Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!rmooney
From: rmooney@uicsl.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.misc
Subject: Re: Creationism & Men from Ork - (nf)
Message-ID: <6331@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 22-Mar-84 22:48:28 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.6331
Posted: Thu Mar 22 22:48:28 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 25-Mar-84 12:44:46 EST
Lines: 50

#N:uicsl:7500056:000:2174
uicsl!rmooney    Mar 22 12:13:00 1984

I recieved mail on my Creationism & Men from Ork note from
Larry Bickford, {ihnp4,ucbvax}!{sun,amd70,decwrl}!qubix!lab

I thought I would post it with my replies for the entire net.

> Is is that Paleontologists don't accept the evidence -
> or don't WANT to accept the evidence, because of what it would do to
> their long-cherished beliefs? That accusation has been raised against
> the creationists, but it works both ways. The evidence is there; the
> interpretation and how it fits into the model MUST be explained.
 
  I maintain that if the evidence is convincing enough it will win out.
Copernican astronomy, evolution, relativity, quantum mechanics, all 
violated the "long-cherished beliefs"  of people. (Even Einstein denied 
Heisenberg's Uncertaintity Principle)

> Then again, some people will go to any extent to avoid acknowledging a
> God they could be held accountable to.

   As I explained in the note, I deny that such evidence would demand the
existence of God, simpler explanations remain.

> BTW, re-dating the dinosaurs would wreak havoc on the current
> evolutionary timetable.

     I still fail to see the logic of this.  Does this supposed evidence
show that man existed before any of his evolutionary ancestors, or just
that men and dinosaurs might have been contemporaries?

> Panspermia begs another question: where did *they* come from?
> It also fails to account for the vast variety of creatures on earth, and
> for man's current technological ineptitude (compared to those who left
> the life forms here).

This question has the simple answer that they evolved on another planet.
(my original Creationism & Occams Razor note dealt with this issue in
greater depth)  Why does it fail to account for variety?  Who says
we are "technological[ly] inept" ? We just lack "their" knowledge.  The point
is that these are questions answerable in the physical world not like the
questions creationism begs:
                          "Were did God come from?" 
                          "Where is God?" 
                          "What is God?".

       Ray Mooney
       ihnp4!uiucdcs!uicsl!rmooney
       University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign