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: Re: Why Creation?
Message-ID: <530@cadovax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 12-Apr-85 21:19:01 EST
Article-I.D.: cadovax.530
Posted: Fri Apr 12 21:19:01 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Apr-85 00:00:47 EST
References: <14600006@hpfcrs.UUCP> <525@cadovax.UUCP>, <184@spp1.UUCP>
Organization: Contel Cado, Torrance, CA
Lines: 56

[.............]
> 
> Evolution and Creation cannot even be compared. Creation deals with how
> everything came to be. Evolution concerns an ongoing process. Creation
> should be compared with an origins theory which may or may not use
> evolution as support. 
 
I'll buy that.

> And no origins theory can be proved or falsified, which according to my
> definitions (you're allowed to differ) makes them both non-theories, more
> or less models that evidence can support but never prove or disprove.

However, this has nothing to do with evolution, as per your previous
comment, i.e. evolution is not an origins theory.  If what you say
is true, and both postulated origins theories are religious in nature
and do not belong in the public schools.

> 
> Now the distance to the sun can be proved or disproved since it's there
> now and you won't find many who will cling to a wrong theory about
> something that exists and can be measured.
> 

What is the definition of proof?  Most evolutionary scientists state
that evolution has been proved.

> Normally I would say that any origins 'theory' you wanted to come up with
> is as vaild as creation (or any other origins model) in terms of its
> qualifications as a model. A model can say whatever it wants. The trick is
> to make reasonable enough to be believed.  ...... 

And, as far as I am concerned, creationists have failed.

>                                    ..... I honestly believe, if you have
> another idea on how everything came to be, and if you get a movement
> behind, produce textbooks and teaching aids, you should be able to present
> your views in the school system.

I see.  So school science should be politically dictated by non-scientists?
If I can gain enough political momentum I can cause school teachers to
teach that the earth is flat, or 6000 years old, or was created yesterday
etc.?  Science by propaganda campaign, WONDERFUL.
(what about the separation of laboratory and state? :-)


> Your proposal above deals with an origin theory that differs from the rest
> in that it can be verified, occurring after recorded history.
> 
> 		Mike Johnston

Recorded history can be 'created' too.  (remember, 'fully operational').

Keith Doyle
#  {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd