so fine that each layer would have required
over a month to settle. [From: bi...@bessel.as.utexas.edu
(William H. Jefferys)]

* Deep in the geologic column there are formations which could
have originated only on the surface, such as:

rain drops;
river channels;
wind-blown dunes [Kocurek & Dott, 1981;
Clemmenson & Abrahamsen, 1983; Hubert & Mertz,
1984];
beaches;
glacial deposits [Eyles & Miall, 1984];
burrows;
in-place trees [Cristie & McMillan, 1991];
soil [Reinhardt & Sigleo, 1989; Wright, 1994];
desiccation cracks;
footprints. [Gore, 1993, has a photograph (p. 16-17)
showing dinosaur footprints in one layer with water
ripples in layers above and below it. Gilette & Lockley,
1989, have several more examples, including dinosaur
footprints on top of a coal seam (p. 361-366).]

* How could the flood deposit layers of solid salt, sometimes
meters in width, interbedded with sediments containing marine
fossils? This apparently occurs when a body of salt water has its
fresh-water intake cut off, and then evaporates. These layers can
occur more or less at random times in the geological history, and
have characteristic fossils on either side. Therefore, if the fossils
were themselves laid down during a catastrophic flood, there
are, it seems, only two choices: (1) the salt layers were
themselves laid down at the same time, during the heavy rains
that began the flooding, or (2) the salt is a later intrusion. I
suspect that both will prove insuperable difficulties for a theory
of flood deposition of the geologic column and its fossils.
[From: mar...@paul.rutgers.edu (Thomas Marlowe). See also
Jackson et al., 1990]

* How do you explain the survival of any sensitive marine life
(e.g., coral)? Since most coral are found in shallow water, the
turbidity created by the runoff from the land would effectively
cut them off from the sun. The silt would cover the reef after the
rains were over, and the coral would ALL DIE. By the way, the
rates at which coral deposits calcium are well known, and some
highly mature reefs (such a the great barrier) have been around
for MILLIONS of years to be deposited to their observed
thickness. [From: b...@bluemoon.rn.com]

* If a single flood is responsible for all fossils, where were all
those animals when they were alive? From "Six 'Flood'
Arguments Creationists Can't Answer" by Robert Schadewald,
Creation/Evolution IV (Summer 1982), pp. 12-13: "Scientific
creationists interpret the fossils found in the earth's rocks as the
remains of animals that perished in the Noachian Deluge.
Ironically, they often cite the sheer number of fossils in "fossil
graveyards" as evidence for the Flood. In particular, creationists
seem enamored by the Karroo Formation in Africa, which is
estimated to contain the remains of 800 billion vertebrate animals
(see Whitcomb and Morris, p. 160; Gish, p. 61). As
pseudoscientists, creationists dare not test this major hypothesis
that all of the fossilized animals died in the Flood. "Robert E.
Sloan, a paleontologist at the University of Minnesota, has
studied the Karroo Formation. He asserts that the animals
fossilized there range from the size of a small lizard to the size of
a cow, with the average animal perhaps the size of a fox. A
minute's work with a calculator shows that, if the 800 billion
animals in the Karoo formation could be resurrected, there
would be twenty-one of them for every acre of land on earth.
Suppose we assume (conservatively, I think) that the Karroo
Formation contains 1 percent of the vertebrate fossils on earth
[land fossils only--whj]. Then when the Flood began, there must
have been at least 2100 living animals per acre, ranging from
tiny shrews to immense dinosaurs. To a noncreationist mind,
that seems a bit crowded." A thousand kilometers' length of
arctic coastal plain, according to experts in Leningrad [N.
Newell, Creation and Evolution; 1982, Columbia U. Press, p.
62], contains about 500,000 *tons* of tusks. Even assuming
that the entire population was preserved, you seem to be saying
that Russia had wall-to-wall mammoths before this "event."

> Animal dies. Animal is eaten, remains decay. No fossil.

Yes. Fossilization is rare. However, only the bones need to survive for
fossilization to occur.

> Plant dies, plant is eaten, remains decay. No fossil.

Again, fossilization is rare. But the harder parts of plants are
difficult to digest and can be buried before rotting.

> Insect...

Insect "fossils" are generally insects found in amber. They can be found
at many different depths in the geologic column and different species are
sorted into different layers. Since the amber could not very well have
dripped on them during the flood, they must have gotten caught in it
before. Evolution can readily explain (and has even been used to predict)
what is observed. For example, ant fossils are not found in strata below
the Cretaceous, although other insects are. In Tertiary strata, ants are
the most abundant of all insect fossils. Based on study of comparative
anatomy, myrmecologists believed that ants were descended from wasps and
that they had branched during the Cretaceous. This hypothesis was
strikingly confirmed by the discovery of ant-wasp intermediates in
Cretaceous strata In 1967. How can the flood hypothesis explain the
sorting of amber according to the insects trapped in it? Further, how can
the flood hypothesis explain how myrmecologists were able to predict the
existance of ant-wasps in Cretaceous strata? (See "The Ants" by Bert
Hoelldobler and Edward O. Wilson for info on ant paleontology).

> Okay. Catastrophe. Animal buried. Animal preserved as minerals replace
> the poor critter. Fossil.

Nope. Too many fossils for a single, global flood. Ordinary processes
must be capable of producing them.

> Fossilization doesn't occur without a catastrophe, either local or global in
> nature.
>

Do tar pits count as a catastrophe? There are lots of fossils in them.

--

Bowen Simmons
bo...@netgate.net

[Tim Thompson]

[ From bu...@primenet.com ]
[ Newsgroups: talk.origins ]
[ Subject: Re: Delphi Group - No flame, only logic ]
[ Date: Wed May 08 20:46:02 PDT 1996 ]
[ Organization: Primenet Services for the Internet ]

In <4mdlh8$1...@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>, t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov
(Tim Thompson) writes:

[Quoting Burt ... ]

>>> 1. Neither Evolution or Creationism is 'scientific' in the absolute sense,
>>> ie., it is not subject to the scientific method directly. Neither has been
>>> proven or disproven directly, in that neither can (for now) be subjected to
>>> experimentally repeatable and observable testing procedures. Being therefore
>>> 'outside' the realm of direct science, it is only possible to discuss either
>>> as 'theories'.
>>>

>>> 2. The model of creation better fits the data we currently have. In fact
>>> using only facts and logic, it is not reasonable to accept the theory of
>>> Evolution as it now stands. While many simply do not want to accept the
>>> possibility of 'creation' on the basis that a 'God' is involved, as Sherlock
>>> Holmes said, Once all of the possibilities have been discarded, what remains
>>> must be the truth, no matter how incredulous it may seem. BUT, let me state
>>> that neither do I think that Creation can be proven. It is merely the best
>>> alternative of the models we have. It is rejected by many on a wholy illogical
>>> basis. A TRUE scientist would neither accept or reject the possibility of God
>>> existing as part of the equation. He only cares for the truth, whatever it may
>>> be.

[Thompson ... ]

>> Mr. Burt's point #1 is certainly wrong, but also is a bit incomplete. The
>> principal processes of evolution are very commonly reproduced in laboratory
>> environments.

[Burt ... ]

> Could you list a few of the main ones you refer to so we have a basis for
> concrete discussion? A 'process of evolution' by definition would 'beg the
> question' and so I don't go off on a tangent, specifics would help.

[various comments about mutation excised ... ]

My main point here is that it is invalid to argue that evolution is
not science. Science is not simply the demonstration of some phenomena
in a laboratory. The fact that evolution in the sense of "bugs-to-man"
cannot be recreated, either in a laboratory, or even in some sound
theoretical model, does not mean tha evolution is not science. Science
is interpretation as much as it is data. If the interpretation is sound,
then science is being done, the immediate lack of a laboratory pedigree
is not altogether relevant.

When I refer to processes of evolution, mutation is one of those, but
I am also referring to the simple action of genetics and heredity. You
argue that "It WOULD be 'proof' that evolution could not occur if such
mutation did not occur, but that is all." I disagree. I think that mutation,
and all of the similar genetic activity, like genetic drift, make evolution
a logical inevitability, the inescapable result of small scale changes over
long periods of time. I consider all laboratory genetics to be processes
of evolution, and proof of evolution, in the sense that you imply for the
word "proof".

[Burt, regarding what is and is not science ... ]

> That is a basic problem that needs clarification. Neither creation nor
> evolution is demonstratable on a level that would convince 'anyone' of
> the reality of either. You can't make a man from slime and I can't
> create anything from nothing, in other words.

Since a large number of "anyones" are in fact convinced that evolution
occurs, this seems a rather peculiar assertion. We are convinced that
evolution is science, and we are convinced that nature can "make a man
from slime" so to speak.

> Actually, even if either of us could, it would not be 'proof' that such
> is what actually occured. That is a matter of 'history', so to speak.

But this, a line of argument I have seen before, is very dangerous. It
indicates to me that there is probably no value in any discussion for the
simple reason that you will refuse to accept even the obvious. You have just
said so. You have just told me that even if I did create a full and complete
model of evolution, right now, right in front of you, from first cell to
Einstein, you would ignore it. So why should I bother?

[Thompson earlier ... ]

>> As for point #2 all I can say is that in over 20 years I have yet to
>> see any "model of creation" at all, let alone any that "fit the facts and
>> logic". It will be interesting to see if we are about to see a new idea,
>> a first time ever "model of creation", or just the usual continuing
>> repetition of arguments that Mr. Burt may not realize stand long-since
>> refuted.

[Burt ... ]

> Hmm... then perhaps you are not set on the course I'm navigating. None
> of the arguments I bring to the discussion have ever been refuted.

Of course, I have never seen any of your arguments yet.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Thompson, Timothy.J...@jpl.nasa.gov

California Institute of Technology, Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer.
Atmospheric Corrections Team - Scientific Programmer.

[Stephen Coulson]

On 13-May-96 22:58:02, burt spake unto All on the matter refered to as "Re:
Delphi Group - No flame, only logic"!

>In <4n2atg$o...@access4.digex.net>, hus...@access4.digex.net (Herb Huston)
>writes:
>>In article <4muj58$f...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, <bu...@primenet.com> wrote:
>>}I don't think you follow the thought here.
>>} My stance is that Creationism better fits the
>>}evidence we have.
>>
>>What evidence?
>>
>>}That doesn't state the case correctly. It isn't a lack of evidence that
>>makes me reject
>>}evolution, it is rather the preponderance of the evidence I see. These are
>>the things
>>}that need to be discussed.
>>
>>What evidence?
>>
>>--
>>-- Herb Huston
>>-- hus...@access.digex.net

>I'm sorry, I don't respond to posts wich did not cost you anything, but which

>would cost me very much.

>I give as much as you do, but you gave me nothing.

>so in answer to your redundant questions:

>All of it.

>Please do not post to this thread without putting thought, reasoning, and
>time into the discussion. I will not answer you further if you do.

>Burt

It is a valid question. It deserves an answer. What is the evidence that amkes
you believe in creationism (especially considering that the evidence itself
may have been decietfully created such as the evidence for an old earth). How
can you tell the difference between real evidence and created evidence.

For example, if the fossil record can be dated to great ages by radiometric
techniques but the earth is only 6,000 years old then they only have the
appearance of age and proove nothing (not even a flood).

+ _ /^^ ( Stephen B. Coulson ) +
|(_'[_ _ _ [_ _ _ |OO O ( e-mail: ) |
|,_)[_,(-'[_)[ )(-'[ ) @ \ o ( glo...@vcn.bc.ca ) |
+ ~ [ ~ |o~ . (_________________________________) +
--
All opinions herein have been quality tested and aged in oak vats.

[Joseph T. Janney]

bu...@primenet.com wrote:

[snip]

>I don't think you follow the thought here. My stance is that Creationism better fits the

>evidence we have. I have never claimed that Creationism is scientific and have stated
>so.

>>Actually, Burt has said he doesn't think science supports
>>creation either.

>Science supports it in the sense that science provides the evidence I have, upon which
>my reasonings are based. But strictly speaking, creation is certainly not 'scientific', no.

>>But if he denys evolution on account of
>>what he sees as a lack of evidence, how can he fail to
>>deny creation on the same grounds?

>That doesn't state the case correctly. It isn't a lack of evidence that makes me reject

>evolution, it is rather the preponderance of the evidence I see. These are the things
>that need to be discussed.

Please, sir, bring out some of your evidence that indicates that
creation is a better model than evolution. While you are at it please
clarify if you are talking about young earth or old earth creationism
or some other variant. It would help the discussion if you made your
views known.

[Colin Mahoney]

I was involved with the original discussion with Burt on the delphi
newsgroup, and would like to enlighten the folks on t.o a little as to
what was established, or at least pointed out, there.

1) Burt's use of 'dictionary' definitions of 'science', 'theory' and
'fact' to show that evolution is 'not scientific' was naive and
futile. Burt seems to have admitted here that his definitions were
informal, but doesn't seem to have provided any other evidence for the
'unscientific' nature of evolution theory.

2) Burt accepts other forms of historical science (paleontology,
archeology etc) as being scientific, and ridiculed me for suggesting
that, if 'scientific' implies being repeatable, they are in the same
boat as evolution. He hasn't provided a logical, or indeed any,
explanation of how they differ.

3) Beneficial mutations had been seen in the lab. Examples were given
in the delphi group, and more have been given here. Burt has admitted
that these require 'further thought', but has yet to make any adequate
response.

It has to be said that Burt's tone has been altogether more
reasonable, and reasoned, in t.o, and it is to be hoped that he will
keep this up.

In his series of posts Burt has made some 'strong' claims, none of
which he has seen fit to back up with evidence, reason, or his much
vaunted and no doubt 'remorseless' logic. The following are some of
his assertions he might care to provide support for, or, to quote one
of his preferred phrases, "put up or shut up":

1) People who believe evolution can explain life are "stupid" and
"fools". (The assertion which started this whole thing off.)

2) Darwin 'recanted' on the theory of evolution by natural selection
before hid death.

3) He is able to falsify evolutionary explanations for the descent of
modern man, and in such a way as "no one can speak against", and
"using information gathered from men who support evolution", at the
same time as showing them to be "erroneous to the point of humor".

4) Thermodynamics shows evolution to be impossible.

5) He has a falsifiable model of creation.

6) He has logical reasons for preferring a creationist over an
evolutionary model of life.

Burt has raised the question of the falsifiability of evolution theory
- somewhat surprisingly, as he also claims to be able to falsify
scientific explanations of the evolution of modern humans. The point
is otherwise reasonable, though. I can think of the following ways in
which the current understanding of neo-Darwinism could be falsified:

The finding of anatomically modern human fossils in rocks over a
million or so years old would certainly throw into question current
explanations of human evolution. Maybe it is evidence of this sort
that Burt has in mind for showing such explanations to be laughably
misguided. If so, he would save us all a lot of time by just producing
the evidence.

The finding of such fossils in much older rocks, say over 500 million
years old, would certainly falsify our current understanding of
evolution.

Finally, I have to admit to finding Burt's obsession with scoring
points off people from the delphi group somewhat childish, and I
suspect his preference for 'pure logic' is based more on his lack of
facts than anything else. However, I hope he can use the above points
to provide us with the often promised convincing reasons to show us
why we've all been fools for so long.

---------------------------------------
Colin Mahoney ( cmah...@readysoft.es )
Sabadell, Spain
---------------------------------------

[Michael Grice]

Emailed and posted.

bu...@primenet.com wrote:

>In <bowen-11059...@d19.netgate.net>, bo...@netgate.net (Bowen Simmons) writes:
>>In article <4muhb3$b...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, bu...@primenet.com wrote:
>>
>>(BTW Burt, could you cut your lines a little shorter? 72 characters works well)

>Oops, I'll try.
>> > Actually my comment about 'proof' was more or less to
>> > state in simple terms that neither evolution or creationism
>> > 'have been proven' and are both theories only.
>>
>>(1) So far as I am aware, there is no "theory of creationism" to test. I
>>don't mean that as some sort of vague pejorative, I mean it as a simple
>>statement of fact. Suppose I want to conduct an experiment on the "theory
>>of creationism". Where is it stated? What falsifiable predictions does
>>it make? Thus, your statement fails in that it assumes the existance of
>>something which does not, in fact, exist.

>By proof, neither do I mean 'scientific only', though. I mean that evidence
>gathered by scientific means may lead to a conclusion which is not
>experimentally testable.

>In other words, a subject not scientifically testable may still be true, and
>may still fit the evidence better.

>As I have stated, Creationism is not scientific. (actually we may end up in
>an interesting argument in that even if evolution were demonstratable, such
>a thing would not mean that is what happened historically. nah, I wouldn't
>do that to you.)

God could easily have created everything out of nothing exactly 6000
years ago, and just made it *look* as if he'd done it over billions of
years through evolution.

But this implies that God is, well, a liar.

>>(2a) Change in a gene pool. Generally, this is accepted by creationists
>>as a fact. For now, I will assume that you do too (please correct me if
>>I'm wrong) and skip this for now. What creationists usually do not accept
>>is that this process can result in speciation (the creation of new
>>species). Actually, speciation has been observed in both nature and the
>>lab. For references, see the faqs:
>>
>> <URL=http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/faq-speciation.html> and
>> <URL=http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/speciation.html>

>I'll have to look them up. A change in the gene pool, as in, a beneficial
>mutation? Genetic damage, anyone must believe. Evolution however must
>have multiple beneficial mutations to such a degree as to far outweigh
>the damaging mutations.

Natural selection eliminates the damaging mutations - the organism
dies without reproducing.

Some mutations can be both damaging and beneficial. One set of genes
can confer both sickle cell anemia *and* protection against malaria.

>>(2b) Common Descent. Creationists as a group do not accept this as a
>>fact; it may well be the distinguishing characteristic of this belief.
>>Within the scientific community, on the other hand, common descent enjoys
>>the status of a "fact" insofar as anything in science is a fact. This is
>>because of its ability to make accurate predictions about the fossil
>>record, biogeography, genetics, physiology, and developmental biology. So
>>far as the fossil record goes, see the faqs:
>>
>> <URL=http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/faq-transitional.html>
>> <URL=http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/fossil-hominids.html>

>Hmm...

>Prefering to be openly 'overreasonable', let me say that any 'fact' of science I've
>ever seen so far has eventually been determined to be fiction.

The world is complex, and an experiment apparently showing one thing
may have left some essential factor out of consideration.

Look at studies involving health and diet. There are so many factors
involved in your health (genes, exposure to toxic chemicals, whether
or not you smoke, your diet for the first forty years of your life,
etc., etc., ad nauseum) that sorting them all out is next to
impossible. Which is why, for example, you may have seen so many
conflicting reports about the benefits of oat bran and the advantages
of a low fat diet.

Note that science holds everything to be provisional. It's conceivable
that smoking is actually healthy, that all the people who smoke have
some genetic factor that both predisposes them to smoke and to have
serious health problems partially alleviated by smoking.

But I wouldn't be on it; the weight of the evidence is too heavily
against it.

>Actually the most bothersome annoyance for me is the unreasonable intrinsic
>fallacy of 'science'. Science almost becomes a false philosophy in that many
>who promote it appear to believe it is the only source of reliable truth.

>Since creationism is not 'testable, for instance, many conclude that it must
>be 'false'. that is most unreasonable.

No, it may be unreasonable, but from the weight of the evidence
visible *in God's creation* He used evolution. To assume otherwise,
I'd have to assume God left the evidence to lead me astray.

Of course, scentists do make the same assumption that God doesn't
arbitrarily violate the laws governing His creation (most Christians
assume this as well; if miracles were commonplace, would they be
miracles?).

Also, much of the creation/evolution debate comes up in the context of
science class in public schools; creation "science" has been an excuse
to try to teach the Bible. Which is fine - in the privacy of your own
home or at church.

>>The faqs are light on biogeography, but for the distribution of marsupials see:
>>
>> <URL=http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/marsupials.html>
>>
>>The faqs have little on genetics, but for a summary of some of the
>>findings from genetics that supports common descent, see:
>>
>>Arthur Strahler, "Science and Earth History", pp. 347-355
>>
>>You may not be able to easily find the above, so I will probably need to
>>excerpt from it at some future point in the discussion.
>>
>>Insofar as physiology goes, I have nothing that addresses it explicitly,
>>but the evidence can be readily inferred from:
>>
>>Robert L. Carrol, "Vertibrate Paleontology and Evolution"
>>
>>I don't really have anything good on developmental biology, so I will pass
>>on it, unless you feel it is important to you, in which case I will see
>>what I can dig up.
>>
>>(2c) Creationists sometimes do and sometimes don't accept the Big Bang and
>>the age of the Earth (the current trend among creationists is towards the
>>young earth approach, but it is by no means universal. For a summary of
>>the evidence supporting an old earth and against a young earth, see the
>>faq:
>>
>> <URL=http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html>

>I'll take the young earth approach.

Read the FAQ. The evidence for the young earth position is (in my
opinion) particularly poor.

>> > Evolution does have the advantage of being experimentally tested by man
>> > and that has never been questioned.
>>
>>Well, no. Evolution was heavily questioned whenever it came up, with
>>increasing frequency through the nineteenth century. Darwin's version was
>>the first that was not actually rejected outright. His was accepted
>>because his theory included a plausible mechanism (natural selection) and
>>the weight of the evidence Darwin put behind it. Even after the
>>publication of "The Origin of Species", it was decades before evolution
>>reached a level of general acceptance.
>>
>> > It was and is only my contention that the creationistic model
>> > better fits the current data.
>>
>>Again, the first and most serious problem with this is the question of
>>what the "creationist model" is. Without an answer to that, it is
>>meaningless to discuss how well it fits the data.

>God created the universe, ex-nihilo, ie., out of nothing (insofar as this reality is
>concerned). Inherent to creation from nothing is the idea of 'apparent age'. Example:
>Adam being 1 second old, would appear to any method of age determination, to be
>in his middle thirties. The same with the planet and the stars (being billions of miles
>away, obviously God would have had to actually create the light 'from them' as though
>the universe were actually very old. Else, how could Man see the glory of God's
>creation?

As someone whom I wish I could give credit to pointed out in another
talk.origins thread, the star that exploded in Supernova 1987A was
about 170,000 light-years away, which means that its light took
170,000 years to reach us. We know the distance of this star by
geometry.

This implies that either the universe is at least 170,000 years old or
that God created the light from that exploding star on its way to the
earth even though that star had never existed (the lying God
scenario). I prefer the first (although the universe is much older).

>Insect...

But you don't need a *global* catastrophe for fossilization (like the
Flood) - you only need a smaller, local catatrophe. A rockslide could
bury an animal, preventing it from being eaten and allowing its
fossilization. An animal stuck in a tar pit (La Brea, for example),
wouldn't be eaten, and would have time to fossilize.

These sorts of things happen all the time (even to people). They don't
always lead to fossilization, but often enough they do.

[bu...@primenet.com]

In <3199adcb...@snews.zippo.com>, cmah...@super.zippo.com (Colin Mahoney) writes:
>I was involved with the original discussion with Burt on the delphi
>newsgroup, and would like to enlighten the folks on t.o a little as to
>what was established, or at least pointed out, there.

Note: Colin is not meeting the requirements of this thread, ie.,
that only reason and facts are allowed, and that no flames
(includining innuendo or any attacks on the person in any
form) are allowed. But for the sake of this first reply to
him I will go along with it. After all, Colin is the initial
flamer, I believe. I made a comment about not believing
in evolution, for which Colin insulted my intelligence.

For the record therefore, everything I've said about flamers
applies to Colin, and that being said I leave off on the
subject. Beyond this post I will make no personal
references, and neither will I respond to any post by
Colin or anyone else except possibly to formally reject
it as not fitting defined parameters.

>1) Burt's use of 'dictionary' definitions of 'science', 'theory' and
>'fact' to show that evolution is 'not scientific' was naive and
>futile. Burt seems to have admitted here that his definitions were
>informal, but doesn't seem to have provided any other evidence for the
>'unscientific' nature of evolution theory.

Actually, Colin, it was your misunderstanding of what I said that makes
you describe this scenario so.

What I said then still holds. Evolution is not 'science' in the
pure sense of science. If something is held to the litmus test
of science, it must be be observable and experimentally
repeatable.

I'm sure you will remember those were my exact words, and
now I shall defend them. Please be careful not to glibly
answer the next set of reasoning out of context. The
tendancy in the past of your replies was to skim what I
said and answer in a manner demonstrating a clear lack
of actually following what I said, and a definitely
innapropriate unreasonable demeanor.

Likewise, I am aware that what I am repeating has already
been further defined already in my other posts explaining
the specifics of the context I set in the Delphi forum.

It may be explained simply that I was moving from
pseudo-science to real science in the conversation.

In other words, since you and others jumped immediately
on my as 'stupid' for not believing evolution was a
'scientific fact', I needed to explain that science has
little to do with truth. It is a method. Science is
knowledge arrived at via a defined means. So in
arguing against people who trusted in pseudo-science,
I took 'science' out of the argument by saying that
neither creation nor evolution are 'science'.

Evolution or Creation are 'history'. They either happened in
the past or they did not. They are not therefore observable
until we invent a time machine, and no one can recreate a
planet to repeat it, yet. History is not science. Science
cannot by definition deal with history.

As to Archeology, etc., that is a gathering of information
in a scientific manner. But the deductions derived from
said gathered are not 'science'. They may be true, but
science has little to do with 'truth'.

To repeat, whether or not something is 'scientific' has little to
do with whether or not something is true. Unscientific
things may be true, and scientific things may end up
being false.

The main thing I wanted to do was get rid of the silly idea
that science could speak of truth or history, with
authority.

That said, the next point should be obvious. The arguable
point becomes 'Which model is most reasonable', given the
scientifically gathered evidence that we have', evolution or
Creation. I vote for creation.

Then and ONLY then do we consider testing whether or
not the various theorized particulars of evolution can
happen CURRENTLY.

Beneficial mutations, for instance, are a necessity of
evolution.

There are many others, over which you are welcome to
argue.

>
>2) Burt accepts other forms of historical science (paleontology,
>archeology etc) as being scientific, and ridiculed me for suggesting
>that, if 'scientific' implies being repeatable, they are in the same
>boat as evolution. He hasn't provided a logical, or indeed any,
>explanation of how they differ.

See the above explanation. I merely defined a narrow view in
contrast to a pseudo-science concept. (perhaps I made a
bad assumption that men would not call other men stupid
merely because of a difference in interpreting data)

>
>3) Beneficial mutations had been seen in the lab. Examples were given
>in the delphi group, and more have been given here. Burt has admitted
>that these require 'further thought', but has yet to make any adequate
>response.

No such examples were given in the Delphi group. Flames and
severe generalizations were the only thing given in the
Delphi group.

Further re-writting of history will cause the post to be rejected, so
please refrain. Stick to facts and logic and everyone will
be on the same ground. This post to a delphi member is answered
out of order as a courtesy and breaks rules in doing so. No more
from my side of the other will be accepted according to the
rules of this thread.

>It has to be said that Burt's tone has been altogether more
>reasonable, and reasoned, in t.o, and it is to be hoped that he will
>keep this up.

You should check the difference in your own tone. You flamed me,
several times, severely. You included no reasoning, just plain
nastiness.

>
>In his series of posts Burt has made some 'strong' claims, none of
>which he has seen fit to back up with evidence, reason, or his much
>vaunted and no doubt 'remorseless' logic. The following are some of
>his assertions he might care to provide support for, or, to quote one
>of his preferred phrases, "put up or shut up":

I said 'Put up or shut up' in the face of unreasonable people who
relied on name calling rather than facts and reason. My retatiation
was the only one possible other than silence, "put up or shut up".

>1) People who believe evolution can explain life are "stupid" and
>"fools". (The assertion which started this whole thing off.)

Re-writting history is not good, and misquoting is nothing less
than an outright lie.

First of all, that is not what I said, and secondly, the context of
what I DID say in a programing discussion was a lighthearted
jibe at how easily men strongly disagree over things which are
arguable.

I understand that a man reads anothers words in the light of
his own thinking. No doubt you sincerely believe all of the
things you are describing here are true, but consider the
idea that comming from another context you may have
seriously misinterpreted my meaning.

>2) Darwin 'recanted' on the theory of evolution by natural selection
>before hid death.

That is correct. I did say that.

>3) He is able to falsify evolutionary explanations for the descent of
>modern man, and in such a way as "no one can speak against", and
>"using information gathered from men who support evolution", at the
>same time as showing them to be "erroneous to the point of humor".

You might want to remember the phrase, " A text without a context
is a pretext".

What I ACTUALLY said in the correct CONTEXT, was perfectly
true. I Referred to an existing 'evolutionary chart' which
depicts the evolution of man.

Your error in thinking again demonstrated a lack of sincere
consideration of what I said. It would only take a moment
for someone to realize that (if they read what I actually
wrote).

I will be glad to upload the chart. And as I said, it was
proven false by men who support evolution. You see, hypothesies
change. The chart was hypothesized as a possible evolution
of man, but every part of it has since been falsified.

Maybe now you start to realize that everything i've said
was perfectly true. When being flamed it is very easy to
speak with perfect truth and make the flamers imagine
worse and worse things for the lack of putting any
thought into it. While you were flaming, I took the
only non-silent responce. I goaded you on further.

>4) Thermodynamics shows evolution to be impossible.

It is true that my understanding of thermodynamics leads me
to believe evolution is less reasonable than creation. If
creation were not reasonable, I would still not believe in
evolution until my understanding of thermodynamics
changed.

>5) He has a falsifiable model of creation.

Depends on what you mean by falsifiable. If the weight of
the evidence determines it, absolutely yes. If pure science
is invoked, not yet (unless you currently have a time
machine).

>
>6) He has logical reasons for preferring a creationist over an
>evolutionary model of life.

That is very true.

>
>Burt has raised the question of the falsifiability of evolution theory
>- somewhat surprisingly, as he also claims to be able to falsify
>scientific explanations of the evolution of modern humans. The point
>is otherwise reasonable, though. I can think of the following ways in
>which the current understanding of neo-Darwinism could be falsified:
>
>The finding of anatomically modern human fossils in rocks over a
>million or so years old would certainly throw into question current
>explanations of human evolution. Maybe it is evidence of this sort
>that Burt has in mind for showing such explanations to be laughably
>misguided. If so, he would save us all a lot of time by just producing
>the evidence.

Unfortunately that has already been done, depending upon which
method of age determination you want to follow. And this is
the problem with prejudice and interpreting data and theorizing,
and why no matter what, men tend to believe what they want
to believe rather than base everything of 'just data'. and
ironically everyone claims to do just that, and I am one of
them.

>The finding of such fossils in much older rocks, say over 500 million
>years old, would certainly falsify our current understanding of
>evolution.

Why? Perhaps in the formation of the planet, but the age of rock
has little to do with evolution itself except that our only 'record'
for the history of life on the planet is in rock. Now if you were
to say younger, I'd agree, but then we'd argue the problem of
the theory of evolution (uniformitarianism) versus the problem of
creation (apparent age).

>
>Finally, I have to admit to finding Burt's obsession with scoring
>points off people from the delphi group somewhat childish, and I
>suspect his preference for 'pure logic' is based more on his lack of
>facts than anything else. However, I hope he can use the above points
>to provide us with the often promised convincing reasons to show us
>why we've all been fools for so long.

Actually I'm the one who is surprised, mostly at your hypocrisy.
While flaming and being nasty before, suddenly you present yourself
as the harbinger of logic and reason itself.

For lack of a better explanation, I thank you for the compliment.
Apparently against your flames and lack of willingness to argue
with information and reason, my tactic was successful enough
for you to imitate.

And for everyone else here, forgive this one post, out of order as
it is. From now on all posts in this thread will follow the rules
laid out initially or it will be rejected to save everyone the pain
of watching a personal feud being played out.

I go back to the more reasoned acceptence of facts and argument,
avoiding personal conflict or wordplay for the sake of itself.

I'll make up a generic one or two liner macro for rejected posts.
The same post will naturally be completely accepted once all
personal attacks have been removed by the writer (has to be the
writer, I'm hardly able to answer the mail I get now, let alone
re-write things for people! (smile) )

Burt

[Jonathan W. Hendry]

Joseph T. Janney wrote:
>
> bu...@primenet.com wrote:
>
>> [snip]

> Please, sir, bring out some of your evidence that indicates that
> creation is a better model than evolution. While you are at it please
> clarify if you are talking about young earth or old earth creationism
> or some other variant. It would help the discussion if you made your
> views known.

It appears that Burt is a young-earth/Last Thursdayist.

[Alan Scott]

In article <4ne6uv$c...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, <bu...@primenet.com> wrote:

<snip>

>I took 'science' out of the argument by saying that
>neither creation nor evolution are 'science'.
>
>Evolution or Creation are 'history'. They either happened in
>the past or they did not. They are not therefore observable
>until we invent a time machine, and no one can recreate a
>planet to repeat it, yet. History is not science. Science
>cannot by definition deal with history.

Their effects, however, are predictable and observable (at least in
the case of evolution). Observations may be repeated. New
predictions may be made and checked against new observations. The cycle
repeats.

Strictly by your definition, nothing is science. All observations are
of events which happened in the past. It would be odd to encounter a
field of study where events from the future were commonly observed.
All observations are time delayed from the actual event, if only by
the transit time of photons from one position to another.
Less strictly, however, one can rule out astronomy as science. 99%
of geology falls by the wayside. Clearly your definition of science
is not one that is recognized by scientists. It is possible to use
the prediction and observation cycle which is basic to science, to
investigate historical events. Ask an astronomer or a geologist or
a paleontologist or an archeologist.

>As to Archeology, etc., that is a gathering of information
>in a scientific manner. But the deductions derived from
>said gathered are not 'science'. They may be true, but
>science has little to do with 'truth'.

They are science in that their logical predictions may be tested against
further observations. (Unless Mr. Burt holds to the narrower definition
that 'all science is either physics or stamp collecting').

In short, 'historical sciences' are amenable to the scientific method
even if you stubbornly insist on calling them 'not science'.

>To repeat, whether or not something is 'scientific' has little to
>do with whether or not something is true. Unscientific
>things may be true, and scientific things may end up
>being false.

Science is humanity's most tested method of discovering what works.
Whether or not this is 'truth' is best left to philosophers.
In 200 short years science has given us satellites, radio, tv, lasers,
and modern medicine. What other method can compare to these successes?
I'll stick with the proven track record thank you.

>The main thing I wanted to do was get rid of the silly idea
>that science could speak of truth or history, with
>authority.

History can be investigated scientifically. As long as there are new
observations to be made, theories can be continually refined.

[Brett J. Vickers]

[I have not responded to Burt's entire article since much of it is
either redundant or directed only at Colin Mahoney]

<bu...@primenet.com> wrote:
>What I said then still holds. Evolution is not 'science' in the pure
>sense of science. If something is held to the litmus test of science,
>it must be be observable and experimentally repeatable.

By this litmus test, evolution passes. I should point out, however,
that this is not a very good litmus test for science.

>In other words, since you and others jumped immediately on my as
>'stupid' for not believing evolution was a 'scientific fact', I needed
>to explain that science has little to do with truth. It is a method.
>Science is knowledge arrived at via a defined means.

Your last two sentences seem to contradict one another. Is science a
method? Or is it knowledge?

>So in arguing against people who trusted in pseudo-science, I took
>'science' out of the argument by saying that neither creation nor
>evolution are 'science'.

This is a typical, though transparent, ploy commonly used by
creationists to level the playing field.

>Evolution or Creation are 'history'. They either happened in the past
>or they did not. They are not therefore observable until we invent a
>time machine, and no one can recreate a planet to repeat it, yet.
>History is not science. Science cannot by definition deal with
>history.

Whose definition of science are you using? Since when can't science
deal with things that happened in the past? Every time an astronomer
observes a star, she's looking at something that happened in the past.
She is directly observing history. The same is true, though in a more
indirect way, of the molecular biologist who examines the genome or
the paleontologist who examines fossils. History is not science, but
science can certainly examine history.

>As to Archeology, etc., that is a gathering of information in a
>scientific manner. But the deductions derived from said gathered are
>not 'science'. They may be true, but science has little to do with
>'truth'.

Science has everything to do with truth. Truthful knowledge is the
goal of science.

>To repeat, whether or not something is 'scientific' has little to
>do with whether or not something is true.

The number of times you repeat something has little to do with whether
or not it is true.

>Unscientific things may be true, and scientific things may end up
>being false.

Creationists have great difficulty understanding science and its use
of uncertain knowledge. It is entirely possible that tomorrow a
scientist could discover everything he knew yesterday was wrong. But
it's not very likely, because science works by continually taking new
data into account and continually refining itself. Through this
refining process, science approaches truthful explanations of the
natural universe. Contrast science with the pseudoscience of
creationism, which is based on an unalterable conclusion completely
unassailable by any evidence.

>The main thing I wanted to do was get rid of the silly idea that
>science could speak of truth or history, with authority.

It's nice that you want this. But you're not going to get it, because
you're wrong.

>That said, the next point should be obvious. The arguable point
>becomes 'Which model is most reasonable', given the scientifically
>gathered evidence that we have', evolution or Creation. I vote for
>creation.

Why do you vote for creation? Apart from a religious book, what gives
you reason to believe it?

>>2) Darwin 'recanted' on the theory of evolution by natural selection
>>before hid death.
>
>That is correct. I did say that.

I hope you retracted it, because it's not true.

>>3) He is able to falsify evolutionary explanations for the descent of
>>modern man, and in such a way as "no one can speak against", and
>>"using information gathered from men who support evolution", at the
>>same time as showing them to be "erroneous to the point of humor".
>
>You might want to remember the phrase, " A text without a context
>is a pretext".

You might want to share this sentence with the creationists at the
ICR. Many of them are notorious for quoting out of context.

>>4) Thermodynamics shows evolution to be impossible.
>
>It is true that my understanding of thermodynamics leads me to believe
>evolution is less reasonable than creation.

Then you have a flawed understanding of thermodynamics.

>>5) He has a falsifiable model of creation.
>
>Depends on what you mean by falsifiable. If the weight of the evidence
>determines it, absolutely yes.

Name some evidence for creation. Oh, and one warning in advance:
evidence against evolution is not evidence for creation.

--
Brett J. Vickers bvic...@ics.uci.edu
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~bvickers/

[Susan Brassfield]

In article <4ne6uv$c...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, bu...@primenet.com wrote:

> That said, the next point should be obvious. The arguable
> point becomes 'Which model is most reasonable', given the
> scientifically gathered evidence that we have', evolution or
> Creation. I vote for creation.

I may have just missed it, but you have never explicitly stated *why* you
vote for creation when you examine the evidence.

> Then and ONLY then do we consider testing whether or
> not the various theorized particulars of evolution can
> happen CURRENTLY.

Actually, speciation has been observed to happen currently. I think it was
first directly observed in the 1950s.

> Beneficial mutations, for instance, are a necessity of
> evolution.

I'm pretty sure they have also been directly observed. Beneficial
mutations collect over generations until a new species occurs. This can be
observed in species that have very short life-times and go through
hundreds of generations in a year--or less depending on the species.

> >2) Darwin 'recanted' on the theory of evolution by natural selection
> >before hid death.
>
> That is correct. I did say that.

You really need to research this statement before repeating it further.
This was proven over a hundred years ago to be a falsehood. You will need
to research it somewhere besides creationist literature.

>4) Thermodynamics shows evolution to be impossible.
>
> It is true that my understanding of thermodynamics leads me

> to believe evolution is less reasonable than creation. If
> creation were not reasonable, I would still not believe in
> evolution until my understanding of thermodynamics
> changed.

Your understanding of thermodynamics is faulty. I think you are smart
enough to understand it. Again, *don't* go to a creationist text to read
about it. Go to a thermodynamics text. *I* can't follow it in detail. But
*you* have a degree in engineering (I *think* that's what you said. I
could be thinking of someone else.) so it should be a lot clearer to you.

[bu...@primenet.com]

In <4ng33h$9...@news.service.uci.edu>, bvic...@tango.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes:

In <4ng33h$9...@news.service.uci.edu>, bvic...@tango.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes:
>>What I said then still holds. Evolution is not 'science' in the pure
>>sense of science. If something is held to the litmus test of science,
>>it must be be observable and experimentally repeatable.
>
>By this litmus test, evolution passes. I should point out, however,
>that this is not a very good litmus test for science.

Hmm... it is necessary when dealing with people who view science
with a modern pseudo-science twist. They will mistakenly give
factual authority to what is only a theory.

Evolution is a good example. Unless one has a time machine it is
impossible to 'know' what happened in the past. A diary is a
good set of data, perhaps, but not proof.

Next we have carefully gathered information, 'scientific', if you
will.

From that evidence theories are made. Courts regularly condemn or
justify a man based on this evidence. But aside from video tape
or a time machine, it is literally impossible to be 100% sure.

DNA is a prime example... Good old OJ, was he guilty or no?

Well, from a PURELY logical standpoint, that is impossible to
know. I mean, that glove didn't FIT, you know... (grin)

But most people I know said 'guilty', and honestly I would have
to agree. Fortunately I was not on the jury.

But 'scientific fact'? Hardly. The science of that dna gave
good numbers INDICATING OJ, but then, where did the blood
come from, and golly, if evolution is true, couldn't they have
been killed by an OJ dna lookalike? I mean the chances are
bad, but they are for evolution too... (oh my, please everyone,
I'm just having fun here. This is a non delphinian and I'm
responding as though this were a normal thread).

>
>>In other words, since you and others jumped immediately on my as
>>'stupid' for not believing evolution was a 'scientific fact', I needed
>>to explain that science has little to do with truth. It is a method.
>>Science is knowledge arrived at via a defined means.
>
>Your last two sentences seem to contradict one another. Is science a
>method? Or is it knowledge?

Okay, it's a method. It's common though in langauge for words
to have various meanings depending on context. It is
commonly acceptable to say that a wire adjacent to
moving magnetic fields will have a specific voltage
potential across it. That is a 'scientific fact', so called.
It is experimentally repeatable and observable.

Is it really a fact? I mean, could elves from another
dimension live in magnetic fields, who upon seeing
a conductor have the irresistable temptation to
jump on and squeeze electrons up the tube?

Umm... well, yeah, they could.

Can't prove it wrong! So, though it may be true,
it isn't scientific.

Science is a big word used in a lot of ways. I have to
be specific when dealing with what people call a
'scientific fact', mostly to get rid of the idea that
science deals with things like 'truth'. It doesn't.
It deals with practical, observable and repeatable
experiments performed in accordance with it's
'method'. Hey, I call them scientific facts too...

>
>>So in arguing against people who trusted in pseudo-science, I took
>>'science' out of the argument by saying that neither creation nor
>>evolution are 'science'.
>
>This is a typical, though transparent, ploy commonly used by
>creationists to level the playing field.

Huh?

We are talking about theorizing and reaching conclusions based on
evidence. If you say that Evolution is a scientific fact, well, we
need to define our terms.

If you want to reach a verdict on creation or evolution, the simple
matter of fact is that you must make a decision based on the
evidence, just as in a courtroom. Said decision is NOT SCIENCE.

Now, if a monkey ever gets up out of pea soup, I'll vote for
evolution in a moment (please take that humorously.!)

>
>>Evolution or Creation are 'history'. They either happened in the past
>>or they did not. They are not therefore observable until we invent a
>>time machine, and no one can recreate a planet to repeat it, yet.
>>History is not science. Science cannot by definition deal with
>>history.
>
>Whose definition of science are you using? Since when can't science
>deal with things that happened in the past? Every time an astronomer
>observes a star, she's looking at something that happened in the past.
>She is directly observing history. The same is true, though in a more
>indirect way, of the molecular biologist who examines the genome or
>the paleontologist who examines fossils. History is not science, but
>science can certainly examine history.

Nope, science can't. That astronomer is viewing light, not a star.
Everything observable is 'not the thing itself'.

You can study that fossil scientifically, but you..

Sigh, my wife needs me. I will return and continue this but post it for
now to keep things going.

Burt

[bu...@primenet.com]

In <4ngid9$r...@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>, t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson) writes:
> I am prepared to reject the sum of these paragraphs as a valid
>description of what constitutes science. First, experimental
>"repeatability", in this literal sense, is not a necessary aspect
>of science. Second, the study of processes that cannot be observed
>directly, which the second paragraph rejects, are in fact science
>and the rejection indicated is not valid. Finally, in the third
>paragraph the deductions derived most certainly are science,
>and may be the most important aspect of the scientific enterprise.

Your comming from the other side of the fence from me.
I'm arguing against the concepts of pseudo-science, which
strangley most people I ask, is their notion of 'real science'.

Pseudo-science is an almost religous thing that some
men cling to, as though 'science' holds all of the
answers.

Please state your working definition of science in a single
sentence. If you are interested in having a discussion
(I am) as apposed to trying to sound more intelligent than
me (grin), we can go from there.

I am personally just feeding back a simple definition of
what science is that I find in almost every textbook on
the subject, and using it to fight the false notion of
pseudo-science.

>
> I would say that Mr. Burt has an inadequate understanding of
>what constitutes science, and is therefore likely to come to the
>wrong conclusions concerning whether or not evolution is science.

Evolution is an hypothesis, it is not science. An hypothesis is
formed using the scientific method, but a part of the whole is
not the whole. Err... something like that (another smile)

>> That is correct. I did say that.
>

> Then you were mistaken, as Darwin did not do that.

No, I am not mistaken. I did say that.

Heh heh... forgive me. A small joke on Colin.

In the context of being flamed beyond recognition, I
responded in various ways to get people to respond
rather than to simply react. Eventually I took to
pushing their buttons, trying to goad them into a
'real fight', one that I could win based on reason,
rather than on name calling.

One of the litmus tests in a discussion is to test
the other persons knowledge versus his prejudice.

Need I say more?

I did indeed ask them if they knew that Darwin
had recanted his view of evolution before he
died. I don't recall any more particulars.

Instead of responding with 'where', or with
'he did not', they only flamed me more. Forgive
me, I was becomming very much annoyed with
unreasonable people and started 'making
monkeys' of them. If they had known anything
at all they could have responded with facts or
reason, but they could not. At the time I needed
to demonstrate that to myself, desperately.

>
>[Mahoney again ... ]

>>> 4) Thermodynamics shows evolution to be impossible.
>

>[Burt ... ]

>> It is true that my understanding of thermodynamics leads me
>> to believe evolution is less reasonable than creation. If
>> creation were not reasonable, I would still not believe in
>> evolution until my understanding of thermodynamics
>> changed.
>

> The argument that evolution in some way violates the 2nd law
>of thermodynamics has been advanced numerous times in talk.origins,
>and has always failed. As far as I am concerned, there is no
>reason to believe that evolution violates any physical or
>thermodynamic law. If you can in fact show a valid reason for
>this, it will be a first.

I will give it my best, sir.

Burt

[bu...@primenet.com]

In <4ncs53$4...@grandcanyon.binc.net>, gib...@mailbag.com (Michael Grice) writes:
>Emailed and posted.

>God could easily have created everything out of nothing exactly 6000
>years ago, and just made it *look* as if he'd done it over billions of
>years through evolution.
>
>But this implies that God is, well, a liar.

No, it is intrinsic to the concept of creation that the 'created'
object has an apparent age.

It isn't that God would be lying, it would be that men would
be incredibly dense, so to speak.

Adam created 2 seconds ago. How old is he? 2 seconds.

NOW, lets make the false assumption that evolution makes, ie.,
uniformitarianism.

We take Adam's son and watch. Ah, about 30 years into growth
he is at the same apparent stage as his father. NOW, how old
was Adam? Thirty?

No, creationism doesn't accuse God of lying, it accuses evolution
of assumption.

>Natural selection eliminates the damaging mutations - the organism
>dies without reproducing.

Negatory big ben! (ever a "cb'er"? me neither)

Fossil evidence should contain a MUCH wider variation of
species. We need, lets see... a chicliz (lizard before it
became a chicken?), and basically an endless variety of
mutations which were neither harmful or benificial, that
'just were'.

But that is when I view evolution from a perspective of
what SHOULD appear. It definitely isn't what appears,
and is one of the reasons I see it as an unreasonable
theory compared to creation.

Creation says, definite kinds, (species, if you will, though
at Creation I'm not sure God checked up on the old Kingdom,
Phyllum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species nomenclature).

Fossil records should show a specific number of 'kinds' of
creatures. Neither would it be odd to see a very orderly
array of creatures, presumably built from the same building
materials and concepts (see object oriented programming for
a good idea on how I view Creation).

>
>Some mutations can be both damaging and beneficial. One set of genes
>can confer both sickle cell anemia *and* protection against malaria.
>

Now THAT is a superb point. In a complex system, who defines
beneficial! Toughy. I'll have to think on that one.

>>Prefering to be openly 'overreasonable', let me say that any 'fact' of science I've
>>ever seen so far has eventually been determined to be fiction.
>
>The world is complex, and an experiment apparently showing one thing
>may have left some essential factor out of consideration.
>
>Look at studies involving health and diet. There are so many factors
>involved in your health (genes, exposure to toxic chemicals, whether
>or not you smoke, your diet for the first forty years of your life,
>etc., etc., ad nauseum) that sorting them all out is next to
>impossible. Which is why, for example, you may have seen so many
>conflicting reports about the benefits of oat bran and the advantages
>of a low fat diet.
>
>Note that science holds everything to be provisional. It's conceivable
>that smoking is actually healthy, that all the people who smoke have
>some genetic factor that both predisposes them to smoke and to have
>serious health problems partially alleviated by smoking.
>
>But I wouldn't be on it; the weight of the evidence is too heavily
>against it.

Bingo bango, old boy, there you have my own view as well. Well
said.

>No, it may be unreasonable, but from the weight of the evidence
>visible *in God's creation* He used evolution. To assume otherwise,
>I'd have to assume God left the evidence to lead me astray.

Ah! Now we move into the esoteric study of theology and philosophy!
Much more my area of expertise, at least in the sense that I have a
degree in theology, a life based in Electronics and Computers, and
evolution is an interesting diversion in conversation (though a fine
way to hone one's reasoning ability).

Christ spoke in parables, that 'hearing they may hear and not understand'.

According to christian theology, God tests men in many ways.

He gives them a way to 'choose'. Now, if everything only pointed
easily to God, how would man have a 'choice'. There would be
only one simple answer. God did that with angels and look where
a third of them ended up.

To man, born with the sin nature, God offers a lesson in
reversal. His aim is to demonstrate to every creation
everywhere that no matter what the environment, some will
choose God and some will choose 'self'.

Long story I'll skip, but indeed, God limited our intelligence
enough that man cannot find the truth by himself. He needs
God.

>Also, much of the creation/evolution debate comes up in the context of
>science class in public schools; creation "science" has been an excuse
>to try to teach the Bible. Which is fine - in the privacy of your own
>home or at church.

Want to avoid politics... help!

Creation was taught in private (all, for that matter) schools when the
constitution was formed. When public schools arose, it was taught
there as well.

The idea that the seperation of church and state was meant to
keep religion out of schools is demonstratably from history,
complete nonsense. The idea was to keep Government out of
churches.

America was founded by religious men. The idea that NOW
suddenly religion must be kept out of school is ludicrous.

Okay, done. Now everyone hates me and I can live with that.

For the record, I will not argue the subject. It doesn't belong
in this group, and I don't want to repeat an error in
group topics which may be hazardous to my health.

>>I'll take the young earth approach.
>
>Read the FAQ. The evidence for the young earth position is (in my
>opinion) particularly poor.
>

Really? Based on what?

Radioactive dating? Oh my, the assumptions made there are
frightening in my book of logic. How old is that rock? umm...
lessee, it's half lead, half uranium.

Let's avoid science and go to pure reason, unadulterated logic and
nothing else.

The ONLY thing I can say about the age of that rock is that
IF, (big if, did you see?) that rock was ever 100% uranium,
the oldest if could be (assuming half-life radioactive theory is
correct), is, well, the half life of uranium!

(yeah, I know, REALLY simplistic, but I don't have time to
review radioactive isotopes and figure out what breaks down
into who, and whether uranium 238 is really only the half
brother of 235, etc).

For all I know that rock was 2 seconds old, freshly created. Or
it could have been 3/4 uranium and 1/4 lead when it started
out, or who know what.

Okay, young earth is a bad thing? Hmmm.... alright, lets
use the same uniformitarian concepts evolution uses.

The Earth's magnetic pole is decomposing at a rate
indicating the earth must be 15,000 years old or less.

According to geologists who study crude oil formations,
'gushers' shouldn't happen since anything beyond 10,000
years would lead to a flat bottle of soda pop given the
usual fairly porous rock they live in.

The amount of salt in the ocean...

Well, anyway, there is evidence for a young earth as
well, and I can't accept unreasonable assumption for
one dating method above all others. Especially not
since they often severly disagree with each other.

>As someone whom I wish I could give credit to pointed out in another
>talk.origins thread, the star that exploded in Supernova 1987A was
>about 170,000 light-years away, which means that its light took
>170,000 years to reach us. We know the distance of this star by
>geometry.
>
>This implies that either the universe is at least 170,000 years old or
>that God created the light from that exploding star on its way to the
>earth even though that star had never existed (the lying God
>scenario). I prefer the first (although the universe is much older).

Yes, in order to show us the universe He created, God could have
either made us live several billion years or create the universe
in a way that would let us see it immediately, with neato things
like Nova's and things to make us say, 'Wow!'

>>The whole of the fossil record 'is' world-wide evidence for a global
>>catastrophe.
>
>>Animal dies. Animal is eaten, remains decay. No fossil.
>
>>Plant dies, plant is eaten, remains decay. No fossil.
>

>>Okay. Catastrophe. Animal buried. Animal preserved as minerals replace
>>the poor critter. Fossil.
>
>>Fossilization doesn't occur without a catastrophe, either local or global in
>>nature.
>
>But you don't need a *global* catastrophe for fossilization (like the
>Flood) - you only need a smaller, local catatrophe. A rockslide could
>bury an animal, preventing it from being eaten and allowing its
>fossilization. An animal stuck in a tar pit (La Brea, for example),
>wouldn't be eaten, and would have time to fossilize.

Sure, but you were talking about global evidence. I'm saying the
rock strata we see worldwide is very good evidence for a global
catastrophe. Geologic layers, strata completely out of sequence,
total chaos on a huge scale.

A local catastrophe just isn't reasonable to explain every fossil
and how we find them, but a global catastrophe does. In fact there
is a global meteor catastrophe commonly accepted as fact.

>
>These sorts of things happen all the time (even to people). They don't
>always lead to fossilization, but often enough they do.

A local catastrophe doesn't affect stratum enough to fold huge
chunks like a deck of playing cards, shuffling them almost
willy nilly, though.

Remember, neither of us are talking proof, only evidence.

I'm saying creation and a global catastrophe better fits the
creationistic model. That be all.

Burt

[Brett J. Vickers]

So what are you waiting for?

By the way, you might want to take a look at the FAQ on thermodynamics
and evolution at http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/thermo.html first.
I think Rob Sincero also wrote a nice debunking of the creationist
thermodynamics argument, which can be found through the talk.origins
archive's "Other Links" page.

[Tim Thompson]

In article <4ne6uv$c...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, bu...@primenet.com writes:

> What I said then still holds. Evolution is not 'science' in the
> pure sense of science. If something is held to the litmus test
> of science, it must be be observable and experimentally
> repeatable.

[ ... ]

> Evolution or Creation are 'history'. They either happened in
> the past or they did not. They are not therefore observable
> until we invent a time machine, and no one can recreate a
> planet to repeat it, yet. History is not science. Science
> cannot by definition deal with history.
>
> As to Archeology, etc., that is a gathering of information
> in a scientific manner. But the deductions derived from
> said gathered are not 'science'. They may be true, but
> science has little to do with 'truth'.

I am prepared to reject the sum of these paragraphs as a valid

description of what constitutes science. First, experimental
"repeatability", in this literal sense, is not a necessary aspect
of science. Second, the study of processes that cannot be observed
directly, which the second paragraph rejects, are in fact science
and the rejection indicated is not valid. Finally, in the third
paragraph the deductions derived most certainly are science,
and may be the most important aspect of the scientific enterprise.

I would say that Mr. Burt has an inadequate understanding of

what constitutes science, and is therefore likely to come to the
wrong conclusions concerning whether or not evolution is science.

[Colin Mahoney paraphrasing Burt ... ]

>> 2) Darwin 'recanted' on the theory of evolution by natural selection
>> before hid death.

[Burt ... ]

> That is correct. I did say that.

Then you were mistaken, as Darwin did not do that.

[Mahoney again ... ]

>> 4) Thermodynamics shows evolution to be impossible.

[Burt ... ]

> It is true that my understanding of thermodynamics leads me
> to believe evolution is less reasonable than creation. If
> creation were not reasonable, I would still not believe in
> evolution until my understanding of thermodynamics
> changed.

The argument that evolution in some way violates the 2nd law

of thermodynamics has been advanced numerous times in talk.origins,
and has always failed. As far as I am concerned, there is no
reason to believe that evolution violates any physical or
thermodynamic law. If you can in fact show a valid reason for
this, it will be a first.

--

[Dwight Ritums]

In article <4nh5ku$h...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> bu...@primenet.com writes:

>NOW, lets make the false assumption that evolution makes, ie.,
>uniformitarianism.

>We take Adam's son and watch. Ah, about 30 years into growth
>he is at the same apparent stage as his father. NOW, how old
>was Adam? Thirty?

>No, creationism doesn't accuse God of lying, it accuses evolution
>of assumption.

Modern evolutionary theory does not make the assumption of uniformitarianism.

>Fossil evidence should contain a MUCH wider variation of
>species. We need, lets see... a chicliz (lizard before it
>became a chicken?), and basically an endless variety of
>mutations which were neither harmful or benificial, that
>'just were'.

>But that is when I view evolution from a perspective of
>what SHOULD appear. It definitely isn't what appears,
>and is one of the reasons I see it as an unreasonable
>theory compared to creation.

There would only be a continuous variation of species if you made the
assumption that a global catastrophe occured on a periodic basis to guarantee
the fossilization of all species. By definition, fossilization is an
extremely rare geologic event. Evolutionary theory makes no geologic
predictions, much less requiring a representative of every single species in
history to become fossilized. When you say that evolution requuires this, you
are making a straw-man argument.

>Christ spoke in parables, that 'hearing they may hear and not understand'.

>According to christian theology, God tests men in many ways.

>He gives them a way to 'choose'. Now, if everything only pointed
>easily to God, how would man have a 'choice'. There would be
>only one simple answer. God did that with angels and look where
>a third of them ended up.

>To man, born with the sin nature, God offers a lesson in
>reversal. His aim is to demonstrate to every creation
>everywhere that no matter what the environment, some will
>choose God and some will choose 'self'.

>Long story I'll skip, but indeed, God limited our intelligence
>enough that man cannot find the truth by himself. He needs
>God.

It seems that you are saying that God created a universe filled with evidence
against the idea of him having created it (in order to test us). Are you
saying that the evidence actually points to evolution, but one should have
faith to believe in creation?

>Creation was taught in private (all, for that matter) schools when the
>constitution was formed. When public schools arose, it was taught
>there as well.

>The idea that the seperation of church and state was meant to
>keep religion out of schools is demonstratably from history,
>complete nonsense. The idea was to keep Government out of
>churches.

>America was founded by religious men. The idea that NOW
>suddenly religion must be kept out of school is ludicrous.

Within the context of this group, the objection is not to religion being
taught in schools, but rather to religion being taught in science classes.

>Okay, young earth is a bad thing? Hmmm.... alright, lets
>use the same uniformitarian concepts evolution uses.

>The Earth's magnetic pole is decomposing at a rate
>indicating the earth must be 15,000 years old or less.

Here it is you who are making a uniformitarian assuption. Volcanic rock
formations from the pacific show that that the earth's magnetic field is not
only currently decaying, but it actually has a cycle of flipping N-S with a
period of about 10,000 to 20,000 years, and has flipped many times in the past.

>>As someone whom I wish I could give credit to pointed out in another
>>talk.origins thread, the star that exploded in Supernova 1987A was
>>about 170,000 light-years away, which means that its light took
>>170,000 years to reach us. We know the distance of this star by
>>geometry.
>>
>>This implies that either the universe is at least 170,000 years old or
>>that God created the light from that exploding star on its way to the
>>earth even though that star had never existed (the lying God
>>scenario). I prefer the first (although the universe is much older).

>Yes, in order to show us the universe He created, God could have
>either made us live several billion years or create the universe
>in a way that would let us see it immediately, with neato things
>like Nova's and things to make us say, 'Wow!'

You are saying that the light from Supernova 1987A is evidence of an event
which never took place. I assume that you are aware of the recent impact of
Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 on Jupiter last year. Do you believe that that event
actually happened? It is illogical to arbitrarily reject evidence of the
first event and accept evidence for the second event. If any event we observe
is false, than nothing prevents every event we observe from being false.
In which case, there is no point in believing in anything, much less in God.
You are making the 'Omphalos' argument which was rejected by theologians and
scientists over 100 years ago.

If the universe were actually 10,000 years old, God could have easily caused a
nova to occur 1000 light-years away.

Dwight L. Ritums Space Vacuum Epitaxy Center
DRi...@uh.edu University of Houston

[John Hendry]

bu...@primenet.com wrote:
: In <3199adcb...@snews.zippo.com>, cmah...@super.zippo.com (Colin Mahoney) writes:

<snip>

: >1) Burt's use of 'dictionary' definitions of 'science', 'theory' and

: >'fact' to show that evolution is 'not scientific' was naive and
: >futile. Burt seems to have admitted here that his definitions were
: >informal, but doesn't seem to have provided any other evidence for the
: >'unscientific' nature of evolution theory.

: Actually, Colin, it was your misunderstanding of what I said that makes
: you describe this scenario so.

: What I said then still holds. Evolution is not 'science' in the
: pure sense of science. If something is held to the litmus test
: of science, it must be be observable and experimentally
: repeatable.

Science does not require direct observation. The top quark was
not observed directly, nor even indirectly. What was observed was
evidence that demonstrated that the top quark had been created.
The evidence observed was not a top quark, but instead was the
energy release which was predicted to occur in conjunction with
the presence of a top quark. (Someone else could explain this better.)

Sort of like how skidmarks on a road are evidence that someone
had to brake at high speed. You don't observe the vehicle
breaking at high speed, but you can see evidence that it happened.
You know that rubber tires, under certain conditions, should leave
skidmarks.

: I'm sure you will remember those were my exact words, and

: now I shall defend them. Please be careful not to glibly
: answer the next set of reasoning out of context. The
: tendancy in the past of your replies was to skim what I
: said and answer in a manner demonstrating a clear lack
: of actually following what I said, and a definitely
: innapropriate unreasonable demeanor.

You may defend them, but you are defending an incorrect premise.

: Likewise, I am aware that what I am repeating has already

: been further defined already in my other posts explaining
: the specifics of the context I set in the Delphi forum.

: It may be explained simply that I was moving from
: pseudo-science to real science in the conversation.

: In other words, since you and others jumped immediately
: on my as 'stupid' for not believing evolution was a
: 'scientific fact', I needed to explain that science has
: little to do with truth. It is a method. Science is
: knowledge arrived at via a defined means. So in
: arguing against people who trusted in pseudo-science,
: I took 'science' out of the argument by saying that
: neither creation nor evolution are 'science'.

: Evolution or Creation are 'history'. They either happened in
: the past or they did not. They are not therefore observable
: until we invent a time machine, and no one can recreate a
: planet to repeat it, yet. History is not science. Science
: cannot by definition deal with history.

Wrong. Evolution has been observed. Speciation has been
observed. Evolution is an ongoing process. You have been
shown evidence for this, and have not been able to adequately
refute the evidence.

Evolution does not deal with the creation of planets, either.
Nor does it address the issue of how life first started
(abiogenesis).

: As to Archeology, etc., that is a gathering of information

: in a scientific manner. But the deductions derived from
: said gathered are not 'science'. They may be true, but
: science has little to do with 'truth'.

Evolution is not archaeology. Evolution is a continuing process.
Evolution makes predictions which are supported by observations
in numerous fields.

: To repeat, whether or not something is 'scientific' has little to

: do with whether or not something is true. Unscientific
: things may be true, and scientific things may end up
: being false.

: The main thing I wanted to do was get rid of the silly idea
: that science could speak of truth or history, with
: authority.

Since science has a tendency towards auto-correction, there's
more authority in it than in, say, religion.

: That said, the next point should be obvious. The arguable

: point becomes 'Which model is most reasonable', given the
: scientifically gathered evidence that we have', evolution or
: Creation. I vote for creation.

: Then and ONLY then do we consider testing whether or
: not the various theorized particulars of evolution can
: happen CURRENTLY.

: Beneficial mutations, for instance, are a necessity of
: evolution.

And they happen. Amazing, that.

: There are many others, over which you are welcome to
: argue.

: >
: >2) Burt accepts other forms of historical science (paleontology,
: >archeology etc) as being scientific, and ridiculed me for suggesting
: >that, if 'scientific' implies being repeatable, they are in the same
: >boat as evolution. He hasn't provided a logical, or indeed any,
: >explanation of how they differ.

: See the above explanation. I merely defined a narrow view in
: contrast to a pseudo-science concept. (perhaps I made a
: bad assumption that men would not call other men stupid
: merely because of a difference in interpreting data)

: >
: >3) Beneficial mutations had been seen in the lab. Examples were given
: >in the delphi group, and more have been given here. Burt has admitted
: >that these require 'further thought', but has yet to make any adequate
: >response.

: No such examples were given in the Delphi group. Flames and
: severe generalizations were the only thing given in the
: Delphi group.

Examples such as the evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria
were given. You refuted the example with the nonsense claim that
'the bacteria were always resistant', among others.

: Further re-writting of history will cause the post to be rejected, so

: please refrain. Stick to facts and logic and everyone will
: be on the same ground. This post to a delphi member is answered
: out of order as a courtesy and breaks rules in doing so. No more
: from my side of the other will be accepted according to the
: rules of this thread.

"Re-writting of history"? Burt, you just claimed that no examples
of beneficial mutation were given to you. This is not true, as
anyone with access to DejaNews can tell you.

You also came onto talk.origins saying you'd only respond to
comp.lang.pascal.delphi.misc readers. Now you won't respond to
them. Interesting.

<snip>

: >2) Darwin 'recanted' on the theory of evolution by natural selection
: >before hid death.

: That is correct. I did say that.

But it's not true. Darwin did no such thing. The recanting story
was invented by creationists, and was refuted by Darwin's daughter,
who was there in Darwin's last days.

: >3) He is able to falsify evolutionary explanations for the descent of

: >modern man, and in such a way as "no one can speak against", and
: >"using information gathered from men who support evolution", at the
: >same time as showing them to be "erroneous to the point of humor".

: You might want to remember the phrase, " A text without a context
: is a pretext".

: What I ACTUALLY said in the correct CONTEXT, was perfectly
: true. I Referred to an existing 'evolutionary chart' which
: depicts the evolution of man.

: Your error in thinking again demonstrated a lack of sincere
: consideration of what I said. It would only take a moment
: for someone to realize that (if they read what I actually
: wrote).

: I will be glad to upload the chart. And as I said, it was
: proven false by men who support evolution. You see, hypothesies
: change. The chart was hypothesized as a possible evolution
: of man, but every part of it has since been falsified.

Gee, funny that that's what you'd expect of science, eh?
You'd like to believe that this somehow weakens evolution,
but it does not.

: Maybe now you start to realize that everything i've said

: was perfectly true. When being flamed it is very easy to
: speak with perfect truth and make the flamers imagine
: worse and worse things for the lack of putting any
: thought into it. While you were flaming, I took the
: only non-silent responce. I goaded you on further.

Everything you said was not perfectly true. Darwin did
not recant. Bacteria have not always been able to resist
antibiotics.

: >4) Thermodynamics shows evolution to be impossible.

: It is true that my understanding of thermodynamics leads me
: to believe evolution is less reasonable than creation. If
: creation were not reasonable, I would still not believe in
: evolution until my understanding of thermodynamics
: changed.

Your understanding of thermodynamics is flawed.

: >5) He has a falsifiable model of creation.

: Depends on what you mean by falsifiable. If the weight of
: the evidence determines it, absolutely yes. If pure science
: is invoked, not yet (unless you currently have a time
: machine).

: >
: >6) He has logical reasons for preferring a creationist over an
: >evolutionary model of life.

: That is very true.

: >
: >Burt has raised the question of the falsifiability of evolution theory
: >- somewhat surprisingly, as he also claims to be able to falsify
: >scientific explanations of the evolution of modern humans. The point
: >is otherwise reasonable, though. I can think of the following ways in
: >which the current understanding of neo-Darwinism could be falsified:
: >
: >The finding of anatomically modern human fossils in rocks over a
: >million or so years old would certainly throw into question current
: >explanations of human evolution. Maybe it is evidence of this sort
: >that Burt has in mind for showing such explanations to be laughably
: >misguided. If so, he would save us all a lot of time by just producing
: >the evidence.

: Unfortunately that has already been done, depending upon which
: method of age determination you want to follow. And this is

It's been done if the method of age determination you want to
follow is the "bad data" method.

<snip>

: I'll make up a generic one or two liner macro for rejected posts.

May I suggest

"Ignored"
or maybe
"dealt with in an earlier post"

Those seem to be pretty popular around here.

- Jon

[Michael Grice]

bu...@primenet.com wrote:

>In <3199adcb...@snews.zippo.com>, cmah...@super.zippo.com (Colin Mahoney) writes:

[discussion of debate on Delphi deleted]

>>1) Burt's use of 'dictionary' definitions of 'science', 'theory' and
>>'fact' to show that evolution is 'not scientific' was naive and
>>futile. Burt seems to have admitted here that his definitions were
>>informal, but doesn't seem to have provided any other evidence for the
>>'unscientific' nature of evolution theory.

>Actually, Colin, it was your misunderstanding of what I said that makes
>you describe this scenario so.

>What I said then still holds. Evolution is not 'science' in the
>pure sense of science. If something is held to the litmus test
>of science, it must be be observable and experimentally
>repeatable.

The problem with your definition is that you'd also have to throw out
most of:

Astronomy
Geology
Archeology
Meteorology
(and others)

You can't create a star in the lab (or a tornado, or an earthquake, or
an infinite number of other phenomena). You can, however, observe it
in different stages of development to test your theories. Same with a
tornado.

In many cases, you can test your predictions by what the phenomena has
left behind in its wake. This is what we do with evolution.

You'd also have to throw out forensic science, as well. You can
discover a great deal about a crime by the evidence left behind at the
scene: how the victim was murdered, what kind of weapon was used,
whether or not the victim tried to defend him or herself, and much
more. You can use fingerprints, hair fibers, carpet fibers and all
kinds of other traces the murderer might have left behind in order to
link the murderer to the scene.

But you can look for traces that they've left behind. Evolution, if
it had occurred, would have left behind quite a bit of evidence - and
this *is* what we find.

>As to Archeology, etc., that is a gathering of information
>in a scientific manner. But the deductions derived from
>said gathered are not 'science'. They may be true, but
>science has little to do with 'truth'.

I'm not sure I understand your objection to archeology as science.
Could evolution be "true" but not science?

>To repeat, whether or not something is 'scientific' has little to
>do with whether or not something is true. Unscientific
>things may be true, and scientific things may end up
>being false.

Science is more useful in disproving things than in proving them to be
true. Science is always provisional, always ready to be proven wrong.

>The main thing I wanted to do was get rid of the silly idea
>that science could speak of truth or history, with
>authority.

>That said, the next point should be obvious. The arguable
>point becomes 'Which model is most reasonable', given the
>scientifically gathered evidence that we have', evolution or
>Creation. I vote for creation.

>Then and ONLY then do we consider testing whether or
>not the various theorized particulars of evolution can
>happen CURRENTLY.

>Beneficial mutations, for instance, are a necessity of
>evolution.

Yes, but remember that not all mutations have to be beneficial.
Organisms with the harmful mutations tend to die without offspring.

In the last century, organisms have developed defenses against
man-made pesticides and drugs (such as warfarin-resistant rats and
strains of tuberculosis resistant to all but a tiny few antibiotics
and similar drugs). These certainly qualify as beneficial mutations.

>There are many others, over which you are welcome to
>argue.

[deletion of Burt's argument with Colin]

>>2) Darwin 'recanted' on the theory of evolution by natural selection
>>before hid death.

>That is correct. I did say that.

Please note that (as discussed in a different thread) it doesn't
matter if he did. The idea is the important thing here, not the
author.

Also, I believe you're wrong.

>>3) He is able to falsify evolutionary explanations for the descent of
>>modern man, and in such a way as "no one can speak against", and
>>"using information gathered from men who support evolution", at the
>>same time as showing them to be "erroneous to the point of humor".

>You might want to remember the phrase, " A text without a context
>is a pretext".

>What I ACTUALLY said in the correct CONTEXT, was perfectly
>true. I Referred to an existing 'evolutionary chart' which
>depicts the evolution of man.

>Your error in thinking again demonstrated a lack of sincere
>consideration of what I said. It would only take a moment
>for someone to realize that (if they read what I actually
>wrote).

>I will be glad to upload the chart. And as I said, it was
>proven false by men who support evolution. You see, hypothesies
>change. The chart was hypothesized as a possible evolution
>of man, but every part of it has since been falsified.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. You may want to give
references.

>Maybe now you start to realize that everything i've said
>was perfectly true. When being flamed it is very easy to
>speak with perfect truth and make the flamers imagine
>worse and worse things for the lack of putting any
>thought into it. While you were flaming, I took the
>only non-silent responce. I goaded you on further.

>>4) Thermodynamics shows evolution to be impossible.

>It is true that my understanding of thermodynamics leads me
>to believe evolution is less reasonable than creation. If
>creation were not reasonable, I would still not believe in
>evolution until my understanding of thermodynamics
>changed.

Thermodynamics does nothing to disprove evolution, although God would
have had to violate the rules He set into motion to create the Earth.

Creationists tend to say that, because the entropy in a closed system
must always increase, the increase in order implied by evolution must
be impossible. The problem is that the Earth is not a closed system:
the sun has been pumping energy into the Earth as long as it's been
around (in both evolution and creation).

No one has ever given any specific mechanisms of evolution prohibited
by any of the laws of thermodynamics. This is just a bad argument.

>That is very true.

Andrew MacRae (assuming that I have the right person and that I've
spelled his name correctly) has had posts recently on talk.origins
discussing this topic much more clearly than I could hope to.

Let me point out that dating fossils does have its limitations.
Scientists, however, are aware of these limitations, and work around
them as carefully as they can.

>>The finding of such fossils in much older rocks, say over 500 million
>>years old, would certainly falsify our current understanding of
>>evolution.

>Why? Perhaps in the formation of the planet, but the age of rock
>has little to do with evolution itself except that our only 'record'
>for the history of life on the planet is in rock. Now if you were
>to say younger, I'd agree, but then we'd argue the problem of
>the theory of evolution (uniformitarianism) versus the problem of
>creation (apparent age).

Which doesn't address the problem of the "lying God." Why would God's
creation give the appearance of being much older than it actually is?
Theologically, this doesn't work for me.

[more deletions; I'm trying to address your critiques of evolution -
and only those]

Michael Grice

[Christopher C. Wood]

In article <4nh5ku$h...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, bu...@primenet.com writes:

Burt regurgitates a fetid load of BS from creationist tracts:

[ Creating the earth with the perfect appearance of age is not
deception ]

|> In <4ncs53$4...@grandcanyon.binc.net>, gib...@mailbag.com (Michael
|> Grice) writes:

|> >Natural selection eliminates the damaging mutations - the organism
|> >dies without reproducing.

|> Negatory big ben! (ever a "cb'er"? me neither)

Are you asserting that damaging mutations do not lead to organisms
dying without reproducing?

|> Fossil evidence should contain a MUCH wider variation of
|> species. We need, lets see... a chicliz (lizard before it
|> became a chicken?),

A frequent creationist assertion that is refuted in the Transitional
Fossils FAQ.

[ trimmed ]

|> Creation says, definite kinds, (species, if you will, though
|> at Creation I'm not sure God checked up on the old Kingdom,
|> Phyllum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species nomenclature).

Creationism says new species will not arise. New species have
arisen. Creationism is refuted. qed.

|> Fossil records should show a specific number of 'kinds' of
|> creatures.

Of which "kind" is Archeopteryx? Why?

[big snip]

|> The idea that the seperation of church and state was meant to keep
|> religion out of schools is demonstratably from history, complete
|> nonsense. The idea was to keep Government out of churches.

And churches out of government.

|> America was founded by religious men.

Many of whom (e.g. Jefferson, Washington, Franklin) explicitly
rejected Christianity.

|> The idea that NOW suddenly religion must be kept out of school is
|> ludicrous.

Fine. As long as you don't mind your kids being taught my religion.

|> Okay, done. Now everyone hates me and I can live with that.

[ trimmed ]

|> >Read the FAQ. The evidence for the young earth position is (in my
|> >opinion) particularly poor.

|> Really? Based on what?

Evidence and reasoning, mostly.

|> Radioactive dating? Oh my, the assumptions made there are
|> frightening in my book of logic. How old is that rock? umm...
|> lessee, it's half lead, half uranium.

Can you tell us the assumptions behind isochron dating techniques? Or
do you know nothing about radiometric dating other than "it
contradicts my feelings, so it must be wrong"?

|> Let's avoid science and go to pure reason, unadulterated logic and
|> nothing else.

Pure reason starts with postulates. Nature and/or God have failed to
provide us with postulates about reality.

|> The ONLY thing I can say about the age of that rock is that IF,
|> (big if, did you see?) that rock was ever 100% uranium, the oldest
|> if could be (assuming half-life radioactive theory is correct), is,
|> well, the half life of uranium!

...

|> For all I know that rock was 2 seconds old, freshly created. Or
|> it could have been 3/4 uranium and 1/4 lead when it started
|> out, or who know what.

Sure enough, you come to the conclusion that with pure reason alone,
one is incapable of learning anything about the real world.

|> Okay, young earth is a bad thing? Hmmm.... alright, lets
|> use the same uniformitarian concepts evolution uses.

|> The Earth's magnetic pole is decomposing at a rate
|> indicating the earth must be 15,000 years old or less.

This is a Creationist lie, and you didn't even copy it correctly. The
Earth's magnetic field is _not_ decomposing; it has been oscillating.

|> According to geologists who study crude oil formations,
|> 'gushers' shouldn't happen since anything beyond 10,000
|> years would lead to a flat bottle of soda pop given the
|> usual fairly porous rock they live in.

Another Creationist lie. Oil only collects underground when there is
an impervious cap keeping it in place.

|> The amount of salt in the ocean...

Another Creationist lie. This analysis assumes that there is no way
for salt (or the other dissolved minerals) to leave the ocean.

|> Well, anyway, there is evidence for a young earth as
|> well,

You haven't presented any yet.

|> and I can't accept unreasonable assumption for one dating method
|> above all others.

Fine. Unfortunately, there are many totally independent dating
techniques that all lead to a consistent ages for rocks, once the
bogus creationist measures are excluded.

|> Especially not since they often severly disagree with each other.

You could cite the few examples (anomolous C-14 dates for mollusks,
incorrect dates from Xenoliths in Hawiian Basaults) that the
creationists usually trot out. Problem is, each of these examples
violates known conditions required for accurate dates, and these
violations are detected before the experiment gets that far.

|> >As someone whom I wish I could give credit to pointed out in another
|> >talk.origins thread, the star that exploded in Supernova 1987A was
|> >about 170,000 light-years away, which means that its light took
|> >170,000 years to reach us. We know the distance of this star by
|> >geometry.

|> >This implies that either the universe is at least 170,000 years old or
|> >that God created the light from that exploding star on its way to the
|> >earth even though that star had never existed (the lying God
|> >scenario). I prefer the first (although the universe is much older).

|> Yes, in order to show us the universe He created, God could have
|> either made us live several billion years or create the universe in
|> a way that would let us see it immediately, with neato things like
|> Nova's and things to make us say, 'Wow!'

So your god is a god of deception?

[ trimmed ]

|> I'm saying the rock strata we see worldwide is very good evidence
|> for a global catastrophe.

Sorry, but this hypothesis was disproven by Creationist geologists
over two centuries ago. Catch up with the times.

Chris
--
Speaking only for myself, of course.
Chris Wood chr...@lexis-nexis.com ca...@CFAnet.com

[John Hendry]

bu...@primenet.com wrote:

: In <4ncs53$4...@grandcanyon.binc.net>, gib...@mailbag.com (Michael Grice) writes:
: >Emailed and posted.

: >God could easily have created everything out of nothing exactly 6000
: >years ago, and just made it *look* as if he'd done it over billions of
: >years through evolution.
: >
: >But this implies that God is, well, a liar.

: No, it is intrinsic to the concept of creation that the 'created'
: object has an apparent age.

<snip>

: No, creationism doesn't accuse God of lying, it accuses evolution
: of assumption.

No creationism doesn't 'accuse' God of lying, it supposes a God who
has lied to man.

: >Natural selection eliminates the damaging mutations - the organism
: >dies without reproducing.

: Negatory big ben! (ever a "cb'er"? me neither)

: Fossil evidence should contain a MUCH wider variation of
: species. We need, lets see... a chicliz (lizard before it
: became a chicken?), and basically an endless variety of
: mutations which were neither harmful or benificial, that
: 'just were'.

Bzzt. Whales with legs. Intemediate insects between wasps
and ants. Many more. Good enough?

: But that is when I view evolution from a perspective of

: what SHOULD appear. It definitely isn't what appears,
: and is one of the reasons I see it as an unreasonable
: theory compared to creation.

See the fossil whales with legs. See the half-ant-half-wasp
fossils. You call evolution unreasonable without knowing
what really does appear.

: Creation says, definite kinds, (species, if you will, though

: at Creation I'm not sure God checked up on the old Kingdom,
: Phyllum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species nomenclature).

: Fossil records should show a specific number of 'kinds' of
: creatures. Neither would it be odd to see a very orderly
: array of creatures, presumably built from the same building
: materials and concepts (see object oriented programming for
: a good idea on how I view Creation).

Where do legged whales fit? Where do dinosaurs fit?

: >
: >Some mutations can be both damaging and beneficial. One set of genes

: >can confer both sickle cell anemia *and* protection against malaria.
: >

: Now THAT is a superb point. In a complex system, who defines
: beneficial! Toughy. I'll have to think on that one.

Who defines beneficial? Natural selection. Beneficial mutations aid
survival - for instance, a resistance to malaria.

<snip>

: >No, it may be unreasonable, but from the weight of the evidence

: >visible *in God's creation* He used evolution. To assume otherwise,
: >I'd have to assume God left the evidence to lead me astray.

: Ah! Now we move into the esoteric study of theology and philosophy!
: Much more my area of expertise, at least in the sense that I have a
: degree in theology, a life based in Electronics and Computers, and
: evolution is an interesting diversion in conversation (though a fine
: way to hone one's reasoning ability).

: Christ spoke in parables, that 'hearing they may hear and not understand'.

Hey, maybe Genesis is a parable?

: According to christian theology, God tests men in many ways.

: He gives them a way to 'choose'. Now, if everything only pointed
: easily to God, how would man have a 'choice'. There would be
: only one simple answer. God did that with angels and look where
: a third of them ended up.

: To man, born with the sin nature, God offers a lesson in
: reversal. His aim is to demonstrate to every creation
: everywhere that no matter what the environment, some will
: choose God and some will choose 'self'.

Gee, wouldn't it be one heck of a test if we really did evolve?
Shouldn't a christian evolutionist get more 'points'?

: Long story I'll skip, but indeed, God limited our intelligence

: enough that man cannot find the truth by himself. He needs
: God.

Assuming a simplistic creation limits the intelligence of god.

: >Also, much of the creation/evolution debate comes up in the context of

: >science class in public schools; creation "science" has been an excuse
: >to try to teach the Bible. Which is fine - in the privacy of your own
: >home or at church.

: Want to avoid politics... help!

: Creation was taught in private (all, for that matter) schools when the
: constitution was formed. When public schools arose, it was taught
: there as well.

: The idea that the seperation of church and state was meant to
: keep religion out of schools is demonstratably from history,
: complete nonsense. The idea was to keep Government out of
: churches.

: America was founded by religious men. The idea that NOW
: suddenly religion must be kept out of school is ludicrous.

Bzzt. America was founded during the Enlightenment, where
religion was not exactly 'fashionable', and reason was
far more respected. Voltaire and others of the time were highly
critical of organized religion. The founders may have been
spiritual, but they were certainly not religious fundamentalists.
This is a nice bit of revisionism spread by the religious
right.

Jefferson and others were deists, which according to webster is
a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion,
emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference
of the Creator with the laws of the universe. Certainly no mention
of christianity there.

Not quite what you had in mind, eh? Somehow I doubt the creators
were creationists, at the very least.

: >>I'll take the young earth approach.

: >
: >Read the FAQ. The evidence for the young earth position is (in my
: >opinion) particularly poor.
: >

: Really? Based on what?

: Radioactive dating? Oh my, the assumptions made there are
: frightening in my book of logic. How old is that rock? umm...
: lessee, it's half lead, half uranium.

You're knowledge of dating is exceedingly poor.

<snip>

: Okay, young earth is a bad thing? Hmmm.... alright, lets

: use the same uniformitarian concepts evolution uses.

: The Earth's magnetic pole is decomposing at a rate
: indicating the earth must be 15,000 years old or less.

No, it's not.

: According to geologists who study crude oil formations,

: 'gushers' shouldn't happen since anything beyond 10,000
: years would lead to a flat bottle of soda pop given the
: usual fairly porous rock they live in.

Where did you get this?

: The amount of salt in the ocean...

What about the amount of salt in the ocean...

: Well, anyway, there is evidence for a young earth as
: well, and I can't accept unreasonable assumption for
: one dating method above all others. Especially not
: since they often severly disagree with each other.

What evidence?

: >As someone whom I wish I could give credit to pointed out in another

: >talk.origins thread, the star that exploded in Supernova 1987A was
: >about 170,000 light-years away, which means that its light took
: >170,000 years to reach us. We know the distance of this star by
: >geometry.
: >
: >This implies that either the universe is at least 170,000 years old or
: >that God created the light from that exploding star on its way to the
: >earth even though that star had never existed (the lying God
: >scenario). I prefer the first (although the universe is much older).

: Yes, in order to show us the universe He created, God could have
: either made us live several billion years or create the universe
: in a way that would let us see it immediately, with neato things
: like Nova's and things to make us say, 'Wow!'

Or, perhaps he kicked it all off 12-18 billion years ago with the
big bang. He knows all, right? So he'd know that eventually, earth
would be created (along with other life-bearing worlds) and that
humans would evolve.

<snip>

: >
: >But you don't need a *global* catastrophe for fossilization (like the

: >Flood) - you only need a smaller, local catatrophe. A rockslide could
: >bury an animal, preventing it from being eaten and allowing its
: >fossilization. An animal stuck in a tar pit (La Brea, for example),
: >wouldn't be eaten, and would have time to fossilize.

: Sure, but you were talking about global evidence. I'm saying the
: rock strata we see worldwide is very good evidence for a global
: catastrophe. Geologic layers, strata completely out of sequence,
: total chaos on a huge scale.

No, really, it's not. Or do you suggest a really really really
slow catastrophe?

