Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cadovax.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cadovax!keithd From: keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation (Part 1) Message-ID: <526@cadovax.UUCP> Date: Tue, 9-Apr-85 22:15:05 EST Article-I.D.: cadovax.526 Posted: Tue Apr 9 22:15:05 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 15-Apr-85 03:07:52 EST References: <328@iham1.UUCP> Organization: Contel Cado, Torrance, CA Lines: 108 [.............] > Several of you have asked for specific evidences that support creation > and oppose evolution. There are many. We will list 116. Evidences 1-36 > come from the life sciences, 37-87 come generally from the > astronomical sciences, and 88-116 relate to the earth sciences. An > outline format will be used. One or more of these 116 evidences, along > with appropriate references will be given every day or so. > > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > > I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. > > A. EVOLUTION* HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. > > 1. Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from non- > living matter) has never been observed. All observations > have shown that life only comes from life. This > observation is so consistent that it is called the Law of > Biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this > law by claiming that life came from non-living matter. Sigh. This is not evidence for creation, and is not even evidence against evolution, as such observations to not constitute any kind of proof, or 'laws'. Again we see little more than parroting of the old claims. Where did you copy this from? > > 2. Mendel's laws of genetics explain almost all of the > physical variations that are observed within life, such as > in the dog family. A logical consequence of these laws and > their modern day refinements is that there are LIMITS to > such variation [a,b]. Breeding experiments have also > confirmed that these boundaries exist [c-e]. > > a) Monroe W. Strickberger, GENETICS, 2nd edition (New > York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1976), p. 812. > b) ''On the general relation of Mendelism to evolution I > have come to a very definite conclusion; that is that > This is simply more of #1. Kind of the attitude 'if you can't see it, it isn't there'. Hardly convincing. Variations that have occured indicate reasonable probability that there are no such 'limits' to such variations. Such variations would not happen often, (millions of years etc.) so you don't expect to see an animal give birth to a new species. Even if you did, you would be hard pressed to be able to prove that the new animal was actually sired by the other animal, rather than a new independent species. And again, this is not 'creationist' evidence but 'anti-evolutionary' evidence. Just as good evidence for 'creationism' as it is for any other 'magic-wandism'. > > __________ > > * By EVOLUTION we mean a naturally occurring, beneficial > change that produces INCREASING COMPLEXITY. When > referring to the evolution of life, this increasing > complexity would be shown if the offspring of one form > of life had a different, improved, and reproducible set > of vital organs that its ancestors did not have. This is > sometimes called organic evolution, the molecules-to-man > theory, or MACROevolution. MICROevolution, on the other > hand, involves only changes in shapes, colors, sizes, or > minor chemical alterations--changes that both > creationists and evolutionists agree are relatively > trivial and easily observed. It is macroevolution, then, > which requires increasing complexity, that is being so > hotly contested today, and this is what we will mean by > the term evolution. > This is an interesting definition of evolution. Now see how the creationists keep modifying their theory to fit observed evidence as they learn more about reality? (macro vs microevolution) I think a few terms differ somewhat from the more mainstream evolutionist view. 'Benificial change', 'Increasing complexity' are not given to evolution by mainstream scientific views, but seems to be a purely creationist ploy, leading up to the 'entropy' arguments. Also note, from the references, that breeders experience with animals is hardly an effective argument, breeding in general has probably not been done long enough to ever have experienced any effects of 'speciation'. If in fact it could ever be produced in that particular manner at all. > > it is really antagonistic to evolution.'' [Alfred > Russell Wallace, MY LIFE, Vol.1 (Chapman and Hall, > 1905).] > c) Francis Hitching, THE NECK OF THE GIRAFFE: WHERE > DARWIN WENT WRONG (New Haven, Connecticut: Ticknor and > Fields, 1982), p. 55. > d) ''All competent biologists acknowledge the limited > nature of the variation breeders can produce, although > they do not like to discuss it much when grinding the > evolutionary ax.'' [William R. Fix, THE BONE PEDDLERS > (New York: Macmillan, 1984), pp. 184-185.] > e) ''A rule that all breeders recognize, is that there > are fixed limits to the amount of change that can be > produced.'' [Lane P. Lester and Raymond G. Bohlin, THE > NATURAL LIMITS TO BIOLOGICAL CHANGE (Grand Rapids: > Zondervan, 1984), p. 96.] > > > TO BE CONTINUED > Polly want a cracker? Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd