Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxt.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!js2j
From: js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Job 31:24  (part 3 of 6)
Message-ID: <617@mhuxt.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 25-Feb-85 13:28:20 EST
Article-I.D.: mhuxt.617
Posted: Mon Feb 25 13:28:20 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 27-Feb-85 07:42:10 EST
References: <731@uwmacc.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 38

> >>    Each time a particular kind of plant  or  animal  appears  in  the  fossil
> >>record,  it  does so fully formed, with no evidence of transitional forms indi-
> >>cating how it evolved.  Gaps are large, systematic, and  continuous  throughout
> >>the fossil record, confirming the predictions of the creation model.  

     Which creation model is this?  The scientific creationism theory we
eventually got someone to post to the net talked about *all* species appearing
at one time during a period of 'special creation'.  While the fossil record
shows species appearing suddenly,  it also shows that they appeared at widely
varying times over the course of hundreds of millions of years, which *none*
of the creationist theories which have been presented here can deal with at
all, let alone predict.  
     Could we get some more responses from creationists on the net as to
what version of creationism they believe in?  There seems to be such a
spectrum of them that it's very difficult to argue against creationism,
especially since we don't know which model our opponents think is correct.
     There does seem to be a definite spectrum of creationist beliefs, 
ranging from literal interpretation of genesis to the belief that the
creator used evolution as a tool with which to accomplish the creation
of species.  Most of the creationists on the net seem to fall well inside
this spectrum, since I've heard few of them propound either of the endpoint
positions.  Much of the spectrum of creationist beliefs seems to fall 
into the set of beliefs which can't explain the fact that species appeared
at widely seperated times over a course of hundreds of Myrs.   
     It seems then, as though creationists must choose to either:
1.)  Choose one of the types of creationism which *can* explain the age
     of the fossil record, and the fact that species arrived at
     widely seperate times.
2.)  Debate about the actual age of the fossil record, perhaps adhering
     to the recently proposed concept of time-varying radioisotope decay
     rates to explain the *apparent* age of the record.
3.)  Do neither of the above and ignore the parts of reality which don't
     match up with your pet theories.
-- 
Jeff Sonntag
ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
     "Have SEX with a beautiful, LIVE girl!"  - from a pamphlet from the church
						of the subgenius.