: A local catastrophe just isn't reasonable to explain every fossil

: and how we find them, but a global catastrophe does. In fact there
: is a global meteor catastrophe commonly accepted as fact.

That's one. We also know pretty well when it happened. Fossils
predating that event are plentiful.

: >
: >These sorts of things happen all the time (even to people). They don't

: >always lead to fossilization, but often enough they do.

: A local catastrophe doesn't affect stratum enough to fold huge
: chunks like a deck of playing cards, shuffling them almost
: willy nilly, though.

No, that's the result of continental drift over millions of years.
If that all happened at once, the earth would have been rendered
uninhabitable.

Burt, you should try reading some non-creationist materials for
a change.

: Remember, neither of us are talking proof, only evidence.

: I'm saying creation and a global catastrophe better fits the
: creationistic model. That be all.

Of course. The creationistic model doesn't allow for millions of
years for continental drift to raise the himalayas, among others.
It doesn't allow millions of years of fossil deposits. It ignores
transitional forms like legged whales.

But the evidence does not fit the creationistic model, creation,
or global catastrophe.

See Burt, you've got the process wrong. You've got your model,
and you're trying to figure out ways to reinterpret the evidence
to support the model. Fossils and geological features must be
caused by a catastrophe. (Never mind the vast time scales involved.)
Anything which doesn't fit is 'a test by God' or was created 'in
place'.

This isn't a valid approach. The model must change to fit the
evidence, without calling on nonverifyable supernatural forces
to explain away the rough spots. Otherwise, the creationist
model is no more valid than, say, the little green men model.

[Susan Brassfield]

In article <4nh5ku$h...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, bu...@primenet.com wrote:

> In <4ncs53$4...@grandcanyon.binc.net>, gib...@mailbag.com (Michael
Grice) writes:
> >Emailed and posted.
>
> >God could easily have created everything out of nothing exactly 6000
> >years ago, and just made it *look* as if he'd done it over billions of
> >years through evolution.
> >
> >But this implies that God is, well, a liar.
>
> No, it is intrinsic to the concept of creation that the 'created'
> object has an apparent age.

Burt, you say want only logical discussion, but "Last Tuesdayism" is not
assailable by either logic or facts. It stands pristinely alone. It leaves
geologists, paleontologists, geneticists, archaeologists, etc. chasing
wild geese, collecting false clues to our past left in place by a
trickster god who wants us to deny the evidence of the senses that he gave
us. How could you worship such a creature? You would have to totally
redefine the concept of love. I think what we have here is evidence of
why theologans discarded "Last Tuesdayism" moments after it was discarded.

[Bruce Salem]

Oh, Burt, I see you making sweeping, and mostly wrong,
overgeneralizations, all in the name of debate for its own sake.
There were some questions I put to you which you said that you
needed time to deal with, Here I see you spending time debating.
Your credibility with me is repidly declining. Do we have here
yet another case of a person with very little knowledge and all
too many opinions who is unable and unwilling to support his
assertions?

Now, I am curious, what intimate knowledge do you have
of science to consider yourself able to state in public what it
is and is not?

This caught my eye:

In article <4ngulp$7...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> bu...@primenet.com writes:
>Nope, science can't. That astronomer is viewing light, not a star.
>Everything observable is 'not the thing itself'.
>
>You can study that fossil scientifically, but you..

Sorry, pal, I don't buy this logic, any more than its implied
assertion that historical science, the issue of that unanswered thread,
does not exist. Go back and review tha reason spectroscopy is used in
anstronomy and the verification of what the absorption lines mean in
both earth-based and stellar spectra. To make a braodside you have
stepped on one of the most compelling lines of evidance that we can
know as much as we do about stars even when we cannot resolve them
in nearly all cases to extended objects. You tell me at length what
stellar spectra mean and I might consider your remarks as something
more than the idle banter that is all too common in this group. The
point is that the spectra have a solid earth-based foundation and that
the light from stars does tell us not only the surface temperature
of stars but that the matter in their asmospheres is well known to
us on earth because it is almost suredly the same matter we know.

What this is getting to, Burt, is that you would have to
refute the fundemental analogy-making mechanism in all of science
to make the matching of earth-based and stellar spectra a mere
coinsidence and not a fact that indicates that matter is the same
in the far-away objects and the earth. You may be prepared to
take the refutation as a deus ex machina, but you would not be
doing science. You might be doing religion and arguing for pseudoscience
based on religion, such as Creationism.

Do you have any scientific training?

>Sigh, my wife needs me. I will return and continue this but post it for
>now to keep things going.

Maybe your wife and family needs you more than we do, or want.

Bruce Salem

--
!! Just my opinions, maybe not those of my sponsor. !!

[Colin Mahoney]

As Burt has promised not to read any more of my posts, I offer the
following to other readers of this thread in my defence against Burt's
accusations of lying. The post is unfortunately a little long as I
have tried to avoid snipping to prevent more accusations of quoting
out of context.

On 15 May 1996 20:21:03 -0700, bu...@primenet.com wrote:

>In <3199adcb...@snews.zippo.com>, cmah...@super.zippo.com (Colin Mahoney) writes:
>>I was involved with the original discussion with Burt on the delphi
>>newsgroup, and would like to enlighten the folks on t.o a little as to
>>what was established, or at least pointed out, there.
>
>Note: Colin is not meeting the requirements of this thread, ie.,
>that only reason and facts are allowed, and that no flames
>(includining innuendo or any attacks on the person in any
>form) are allowed. But for the sake of this first reply to
>him I will go along with it. After all, Colin is the initial
>flamer, I believe. I made a comment about not believing
>in evolution, for which Colin insulted my intelligence.

Here is the offending post, in full:
On Sun, 07 Apr 1996 13:11:58 GMT, cmah...@readysoft.es (Colin
Mahoney) wrote:

>bu...@primenet.com wrote:
>[...]
>|>
>|> I never claimed to be humble, but I am. True humility is not thinking lowly of oneself,
>|> or highly. It is simply seeing yourself for what you are and moving on. If I say I am
>|> a great singer, I would be lying. If I said I was very intelligent I would be telling the
>|> truth. But so what? I am as all men are, simply as God made them. No one may brag
>|> about anything or they are a fool imagining themselves to have 'created' themselves.
>|> Ah, someone will now imagine to tell me something surely I must have missed, ie.,
>|> we are what we MAKE of the raw materials God (or evolution, if one is stupid enough
>|> to imagine the most complex systems in the Universe arose accidentally and without
>|> design or a designer... oh oh... sorry, digressing. I have a degree in theology too)
>
>I thought you said you were intelligent?
>
>|> gave us. To that I say nay, as ALL things come from God as well, including the
>|> environment that fosters our growth, and even time itself. But I'll quit since folks are
>|> getting mad at me, I can already feel it (smile).
>[...]

[signature deleted]

Who is calling who stupid?

As to the requirements for admission to this thread, they seem to be:

1) Burt will acknowledge posts from non-Delphi folks, but not discuss
the issues raised.
2) With people from the Delphi group, Burt also refuses to discuss the
issues (eg his 'understanding' of thermodynamics.)
3) Reason and facts are a necessary but insufficient condition for
acceptance in the discussion - as Burt has once more refused to
address the reason and facts in my posts.

Of course, these are changing all the time so I may be re-admitted.

>
>For the record therefore, everything I've said about flamers
>applies to Colin, and that being said I leave off on the
>subject. Beyond this post I will make no personal
>references, and neither will I respond to any post by
>Colin or anyone else except possibly to formally reject
>it as not fitting defined parameters.

Now Burt is refusing to respond to anyone...

[Burt's defence of a ridiculous definition of science snipped]

Burt would seem to deny that you *can* investigate history
scientifically. As far as I can see (and pointed out in the delphi
thread) the formation of testable hypothesis (as in evolution theory,
paleontology etc) is plainly science.

[...]

>>
>>3) Beneficial mutations had been seen in the lab. Examples were given
>>in the delphi group, and more have been given here. Burt has admitted
>>that these require 'further thought', but has yet to make any adequate
>>response.
>
>No such examples were given in the Delphi group. Flames and
>severe generalizations were the only thing given in the
>Delphi group.
>

One example. Dr Kevin Wooley posted the following to the Delphi group
on 16th April:

>Top of head stuff.
>
>1. There are several known mutations in the penicillinase gene in
>B.Licheniformis and related bacteria which confire the ability to
>denature penicillin varients (amoxycillin etc.) You can even induce the
>incidence of these by applying a mutagen to a culture and selecting - do
>it yourself evolution. VERY useful to the bug in a penicillin stressed
>environment.
>
>2. Sickle Cell Anemia is caused by a point mutation in haemoglobulin.
>Normally this is considered harmful, but in practise a single copy of
>the gene (you need two copies for lethality) confirs sufficient
>protection against maleria to produce a stable incidence in a maleria
>stressed environment.

Sound like a flame or severe generalisation? Readers can make their
own minds up; I personally suspect Burt's knowledge of recent history
is as lacking as his knowledge of ancient.

>Further re-writting of history will cause the post to be rejected, so
>please refrain. Stick to facts and logic and everyone will
>be on the same ground. This post to a delphi member is answered
>out of order as a courtesy and breaks rules in doing so. No more
>from my side of the other will be accepted according to the
>rules of this thread.
>

Burt (if you're reading), you're sinking into incoherence again. And
what was that about 're-writting' history?

>
>>It has to be said that Burt's tone has been altogether more
>>reasonable, and reasoned, in t.o, and it is to be hoped that he will
>>keep this up.
>
>You should check the difference in your own tone. You flamed me,
>several times, severely. You included no reasoning, just plain
>nastiness.

Nope. My only 'flame' to Burt was the above quoted post, and comments
on his reasoning, or lack of it. Surely fair game when sticking to
facts and logic?

[...]

>>1) People who believe evolution can explain life are "stupid" and
>>"fools". (The assertion which started this whole thing off.)
>
>Re-writting history is not good, and misquoting is nothing less
>than an outright lie.
>
>First of all, that is not what I said, and secondly, the context of
>what I DID say in a programing discussion was a lighthearted
>jibe at how easily men strongly disagree over things which are
>arguable.

See my above quoted post. I think Burt's words were, for once, quite
clear. The word 'fools' appeared in later posts.

>
>I understand that a man reads anothers words in the light of
>his own thinking. No doubt you sincerely believe all of the
>things you are describing here are true, but consider the
>idea that comming from another context you may have
>seriously misinterpreted my meaning.
>

Make up your own minds, folks.

>>2) Darwin 'recanted' on the theory of evolution by natural selection
>>before hid death.
>
>That is correct. I did say that.
>

Yes, but where's the evidence?

>>3) He is able to falsify evolutionary explanations for the descent of
>>modern man, and in such a way as "no one can speak against", and
>>"using information gathered from men who support evolution", at the
>>same time as showing them to be "erroneous to the point of humor".
>
>You might want to remember the phrase, " A text without a context
>is a pretext".
>
>What I ACTUALLY said in the correct CONTEXT, was perfectly
>true. I Referred to an existing 'evolutionary chart' which
>depicts the evolution of man.
>
>Your error in thinking again demonstrated a lack of sincere
>consideration of what I said. It would only take a moment
>for someone to realize that (if they read what I actually
>wrote).
>
>I will be glad to upload the chart. And as I said, it was
>proven false by men who support evolution. You see, hypothesies
>change. The chart was hypothesized as a possible evolution
>of man, but every part of it has since been falsified.
>

Burt wrote, on 11th of April, in one of his initial challenges:
>
>The terms are simple enough, we must stick to science and reason based
>on evidence gathered in a scientific manner. As an example, I will
>completely demolish the so called 'evolution of man' charts so popular
>these days. I will show how each one is completely fake or at best
>erroneous to the point of humor. I will do so in a way that no one
>can speak against, and using information gathered from men who support
>evolution.
>

Note the plural. Now, from this, I got the idea that Burt could refute
*all* charts currently in use showing the descent of man. Note also
the use of 'each one'. Now it appears there is only one such chart.
Wonder where he got it from - the Flintstones, maybe?

Note also that science was originally to be admitted to the debate.
This has now been replaced by logic.

>Maybe now you start to realize that everything i've said
>was perfectly true. When being flamed it is very easy to
>speak with perfect truth and make the flamers imagine
>worse and worse things for the lack of putting any
>thought into it. While you were flaming, I took the
>only non-silent responce. I goaded you on further.
>

Everything perfectly true? Well!

>
>>4) Thermodynamics shows evolution to be impossible.
>
>It is true that my understanding of thermodynamics leads me
>to believe evolution is less reasonable than creation. If
>creation were not reasonable, I would still not believe in
>evolution until my understanding of thermodynamics
>changed.

As has already been stated, Burt's understanding of thermodynamics
(among other things) is flawed.

>>5) He has a falsifiable model of creation.
>
>Depends on what you mean by falsifiable. If the weight of
>the evidence determines it, absolutely yes. If pure science
>is invoked, not yet (unless you currently have a time
>machine)

No, I mean, falsifiable.

>>
>>6) He has logical reasons for preferring a creationist over an
>>evolutionary model of life.
>
>That is very true.

Again, Burt is keeping such reasons to himself.

>>
>>Burt has raised the question of the falsifiability of evolution theory
>>- somewhat surprisingly, as he also claims to be able to falsify
>>scientific explanations of the evolution of modern humans. The point
>>is otherwise reasonable, though. I can think of the following ways in
>>which the current understanding of neo-Darwinism could be falsified:
>>
>>The finding of anatomically modern human fossils in rocks over a
>>million or so years old would certainly throw into question current
>>explanations of human evolution. Maybe it is evidence of this sort
>>that Burt has in mind for showing such explanations to be laughably
>>misguided. If so, he would save us all a lot of time by just producing
>>the evidence.
>
>Unfortunately that has already been done, depending upon which
>method of age determination you want to follow. And this is
>the problem with prejudice and interpreting data and theorizing,
>and why no matter what, men tend to believe what they want
>to believe rather than base everything of 'just data'. and
>ironically everyone claims to do just that, and I am one of
>them.

Men certainly believe what they want to believe.

>
>>The finding of such fossils in much older rocks, say over 500 million
>>years old, would certainly falsify our current understanding of
>>evolution.
>
>Why? Perhaps in the formation of the planet, but the age of rock
>has little to do with evolution itself except that our only 'record'
>for the history of life on the planet is in rock. Now if you were
>to say younger, I'd agree, but then we'd argue the problem of
>the theory of evolution (uniformitarianism) versus the problem of
>creation (apparent age).

Evolution states man evolved over the last three-five million years. A
500 million year old fossil hominid would seem to be a pretty good
falsification of such a claim.

>
>>
>>Finally, I have to admit to finding Burt's obsession with scoring
>>points off people from the delphi group somewhat childish, and I
>>suspect his preference for 'pure logic' is based more on his lack of
>>facts than anything else. However, I hope he can use the above points
>>to provide us with the often promised convincing reasons to show us
>>why we've all been fools for so long.
>
>Actually I'm the one who is surprised, mostly at your hypocrisy.
>While flaming and being nasty before, suddenly you present yourself
>as the harbinger of logic and reason itself.

Somebody has to do it. Burt certainly doesn't seem to be up to the job
- despite some of his own claims.

>For lack of a better explanation, I thank you for the compliment.
>Apparently against your flames and lack of willingness to argue
>with information and reason, my tactic was successful enough
>for you to imitate.

>And for everyone else here, forgive this one post, out of order as
>it is. From now on all posts in this thread will follow the rules
>laid out initially or it will be rejected to save everyone the pain
>of watching a personal feud being played out.

Which iteration of the rules might Burt be referring to here?

>I go back to the more reasoned acceptence of facts and argument,
>avoiding personal conflict or wordplay for the sake of itself.
>
>I'll make up a generic one or two liner macro for rejected posts.
>The same post will naturally be completely accepted once all
>personal attacks have been removed by the writer (has to be the
>writer, I'm hardly able to answer the mail I get now, let alone
>re-write things for people! (smile) )
>

I hope Burt's macro caught this one.

[Eric DeFonso]

In article <4ngulp$7...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, <bu...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
>But 'scientific fact'? Hardly. The science of that dna gave
>good numbers INDICATING OJ, but then, where did the blood
>come from, and golly, if evolution is true, couldn't they have
>been killed by an OJ dna lookalike? I mean the chances are
>bad, but they are for evolution too... (oh my, please everyone,
>I'm just having fun here. This is a non delphinian and I'm
>responding as though this were a normal thread).

Just plain weird.

--
++++ Eric D ++++
++++ UC Davis ++++

[Mark Isaak]

In article <4nh5ku$h...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> bu...@primenet.com writes:

>In <4ncs53$4...@grandcanyon.binc.net>, gib...@mailbag.com (Michael Grice) writes:
>>God could easily have created everything out of nothing exactly 6000
>>years ago, and just made it *look* as if he'd done it over billions of
>>years through evolution.
>>
>>But this implies that God is, well, a liar.
>
>No, it is intrinsic to the concept of creation that the 'created'
>object has an apparent age.

I can create objects which don't have an apparent age older than the object;
why did God have to falsify the record?

>NOW, lets make the false assumption that evolution makes, ie.,
>uniformitarianism.

Apparently it is you, not evolution, which makes that assumption. Your
magnetic field and salt concetration arguments later in your post both fail
because you make uniformitarian assumptions that are known false.

>Fossil evidence should contain a MUCH wider variation of
>species. We need, lets see... a chicliz (lizard before it
>became a chicken?), and basically an endless variety of
>mutations which were neither harmful or benificial, that
>'just were'.

