Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-gandalf!hua From: hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA (Ernest Hua) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: response to Larry Bickford (everyone should read) Message-ID: <251@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA> Date: Sun, 24-Mar-85 19:44:05 EST Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-g.251 Posted: Sun Mar 24 19:44:05 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 28-Mar-85 06:12:30 EST Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI Lines: 104 ______________________________________________________________________ Larry, The contents of the letter that you sent me concerning my post on the creation model should be posted rather than sent to me personally since some of the areas that you touch upon are not known to me at this time. I do expect that you will post the evidences and explanations re- lating to them. Here are your mistakes: > { From: Larry Bickford, {amd,sun,decwrl,idi,ittvax,cbosgd}!qubix!lab } > > You didn't do a very good job of keeping your a priori biases hidden. You did not mention any biases/assumptions to support this statement and yet you bring it up twice. Please substantiate. > "Sudden creation" != "Big Bang" especially as Robert Gentry has noted > with both attempted synthesis of granite and radiohalo experiments, the > earth congealed *rapidly* (no "bang" model allows for that) and not from > any knowable natural cause. Explain this, somebody. Do you know anything about the Big Bang model? If so, why in the world do you think that it does not allow for what you claim above. Please also define "rapidly" as it is rather vague. (Per- haps this will come with the explanation of earth's "congealing rapidly".) If you will note in my original comments, I said that Special Creation MIGHT be allowable under the Big Bang theory, if one ignores the time delay problem. The creation model is okay in that respect only! If you want to push the 7-day rule along with it, you can trash Special Creation. > Further, since time is unstoppable, either > the universe has not existed from eternity, or the rules of the game > have changed. I would like to see you prove this statement and its stated assumption. And what are these rules of the game? > The remainder of your remarks show an incredible lack of knowledge about > the evidence available, particularly the huge and systematic gaps > between small, cohesive groups. The evidence to indicate any major > change (contrary to the creation model) simply doesn't exist. Further, > attempts at change via selective breeding continually run into limits. Since you have brought it up, I will ask you to show me how systematic are these gaps that creationists complain about. By systematic, I mean "show me the rule that tells you the gaps that you expect". By the way, who said selective breeding had anything to do with evolution? > You say "kind" is not well-defined. Well, surprise! Neither is "species." First, read my remarks and understand them. The main thrust of my remarks concerning "kind" discredits its scientific use, and not its vagueness ... I will repeat: "kind" is not a scientific term, no matter how you slice it. "species" is. "species" is part of a hierarchy of words that help scientists analyze the different living organisms through some systematic classification. The reason for which "species" (and all of the other terms) is not well-de- fined is because the similiarities between different organisms are too great. It's amazing how you creationists prefer to ignore such blatant similarities as coincidence rather than admitting that they are evidences of common an- cestry and/or adaptation under similiar environments, and yet you will re- peatedly bring up the silly "watch-watchmaker" argument, which is both much less likely and altogether illogical. > Gobs of geologic data (such as fossils extending through several layers > of strata) indicate catastophic origin, not uniformitarian. Gee, I guess it will not take too much of your time to bring up one or more of the huge quantity of evidences that suggest catastrophism, so I will look forward to reading many of them in the near future. > And you (by naviete or bias) are completely unaware of the many > challenges to popular dating techniques (including radiometrics) and the > evidence for a young earth. Gee, I guess it will not take too much of ... (much I say it again?). Just so you will not waste too much of your time, don't bother with the "earth's decaying magnetic field" argument as that is already dis- creditted. (I do have confidence that you will dig up, and more likely make up, more inane gripes to waste our time.) > Please - research before speaking, or else let us know your a priori > bias. Your analysis is not scientific - it is religious. Once again for the record: baloney. You better get some evidence, which you claim to be so abundant, for your silly accusations and misguided statements. Incidentally, on what grounds are you accusing me of being religious? I don't recall any of my remarks being religious. In fact, if you follow my posts on net.religion, you never would have made that statement. I do have one assumption which ALL scientists must make. All scientific laws have always applied, do apply, and will always apply to everything. That is to say, nature is consistent. It does not change whimsically at the discretion of some mythical creator. (Why do pseudoscientists gripe at this? After all, we are talking about NATURAL science, aren't we?) ______________________________________________________________________ Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }