Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site scgvaxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!pertec!scgvaxd!dan
From: dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Him                                                                                                               .
Message-ID: <280@scgvaxd.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 18-Mar-85 20:36:51 EST
Article-I.D.: scgvaxd.280
Posted: Mon Mar 18 20:36:51 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 19-Mar-85 19:42:27 EST
References: <244@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA>
Reply-To: dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA
Lines: 65
Summary: 

In article <244@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA> hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA (Ernest Hua) writes:
>_________________________________________________________________
>
>Okay.  It seems that you creationists have proven your ability to
>avoid  issues that would positively wipe out your silly theory of
>origins ...
>
>So when will one of you be brave enough to tackle the problem  of
>a  creator?  In case you missed all of the other posts in which I
>mentioned this problem in detail, read this:
>
>[The theory of special creation requires, at its very foundation,
>a creator.  (I will simply skip over the possibility of more than
>one creator, an irrelevant sidetrack.)  The creator is, by defin-
>ition,  a  supernatural one.  Science deals strictly with the na-
>tural.  This quickly disqualifies the creator as anything remote-
>ly  scientific  because  the  creator  can bypass laws of nature.
>Also, the creator is not scientifically falsifiable  as  one  can
>quickly  resort  to any number of pseudo-explanations like "He is
>just fooling your eyes".  In any case, a creator is not scientif-
>ic.   Therefore, any theory which require the use of a creator is
>not a valid a scientific theory.  Since creationism requires  the
>use of a creator, it is not scientific.]
>
>So when are you guys going to deal with this problem?
>_________________________________________________________________
>
>Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }


 TRUE, science can not prove the  existence  of  a  creator.  However,
 science  can  observe  EVIDENCE of a creation.  This is what creation
 SCIENCE is doing.  Both the creation model and  the  evolution  model
 are  unproven  theorys.  The  question  is,  what does the scientific
 evidence point to?  Creation or evolution?

 Creationists DO NOT have to prove the existance of  a  creator,  they
 are  merely  collecting  and  dispursing the scientific evidence of a
 creation.

 For example, concerning the fossil record, the creation  model  would
 predict  a  sudden  and  abrupt appearance of highly complex forms of
 life without evidence of ancestral or transitional forms according to
 the evolutionary model.

 Since this is what the  fossil  record  has produced, this  would  be
 scientific evidence of creation.

 Scientific creationism deals only with scientific  evidence.  To  ask
 the  creationist to prove the existence of God, is to ask him to step
 beyond the boundaries of science.  Creationists only wish to  present
 the   scientific   evidence   for   creation,   not  the  theological
 implications of it.  This can be done in a philosophy  class,  not  a
 science class.

 Now, Mr.  Keebler, I challenge you to offer me any clear, sound,  and
 cut  and  dried  proof  of  Evolution!  Tell  me  the  mechanism  for
 Evolution?  Give me some examples  of  upward  mutations  which  have
 resulted   in   transmutation.   Produce   some  fossil  evidence  of
 transitional forms or even ancestors of current species.  Just as you
 evolutionsts  like  to  say,  I  have  never  seen  any  REAL, SOUND,
 scientific evidence of Evolution, just pseudo-scientific debunking of
 religious items that have no bearing at all on the real issues!

					       Dan Boskovich