The fossil record is consistent with the theory of evolution. (Probably
what you accept as the theory of evolution is really the Creationist
straw-man version of it, and you would be right to discard it and never
consider it again.) The "lizard before it became a chicken" is called
Archaeopteryx. As for the wide variation of species, go to a good library
and take some time to flip through the Treatise on Invertebrate
Paleontology. It shouldn't take you more than a month.

But what about Creation? The fossil record shows the appearance of new
organisms scattered out over a few billion years, and whenever a new
organism appears, there is a similar appearing organism around already.
Creation predicts that all organisms should appear suddenly and should show
up at all levels of the fossil record. Creation doesn't match reality.

>He gives them a way to 'choose'. Now, if everything only pointed
>easily to God, how would man have a 'choice'.

Ask Satan. He believed in God and still had a choice.

>To man, born with the sin nature, God offers a lesson in
>reversal. His aim is to demonstrate to every creation
>everywhere that no matter what the environment, some will
>choose God and some will choose 'self'.

How is that relevant to the subject of origins?

>Creation was taught in private (all, for that matter) schools when the
>constitution was formed. When public schools arose, it was taught
>there as well.

Contrary to the U.S. Constitution, yes.

And there is another argument against teaching Creationism in schools.
Doing so hurts people. It causes suffering. When you teach one religion in
school, you inflict pain on members of other religions in the classrooms.
(And before someone misrepresents evolution as a religion, it is not; it is
a description of objective reality. Evolution has as much to do with
religion as metallurgy does.)

>The idea that the seperation of church and state was meant to
>keep religion out of schools is demonstratably from history,
>complete nonsense. The idea was to keep Government out of
>churches.

And teaching Creationism in schools would put the government back into
churches, unless you taught *all* the varieties of creationism, from
Iriquois earth-diver versions to Hindu cyclic universe to Australian
Dreamtime. Creationism is contrary even to most Christian religions.

>America was founded by religious men. The idea that NOW
>suddenly religion must be kept out of school is ludicrous.

Putting Creationism into schools *would* keep out the religion of everybody
who doesn't believe in Creationism.

>Okay, done. Now everyone hates me and I can live with that.
>
>For the record, I will not argue the subject. It doesn't belong
>in this group, and I don't want to repeat an error in
>group topics which may be hazardous to my health.

On the contrary, this is the perfect group for the subject of Creationism in
schools.
--
Mark Isaak "Where things appear most worthy of our liking, we
is...@aurora.com should lay them bare ... and strip them of all the
words by which they were exalted. For outward show is
a wonderful perverter of reason." - Marcus Aurelius

[Michael Grice]

Posted and emailed.

bu...@primenet.com wrote:

>In <4ncs53$4...@grandcanyon.binc.net>, gib...@mailbag.com (Michael Grice) writes:
>>Emailed and posted.

>>God could easily have created everything out of nothing exactly 6000
>>years ago, and just made it *look* as if he'd done it over billions of
>>years through evolution.
>>
>>But this implies that God is, well, a liar.

>No, it is intrinsic to the concept of creation that the 'created'
>object has an apparent age.

>It isn't that God would be lying, it would be that men would
>be incredibly dense, so to speak.

>Adam created 2 seconds ago. How old is he? 2 seconds.

>NOW, lets make the false assumption that evolution makes, ie.,
>uniformitarianism.

>We take Adam's son and watch. Ah, about 30 years into growth
>he is at the same apparent stage as his father. NOW, how old
>was Adam? Thirty?

>No, creationism doesn't accuse God of lying, it accuses evolution
>of assumption.

But why do fossils have such a wide range of apparent ages? And why
do these apparent ages coincide so well with the predictions that
evolution would make?

Furthermore, why aren't these apparent ages mixed up? You never see a
mastodon fossil with an apparent age of a billion years, and the vast
majority of mastodon fossils are found to be ten million years old or
less (somebody correct me if I'm off by a few million years).

Look, if God had created the Earth six million years ago, you might
expect some of your apparent ages. But I would expect them to both
have only a short range of possible values and to be much more random.
The fossil record is just too well ordered for that.

So we're still left with the "lying God" scenario (unless you concede
God created the world through evolution).

>>Natural selection eliminates the damaging mutations - the organism
>>dies without reproducing.

>Negatory big ben! (ever a "cb'er"? me neither)

Hey, the web could be the cb of the nineties.

>Fossil evidence should contain a MUCH wider variation of
>species. We need, lets see... a chicliz (lizard before it
>became a chicken?), and basically an endless variety of
>mutations which were neither harmful or benificial, that
>'just were'.

The thing is, this isn't what evolution requires. Evolution requires
gradual changes from one species to the next. If you make a lot of
gradual changes, eventually you end up with a big change (reptile to
brid, for example).

[A "chicliz" is out of the question, largely because a chicken evolved
from other birds, and because birds evolved from dinosaurs.]

What kind of small steps would it take for a bird to evolve from a
dinosaur? A species of small dinosaurs might develop feathers, for
example, which help the small dinosaurs maintain a constant
temperature. Later, they might develop wings (which could help the
dinosaurs run, I believe, before they actually flew)(why would God
create flightless birds, anyway?) and then flight.

At this point you have a feathered, flying dinosaur: Archaeopteryx.
Please note that archaeopteryx has many more characteristics of
dinosaurs than it does birds. I'd suggest reading Chris Nedin's
archaeopteryx FAQ at:

http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/archaeopteryx-info.html

My eyes are glazing over, so I'm going to direct you to Kathleen
Hunt's transitional fossil FAQ (where you'll find plenty of
transitional fossils) at:

http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/faq-transitional.html

You may even want to check out all the evolution FAQs at:

http://rumba.ics.uci.edu:8080/origins/faqs-evolution.html

>But that is when I view evolution from a perspective of
>what SHOULD appear. It definitely isn't what appears,
>and is one of the reasons I see it as an unreasonable
>theory compared to creation.

>Creation says, definite kinds, (species, if you will, though
>at Creation I'm not sure God checked up on the old Kingdom,
>Phyllum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species nomenclature).

How can you tell one kind from another? Are donkeys, zebras and
horses in the same kind, or not?

So there's no reason Genesis couldn't have been a parable.

Perhaps, but they couldn't agree on a common religion. Thomas
Jefferson was a deist, believing that God created the world and its
natural laws but did not interfere further in its function. I
strongly suspect he would have felt comfortable with evolution.

>Okay, done. Now everyone hates me and I can live with that.

>For the record, I will not argue the subject. It doesn't belong
>in this group, and I don't want to repeat an error in
>group topics which may be hazardous to my health.

>>>I'll take the young earth approach.
>>
>>Read the FAQ. The evidence for the young earth position is (in my
>>opinion) particularly poor.
>>

>Really? Based on what?

>Radioactive dating? Oh my, the assumptions made there are
>frightening in my book of logic. How old is that rock? umm...
>lessee, it's half lead, half uranium.

>Let's avoid science and go to pure reason, unadulterated logic and
>nothing else.

>The ONLY thing I can say about the age of that rock is that
>IF, (big if, did you see?) that rock was ever 100% uranium,
>the oldest if could be (assuming half-life radioactive theory is
>correct), is, well, the half life of uranium!

>(yeah, I know, REALLY simplistic, but I don't have time to
>review radioactive isotopes and figure out what breaks down
>into who, and whether uranium 238 is really only the half
>brother of 235, etc).

>For all I know that rock was 2 seconds old, freshly created. Or
>it could have been 3/4 uranium and 1/4 lead when it started
>out, or who know what.

You should look into this more. For one thing, the dates obtained by
*several different methods* of radiometric dating agree very well with
the results obtained (before evolution, in fact, and the invention of
radiometric dating) from the geological time scale. That is, the
oldest rocks as found by one method are indeed the oldest rocks, and
rocks predicted by the geological time scale to be slightly younger
are indeed slightly younger, and so on.

If these didn't agree so well, evolution might have a problem. If God
had created rocks to contain some of the daughter nuclides, why did He
do it so that the apparent ages (given by several different methods of
dating) agree with the geologic time scale? Why didn't He give them
all the same date, or why didn't He give them random dates? It just
doesn't make sense except as evidence of an ancient Earth.

>Okay, young earth is a bad thing? Hmmm.... alright, lets
>use the same uniformitarian concepts evolution uses.

>The Earth's magnetic pole is decomposing at a rate
>indicating the earth must be 15,000 years old or less.

This assumes that the Earth's magmetic poles don't reverse themselves
occasionally. We have strong evidence that this has happened several
times (at least) in the The sun's magnetic poles reverse themselves
periodically; I realize, of course, that the sun is quite different
from the Earth, but the fact that we see it on other bodies does
further support it happening on Earth.

>According to geologists who study crude oil formations,
>'gushers' shouldn't happen since anything beyond 10,000
>years would lead to a flat bottle of soda pop given the
>usual fairly porous rock they live in.

But if the rock *around* the porous rock containing the oil and
natural gas isn't so porous, then you can certainly have "gushers."

>The amount of salt in the ocean...

...is limited by factors such as solubility. I've also read that the
amount of aluminum in the oceans, for example, "proves" that the Earth
can't be more than a hundred years old.

>Well, anyway, there is evidence for a young earth as
>well, and I can't accept unreasonable assumption for
>one dating method above all others. Especially not
>since they often severly disagree with each other.

>>As someone whom I wish I could give credit to pointed out in another
>>talk.origins thread, the star that exploded in Supernova 1987A was
>>about 170,000 light-years away, which means that its light took
>>170,000 years to reach us. We know the distance of this star by
>>geometry.
>>
>>This implies that either the universe is at least 170,000 years old or
>>that God created the light from that exploding star on its way to the
>>earth even though that star had never existed (the lying God
>>scenario). I prefer the first (although the universe is much older).

>Yes, in order to show us the universe He created, God could have
>either made us live several billion years or create the universe
>in a way that would let us see it immediately, with neato things
>like Nova's and things to make us say, 'Wow!'

Supernovas also happen in galaxies so far away we could never see them
with the naked eye (the 1987 supernova was visible in the southern
hemisphere without a telescope, if I remember correctly).

In order to believe that He created the light from an exploding star
already on the way to the Earth, I'd have to believe in the "lying
God" scenario again.

>>>The whole of the fossil record 'is' world-wide evidence for a global
>>>catastrophe.
>>
>>>Animal dies. Animal is eaten, remains decay. No fossil.
>>
>>>Plant dies, plant is eaten, remains decay. No fossil.
>>
>>>Okay. Catastrophe. Animal buried. Animal preserved as minerals replace
>>>the poor critter. Fossil.
>>
>>>Fossilization doesn't occur without a catastrophe, either local or global in
>>>nature.
>>
>>But you don't need a *global* catastrophe for fossilization (like the
>>Flood) - you only need a smaller, local catatrophe. A rockslide could
>>bury an animal, preventing it from being eaten and allowing its
>>fossilization. An animal stuck in a tar pit (La Brea, for example),
>>wouldn't be eaten, and would have time to fossilize.

>Sure, but you were talking about global evidence. I'm saying the
>rock strata we see worldwide is very good evidence for a global
>catastrophe. Geologic layers, strata completely out of sequence,
>total chaos on a huge scale.

The "strata completely out of sequence" is better explained by the
formation of mountains, etc. In order for a global catastrophe to
explain all the fossils, remember, it would have had to have made all
the strata as well.

[By the way, how do you explain fossil footprints and raindrops if all
the fossils were created in the same global catastrophe?]

>A local catastrophe just isn't reasonable to explain every fossil
>and how we find them, but a global catastrophe does. In fact there
>is a global meteor catastrophe commonly accepted as fact.

A single local catastrophe doesn't explain all the fossils - but a lot
of local catastrophes, over billions of years, happening at more or
less the same rate as they are now, does.

Rockslides and mudslides, for example, happen all the time. If you
have a mudslide over the decaying body of a crab on the beach, for
example, and nothing digs up the crab for a few million years, the
crab may very well fossilize. You can substitute just about anything
for the crab....

An asteroid hitting the Earth, by the way, is just a larger version of
a local catastrophe. It would have killed a lot of plants and
animals, but it wouldn't have fossilized them all.

>>These sorts of things happen all the time (even to people). They don't
>>always lead to fossilization, but often enough they do.

>A local catastrophe doesn't affect stratum enough to fold huge
>chunks like a deck of playing cards, shuffling them almost
>willy nilly, though.

Plate tectonics does, however. We all know the Earth does move
(earthquakes, volcanoes, etc.). I would encourage you to read up on
plate tectonics, also.

>Remember, neither of us are talking proof, only evidence.

Science can't absolutely prove anything anyway. You want absolutes,
you go to church.

>I'm saying creation and a global catastrophe better fits the
>creationistic model. That be all.

Naturally, I'm saying the evidence fits evolution better (otherwise I
wouldn't try to convince you). This would be a dull argument if we
agreed with each other.

Michael Grice

>Burt

[Chris Heiny]

In article <4nh5ku$h...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, bu...@primenet.com writes:
>In <4ncs53$4...@grandcanyon.binc.net>, gib...@mailbag.com (Michael Grice) writes:
>>Emailed and posted.
>
>>God could easily have created everything out of nothing exactly 6000
>>years ago, and just made it *look* as if he'd done it over billions of
>>years through evolution.
>>
>>But this implies that God is, well, a liar.
>
>No, it is intrinsic to the concept of creation that the 'created'
>object has an apparent age.
>
>It isn't that God would be lying, it would be that men would
>be incredibly dense, so to speak.
>
>Adam created 2 seconds ago. How old is he? 2 seconds.
>
>NOW, lets make the false assumption that evolution makes, ie.,
>uniformitarianism.
>
>We take Adam's son and watch. Ah, about 30 years into growth
>he is at the same apparent stage as his father. NOW, how old
>was Adam? Thirty?
>
>No, creationism doesn't accuse God of lying, it accuses evolution
>of assumption.

How old did Adam appear to be when God created him? Was Adam
an infant? If so, how was he nursed? Was Adam an adult? What
about the world in which Adam was created? Did it contain mature
ecosystems? Mountains? Rivers? Oxygen atmosphere?

How can you tell the difference between the following three
scenarios:
(1) Adam created at age 7, grows 10 years, meets Eve,
fathers son (time T). At time T+30, Adam
appears to be 47, his son appears to be 30;
Adam is actually 40 years old, though.
(2) Adam created at age 17, meets Eve, fathers son.
At time T+30, Adam appears to be 47, his
son appears to be 30; Adam is actually 30
years and 2 seconds old.
(3) Adam, Eve, and son created 2 seconds ago. Adam
appears to be 47, son appears to be 30; both
are actually 2 seconds old.
How can you tell the difference between the following
three scenarios:
(1) Earth created about 4,600 million years ago. Earth
is 4,600 million years old.
(2) Earth created about 6000 years ago. Earth appears
to be 4,600 million years old; actually it's
6000 years old.
(3) Earth created two seconds ago. Earth appears
to be 4,600 million years old; actually it's
2 seconds old.
What is the scientifically useful distinction between
the three scenarios?
Chris

--
Christopher Heiny Professor of Bizarre Theories
University of Ediacara Offther-Hocking Chair of Lunar Influences
ch...@eso.mc.xerox.com

"You are lying, Ted!"
Shrieked Mrs Anomalocaris,
"Liar,
liar!
LIAR!
You are a liar, Ted!
You were mating with that _nathorsti_ tramp again,
Weren't you, Ted? Liar!"
And then she threw the platter of trilobites at him.
'Song of Anomalocaris - The Soap Opera'
Season 246, Episode 118a: Edward and Agnes Divorce

[W. W. Warner]

Mark Isaak (is...@aurora.com) wrote:

: >The idea that the seperation of church and state was meant to

: >keep religion out of schools is demonstratably from history,
: >complete nonsense. The idea was to keep Government out of
: >churches.

: And teaching Creationism in schools would put the government back into
: churches, unless you taught *all* the varieties of creationism, from
: Iriquois earth-diver versions to Hindu cyclic universe to Australian
: Dreamtime. Creationism is contrary even to most Christian religions.

: >America was founded by religious men. The idea that NOW
: >suddenly religion must be kept out of school is ludicrous.

Ummm.... ever hear of Tom Paine? or Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin?
I'm quite sure that you haven't read much of Paine at the least. The
American Revolution was heavily influenced by Montaigne, who was definitely
not a Christian. Tom Paine, in between writing inflammatory pamphlets
wrote anti-Christion essays. Jefferson was highly suspicous of organized
religion (They were both actually deists).

: Putting Creationism into schools *would* keep out the religion of everybody

[Susan Brassfield]

Has anybody besides me noticed that Burt has been awfully quiet since
last Friday?

I asked him in another thread if a person could count the legs on a
grasshopper, find that there are six, and still be a Christian if the
bible clearly states that a grasshopper has four legs. A grasshopper
clearly has six legs. Must a Christian believe there are four, and present
evidence debunking the "theory" that grasshoppers have six? Does believing
that grasshoppers have six legs lead to abortion and slavery as believe in
Evolution does (according to the IRC)?

I'm being a little flippant, Burt, but I would *really* like to discuss
this with you.

[Chris Heiny]

In article <4nh5ku$h...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, bu...@primenet.com writes:

>In <4ncs53$4...@grandcanyon.binc.net>, gib...@mailbag.com (Michael Grice) writes:
>>Natural selection eliminates the damaging mutations - the organism
>>dies without reproducing.
>
>Negatory big ben! (ever a "cb'er"? me neither)

Why not? Do you understand what a deleterious/damaging mutation
is? By definition, such a mutation interferes withh the ability
of the organism possessing it to pass it on - either by direct
interference with the reproductive process, or limiting the
ability of the organism to reproduce in some other way, ranging
from inefficient absorbtion of nutrients and ensuing energy
deficit to oughtright death of the organism.

>Fossil evidence should contain a MUCH wider variation of
>species. We need, lets see... a chicliz (lizard before it
>became a chicken?),

I think you need to understand more about a) fossilization
and b) bird ancestory. Regarding b), we already have a nice
intermediate in the form of archeopteryx, which is
intermediate between theropod dinosaurs and birds.

> and basically an endless variety of
>mutations which were neither harmful or benificial, that
>'just were'.

Why? Are you aware that most mutations won't ever show up
in the fossil record, simply because in 99.95% of cases
it's only the hard parts (bone, shell, and so on) that fossilizes.
Sure, we occasionally find some soft parts (skin impressions, carbon
films, and so on), but mutations governing biochemistry, arrangment
of internal organs, reproductive cycles, coloring, sleeping
and nesting habits, ability to digest certain plants or resist
certain diseases, and so on and on, these mutations are impossible
to determine through the fossil record.

>But that is when I view evolution from a perspective of
>what SHOULD appear. It definitely isn't what appears,
>and is one of the reasons I see it as an unreasonable
>theory compared to creation.

This is because you seem to have no real idea of what
should, or even can, appear in the fossil record.

>Creation says, definite kinds, (species, if you will, though
>at Creation I'm not sure God checked up on the old Kingdom,
>Phyllum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species nomenclature).

>Fossil records should show a specific number of 'kinds' of
>creatures. Neither would it be odd to see a very orderly
>array of creatures, presumably built from the same building
>materials and concepts (see object oriented programming for
>a good idea on how I view Creation).

What is a "kind"? Can you define "kind" in such a way that,
using only your definition of "kind", I can take any two
animals and determine whether they are the same "kind" or
not?

[Tim Thompson]

Before I get around to the current message, I want to reinstate a few
paragraphs to which I had responded, as I feel they are of some
significance.

In article <4ne6uv$c...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, bu...@primenet.com writes:

> What I said then still holds. Evolution is not 'science' in the
> pure sense of science. If something is held to the litmus test
> of science, it must be be observable and experimentally
> repeatable.

[ ... ]

> Evolution or Creation are 'history'. They either happened in
> the past or they did not. They are not therefore observable
> until we invent a time machine, and no one can recreate a
> planet to repeat it, yet. History is not science. Science
> cannot by definition deal with history.
>

> As to Archeology, etc., that is a gathering of information
> in a scientific manner. But the deductions derived from
> said gathered are not 'science'. They may be true, but

> science has little to do with 'truth'.

ANd now the current message ...

In article <4nh16f$a...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, bu...@primenet.com writes:

> In <4ngid9$r...@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>, t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov
> (Tim Thompson) writes: [responding to the passages above ... ]

>> I am prepared to reject the sum of these paragraphs as a valid
>> description of what constitutes science. First, experimental
>> "repeatability", in this literal sense, is not a necessary aspect
>> of science. Second, the study of processes that cannot be observed
>> directly, which the second paragraph rejects, are in fact science
>> and the rejection indicated is not valid. Finally, in the third
>> paragraph the deductions derived most certainly are science,
>> and may be the most important aspect of the scientific enterprise.

[Burt ... ]

> Your comming from the other side of the fence from me.
> I'm arguing against the concepts of pseudo-science, which
> strangley most people I ask, is their notion of 'real science'.
> Pseudo-science is an almost religous thing that some
> men cling to, as though 'science' holds all of the answers.
> Please state your working definition of science in a single
> sentence. If you are interested in having a discussion
> (I am) as apposed to trying to sound more intelligent than
> me (grin), we can go from there.

If you make an hypothesis, devise a test to verify that hypothesis,
carry out the test properly, and accept the results, you have done science.
I objected to the definition you presented because its use of the phrase
"experimentallly repeatable" seemed inappropriately vague. Just what,
exactly, is it that is supposed to be repeatable? In science it is the
verification that needs to be repeatable, but your definition implies
(at least to me) that the system being studied must be repeatable, and
that is clearly wrong.

The implication of the last sentence is most keenly observed in the
second paragraph above, to which I originally objected. Here you clearly
state that since the system that is being studied (evolution) cannot
itself be observed, then it cannot be science, but that is once again
clearly wrong. Only the verification of hypotheses need be repeatable.
If I, for instance, reason that 'if evolution is true then I expect to
see this', and I do an experiment looking for 'this', and I actually
do see 'this', then I have done science, and done it properly. I can
go on to conclude that my confidence in evolution is increased by this
observation. The fact that evolution itself is not repeated here is not
relevant, but the experiment I did must be repeatable, in both form and
result.

In the third paragraph you are ripping the heart out of science
completely. All science involves deduction, induction, intuition and
wild guess. They are all a legitimate part of the pursuit of science.
You talk about archeology as "a gathering of information in a scientific
manner", but that is a wholly inadequate view of science.

" As I started my teaching career, like every teacher
I kept uncovering more and more points of my own ignorance.
I began to understand, especially through the work of John
Ziman and Michael Polanyi, that science is not a matter of
individuals who have been trained in an established and well
defined method simply applying that method to generate
objective knowledge in a new area. Rather, the scientific
enterprise is a matter of overlapping communities producing
purported or presumptive knowledge, whose reliability depends
on the extent that continued interactions within those
communities are open, honest, disinterested, and skeptical."

Dr. Henry H. Bauer, professor of Chemiistry & Science Studies,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg,
Virginia. "Velikovsky's Place in the History of Science",
SKEPTIC 3(4): 52-56, 1995.

[Thompson ... ]

>> I would say that Mr. Burt has an inadequate understanding of
>> what constitutes science, and is therefore likely to come to the
>> wrong conclusions concerning whether or not evolution is science.

[Burt ... ]

> Evolution is an hypothesis, it is not science. An hypothesis is
> formed using the scientific method, but a part of the whole is
> not the whole. Err... something like that (another smile)

This makes no sense to me at all, which motivates me to ask you
for your one-sentence working definition of science. Evolution is
an hypothesis, but it is also a science.

[Raccoon]

t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson) writes:

> If you make an hypothesis, devise a test to verify that hypothesis,
>carry out the test properly, and accept the results, you have done science.

What, then, is the hypothesis, or the hypotheses, of the science of
evolution? And what are the tests which verify it, or them?

[Stephen Coulson]

On 16-May-96 23:17:02, burt spake unto All on the matter refered to as "Re:
Delphi Group - No flame, only logic"!

>>God could easily have created everything out of nothing exactly 6000
>>years ago, and just made it *look* as if he'd done it over billions of
>>years through evolution.
>>
>>But this implies that God is, well, a liar.

>No, it is intrinsic to the concept of creation that the 'created'
>object has an apparent age.

>It isn't that God would be lying, it would be that men would
>be incredibly dense, so to speak.

>Adam created 2 seconds ago. How old is he? 2 seconds.

How complete was this apparency? Did Adam think himself to be 30 years old.
Did he have memories of his childhood?

What is the evidence for your answer?

+ _ /^^ ( Stephen B. Coulson ) +
|(_'[_ _ _ [_ _ _ |OO O ( e-mail: ) |
|,_)[_,(-'[_)[ )(-'[ ) @ \ o ( glo...@vcn.bc.ca ) |
+ ~ [ ~ |o~ . (_________________________________) +
--
All opinions herein have been quality tested and aged in oak vats.

[William H. Jefferys]

In article <raccoonD...@netcom.com>, Raccoon <rac...@netcom.com> wrote:
#t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson) writes:
#
#> If you make an hypothesis, devise a test to verify that hypothesis,
#>carry out the test properly, and accept the results, you have done science.
#
#What, then, is the hypothesis, or the hypotheses, of the science of
#evolution? And what are the tests which verify it, or them?

Read the FAQs. They are chock full of what you request.

http://rumba.ics.uci.edu:8080/

Bill

--
Bill Jefferys/Department of Astronomy/University of Texas/Austin, TX 78712
E-mail: bi...@clyde.as.utexas.edu | URL: http://quasar.as.utexas.edu
Finger for PGP Key: F7 11 FB 82 C6 21 D8 95 2E BD F7 6E 99 89 E1 82
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Tim Thompson]

In article <raccoonD...@netcom.com>, rac...@netcom.com
(Raccoon) writes:

> t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson) writes:
>> If you make an hypothesis, devise a test to verify that hypothesis,

>> carry out the test properly, and accept the results, you have done science.

[Raccoon ... ]

> What, then, is the hypothesis, or the hypotheses, of the science of

> evolution? And what are the tests which verify it, or them?

As I am not a biologist, I am not so well equipped to give a strong
answer to this inquiry as others, but I will give it a shot. I would say
that "evolution" is better characterized as a meta-theory as a theory unto
itself. I base this on the conclusion that evolution, as we commonly use
the word, is a constraint upon theories of diversity. You can come up with
any theory you want to describe the detailed mechanisms that control the
evolution of one form into another, but may not ignore the constraint that
evolution has occurred (unless, of course, you can come up with a good
reason and make it stick).

All living creatures must change with time in some way, that is something
which I have never seen anyone deny. Evolution, then, is the rather obvious
conclusion that if you put together a sufficient number of small changes,
the integrated result can be an extraordinarily large net change. This is
easiest to see on a computer, using a "morphing" program, which does exactly
that to transform one shape or form into another totally unrelated one.
No one has ever put forth any good reason for believing that the obvious
does not actually happen, so evolution is widely accepted, not so much as
a "proven fact" as an "inescapable conclusion".

Since we know that genetics is the mechanism of inheritance (the only
one known, unless you are in the Lamarkian minority), we should expect any
theory of change over time to be consistent with known genetics. The "proof"
of evolution then becomes something like the matehmatical proof of Fermat's
last theorem, or the four-color theorem in mapping. In both cases the proof
was not a simple, elegant 1 page few-liner, but rather, the proof takes up
thousands of pages of journal papers where small bits and pieces are put
out, the total constituting a proof. There is no one laboratory experiment
which instantly proves evolution, but there are many thousands which, taken
together, lead to the inescapable conclusion.

As for examples, here are two that showed up recently. The first,
courtesy of Bowen Simmons describes a hypothesis, based solely on
evolution, and then verified by later observation of a previously
unknown fossil organism.

In article <bowen-21059...@d8.netgate.net>,
bo...@netgate.net (Bowen Simmons) writes:

> Now, as if all of this isn't strange enough for a floodite, here is
> another puzzler. Remember the wasp-ants I mentioned from the Cretaceous?
> Well, these insects were predicted using evolutionary theory before they
> had ever been found. Myrmecologists had theorized that ants had evolved
> from burrowing wasps, and had concluded in the early sixties that they
> must have diverged in the early Eocene or late Cretaceous and that
> ant-wasp intermediates must have existed at that time. Then, in 1967,
> they were found. So here's the question: given these myrmecologists were
> working from erroneous biology and erroneous geology, how did they know
> that these never-before seen creatures would have ever existed, and how
> did they even know the strata in which they would be found?

The second describes an intriguing result in genetics that is very
difficult to interpret outside the umbrella of evolution, and comes to
us courtesy of Bill Weaver.

In article <4o12f5$b...@tilde.csc.ti.com>, bwe...@ti.com
(Bill Weaver) writes:

> I was watching an show on PBS recently in which Dr. Robert Bakker
> (renowned paleontologist) mentions that researchers have managed to
> reactivate a "switched off"section in the genome of a bird, causing
> the bird to grow teeth. He expects that it will also be feasible in
> the future to switch on a long scaly tail, claws on the wings, and
> other features of its reptillian ancestry.
>
> I have heard of several other such experiments, in which insects and
> other small creatures have been made to recall switched-off features
> from their ancestry. We will undoubtably find many such "genetic
> fossils" in our own genome. In the next few decades these genetic
> fossils might rival traditional fossils as the best evidence for
> understanding the evolution of modern species.

These are only to examples, but I'm sure they get the point across.
I am aware that these do not constitute solid scholastic references, as
I do not have the usual journal papers to cite, but I have no doubt
they can be discovered with some diligence, or may already be well
known to those better armed than I in the biological arena.

My own main concern here is to push the point that evolution is
science without question or reservation. This has nothing to do with
whether or not it is right, science is not perfect and can certainly
lead to the wrong conclusions from time to time. But it is distinct, it
is science, and evolution is science.

[Bowen Simmons]

In article <4o2oom$d...@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>, t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov wrote:

> ...

> As for examples, here are two that showed up recently. The first,
> courtesy of Bowen Simmons describes a hypothesis, based solely on
> evolution, and then verified by later observation of a previously
> unknown fossil organism.
>
> In article <bowen-21059...@d8.netgate.net>,
> bo...@netgate.net (Bowen Simmons) writes:
>
> > Now, as if all of this isn't strange enough for a floodite, here is
> > another puzzler. Remember the wasp-ants I mentioned from the Cretaceous?
> > Well, these insects were predicted using evolutionary theory before they
> > had ever been found. Myrmecologists had theorized that ants had evolved
> > from burrowing wasps, and had concluded in the early sixties that they
> > must have diverged in the early Eocene or late Cretaceous and that
> > ant-wasp intermediates must have existed at that time. Then, in 1967,
> > they were found. So here's the question: given these myrmecologists were
> > working from erroneous biology and erroneous geology, how did they know
> > that these never-before seen creatures would have ever existed, and how
> > did they even know the strata in which they would be found?
>

> ...

> These are only to examples, but I'm sure they get the point across.
> I am aware that these do not constitute solid scholastic references, as
> I do not have the usual journal papers to cite, but I have no doubt
> they can be discovered with some diligence, or may already be well
> known to those better armed than I in the biological arena.
>

I got the accounts from:

Bert Hoelldobler and Edmward O. Wilson, "The Ants", The Belknap Press of
Harvard University Press, 1990, pp. 23

Bert Hoelldobler and Edmward O. Wilson, "Journey to the Ants", The Belknap
Press of Harvard University Press, 1994, pp. 75-76

"The Ants" won the Pulitzer for general nonfiction. It is generally aimed
at biologists and is intended to serve as an encyclopedia of myrmecology.
It contains a full bibliography of the relevant primary literature.

"Journey to the Ants" is intended more for a general audience.
Ironically, it actually contains more information on the discovery of
Sphecomyrma (literally: wasp-ant) than does "The Ants". It does not,
however, contain a primary literature bibliography.

From the bibliography of "the Ants", the original papers describing the
discovery of Sphecomyrma are:

Wilson, E. O., F. M. Carpenter, W. L. Brown "The First Mesozoic ants",
Science, 157:1038-1040

--- "The first Mesozoic ants, with the description of a new subfamily."
Psyche, 74(1):1-19

--

Bowen Simmons
bo...@netgate.net

[John Hendry]

Tim Thompson (t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov) wrote:
: All living creatures must change with time in some way, that is something

: which I have never seen anyone deny. Evolution, then, is the rather obvious
: conclusion that if you put together a sufficient number of small changes,
: the integrated result can be an extraordinarily large net change. This is
: easiest to see on a computer, using a "morphing" program, which does exactly
: that to transform one shape or form into another totally unrelated one.

I don't think morphing is a good example - it's too artificial. A good
example is the development of a person from sperm&egg to adult.
Continuous microscopic changes combine over the course of decades.
A person in any stage of life is a 'transitional form'. People don't
wake up one day as an adult after going to sleep the night before
as an infant. People don't grow a foot overnight.

Granted, start and end forms aren't as radically different as can
be accomplished with morphing. On the other hand, nobody'd confuse
the adult Shaq with the fetal Shaq. Yet, the changes that took
him from one extreme to the other were slow, tiny, and numerous.
Why people can't extrapolate this to populations is beyond me.

[Michael Grice]

rac...@netcom.com (Raccoon) wrote:

>t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson) writes:

>> If you make an hypothesis, devise a test to verify that hypothesis,
>>carry out the test properly, and accept the results, you have done science.

>What, then, is the hypothesis, or the hypotheses, of the science of

>evolution? And what are the tests which verify it, or them?

Hypothesis: You will be able to find fossils which appear to be
transitions between species.

Test: Search for fossils.

Results: More transitional fossils are found. My current favorite is
the whale series, including several whales with legs discovered in the
last few years.

Prediction: The fossils you find will resemble modern organisms less
and less as you look in older rocks.

Test: Examine fossils in many strata, and compare the fossils found in
the newest strata to those in the oldest.

Results: As you look at older fossils, they look less and less like
modern species.

Hypothesis: Organisms will develop new defenses against the various
drugs and pesticides we use against them.

Test: Find antibiotic-resistant diseases and organisms resistant to
pesticides.

Results: We've found antibiotic-resistant tuberculosis and syphilis,
and warfarin-resistant rats, among others.

Do you want more?

Michael Grice

[Susan Brassfield]

In article <Susan-Brassfield...@129.15.90.53>,
Susan-Br...@uoknor.edu (Susan Brassfield) wrote:

> Has anybody besides me noticed that Burt has been awfully quiet since
> last Friday?

I got this private e-mail from Burt which I told him I would post here.

> Twas a combination of a week of ilness, my hd crashing, and having my
> hardwood floors re-done. Sigh... I'm doing this in a rather uncomfortable
> situation and will not be truly up and running until sunday or monday.
>
> Please let them know in the forum, I can't 'get there from here', I need
> to load all of my programs once I get this computer in a place I can work
> on it more comfortably.
>
> Sorry for the delay. As for the conclusions you listed, I find nothing
> unreasonable about your thoughts. But had you known me in person I think
> you would have laughed very hard at the thought that I might be one to
> 'run scared'. I got a chuckle out of it anyway.
>
> For the next month my time will be short due to the deadline for our
> beta version of the sw I'm working on, but I will be on as much as
> I can, likely almost as much as I've been in the past.
>
>
> Burt