Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site shark.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!orca!shark!brianp
From: brianp@shark.UUCP (Brian Peterson)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Earth-age estimates & some replies
Message-ID: <1154@shark.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 18-Nov-84 17:50:58 EST
Article-I.D.: shark.1154
Posted: Sun Nov 18 17:50:58 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 20-Nov-84 07:03:34 EST
References: <1526@qubix.UUCP>
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR
Lines: 173

X   From: lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick)
X   Lines: 160
X   
X   Ethan:
X   > I note that Larry comments on how lazy those who disagree with him are
X   
X   % grep lazy *
X   %

Maybe Ethan is using a different word which means the same thing
as was said by Larry.  The English language is very rich.


X   > I'm not particularly interested in spending time reading the
X   > creationist literature. I'm spending enough time on this as it is.
X   
X   And perhaps I shouldn't bother reading the evolutionist literature? In
X   his classic Christian apologetic _Therefore Stand_, Wilbur Smith addressed
X   this very succinctly:
X   	After a young man has been through four years of college, and
X   	heard his teachers in psychology, and philosophy, and biology
X   	deny the very existence of God, day after day, week after week,
X   	and has been open to every conceivable device of collegiate life
X   	to crush the faith of that person's hear, NO TWENTY-PAGE
X   	PAMPHLET WILL BE ABLE TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS WHICH ARE IN THIS
X   	YOUNG MAN'S MIND. [Emphasis in original]

I think that there are assumptions made by people on the net:
People on the net are intelligent.
People on the net have the ability to summarize.
People on the net have some understanding of the side of an
	argument which they support.
Therefore, people on the net can summarize the concepts they
	are arguing in favour of.

Starting the defense of a set of concepts with a summary of
those concepts and "support" of those concepts is like
top-down design of programming.  It is easier to understand the
position as a whole.  Lower level details can either be agreed
upon by both sides (eg fish swim, continents drift), or they
can be filled in during later refinements in the argument.
One can be called lazy for not going out to gather a whole bunch
of facts and ideas not organized for whatever discussion is at hand.
One can also be called lazy (or worse) for not being able to
present the main points of the position one is defending.

X   You can't settle the issue until you've settled how to settle the issue.

And how do you decide how to settle how to settle the issue?
It looks like some people want you to summarize your positions and
their supports, rather than to point your finger to other people's
arguments in print.


X   [On continental movement]
X   > ...he suggested that if they were [moving persistently] then the
X   > continents would move in a straight line across the globe i.e. not
X   > colliding "repeatedly" but exactly once.
X   
X   Apparently I wasn't clear - if the continents have been moving for such
X   long, and in such a manner that collisions have resulted, why are the
X   continents still so far apart?

The straight/persistence of movement might not have been constant
over all eternity.  Maybe the continents bounce.  Maybe they were
real small, going in different directions, and haven't gotten
completely stuck together yet.
	If (assumptions you use above), then (results predicted 6-7 lines ago).
	However, (results predicted) is false.
	Therefore, (assumptions used) don't quite match reality.
Whose assumptions these are, I don't know.  I just think that
situation calls for some more info or research to be injected
into the discussion.  It doesn't call for failure labelling
or flaming (inferred, if not implied).


X   The age-estimates for the earth mentioned in an earlier article are those
X   resulting from applying the same assumptions used to calculate the age of
X   the earth for the evolutionist model. That these should show such a
X   distinct difference *should* be cause for notice in the scientific
X   community. That they are not indicates a *philosophical* problem shown
X   by accepting what fits and not mentioning what doesn't. [And the
X   evolutionists accuse the creationists of this?]

Since this is an accusation of foul play (so I infer), please mention
what the assumptions were,
the method of calculating earth's age, (evolutionists' model)
and the method ... age, (some other unidentified model).


X   Decay of Earth's Magnetic Field - Result of research by Thomas Barnes
X   Influx of Radiocarbon into earth system - research by Melvin Cook (PhD.
X   Efflux of He-4 into atmosphere - Cook, published in Nature (1/26/57
X   Decay lines of Galaxies - Halton Arp in _Science_ Vol. 174 (12/17/71 pp.
X   Expanding Interstellar Gas - Hughes and Routledge in Astronomical

If you have read these, certainly you can do at least as much as a
high-school book report.  If you either don't remember the arguments
in them, or didn't understand them, why are you listing their titles?


X   I am in the process of checking up on many of Morris's and Gish's
X   references (including from Acts&Facts). The San Jose library has had
X   some; hopefully I can get to San Jose State for the others (although I
X   doubt they will have Barnes' or Cook's work).

Thank you.  At least one person has to read a work before it can
be summarized for others on the net.  If we all were to read all
the works, none of us would have the time for what we were hired for.


X   Ray Mooney:
X   > I am still waiting for a creationist to address the problem of their
X   > complicated ontology and answer the question "Who created the Creator
X   > and where is he/she?"
X   
X   "Complicated ontology"? Creation is by far the simpler ontology.
X   The latter question will be answer when "science" answers the issue of
X   First Cause. Alternatively, one can ask where the material for the Big
X   Bang (or the Inflationary Universe) came from.

	(note: The following is discussing the general concept "god did it".
	It does not deal with any particular sects of Creationism.
	And MAIL flames to me.  Don't clutter the net.)
I don't think it is a matter of simplicity, but rather of
building a useful explanation of the world we observe.
Creation is just sweeping all questions under the rug called "god".
Creation may be simple, but it doesn't explain anything.
It puts a cover over observations of the world in order to unify them,
in order to give a single name to all that is not understood.
It doesn't suggest any relationships >between< observations,
relationships which could be used in predicting the further nature
of the world.

(besides, where DID your god come from?  I dare you to show
me, where it came from, and where it is.)


X   Pat Wyant:
X   > If the creationism-evolution controversy were a matter of science, it
X   > would be readily resolved. Evolutionists and creationists have argued
X   > as if the issues were scientific ones, resolvable by appeal to the data.
X   > Since creationism predates evolutionism, and the debate goes on, the
X   > cause of the conflict must lie elsewhere.
X   
X   Davidheiser's last sentence in _Evolution and Christian Faith_ (yes, I'm
X   plugging it):
X   	"It is not a matter of refusing to xamine facts.
X   	 It is a matter of substituting one faith for another."

I don't know what faith it is that you (in quoting Davidheiser) claim
evolutionists have.
I think that faith in 
	what one observes with his body,
	and that the nature of the world seems to have patterns,
is enough to live on (wrt relating to reality).
And I think that is all science is supposed to have.

 
X   	"a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by
X   	logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only
X   	alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."

Evolution has more evidence for it (I'm sure y'all've seen SOME, anyway)
than creationism (I have seen no evidence FOR creationism).
So evolution is only "kinda-sortof true".
The world is not black and white.  It is complicated.
Simple, absolute, packaged answers to life, the universe, and
everything are silly, since the world is neither simple, absolute, nor
packaged for your convenience.

Brian Peterson  {ucbvax, ihnp4, }  !tektronix!shark!brianp
				              ^