Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uwmacc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: The Keebler Chronicles (4 of 7) Message-ID: <938@uwmacc.UUCP> Date: Fri, 19-Apr-85 16:04:36 EST Article-I.D.: uwmacc.938 Posted: Fri Apr 19 16:04:36 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 22-Apr-85 01:26:52 EST Distribution: net Organization: UW-Madison Primate Center Lines: 77 > [Ernest Hua / Keebler] >> { 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. Naturalism. >> 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 rules are those which you gave later on in your article: "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." Do you not read your own articles? >> 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? Charles Darwin, Stephen Gould, Sewell Wright,...etc. >> 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. That's not a very good argument. One looks in vain in the rest of the paragraph (below) for some supportive clarification. > "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. So you invalidate "kind" by supporting "species". That's sort of like supporting creationism by refuting evolution, isn't it? :-) >> 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. Nor much of yours to figure out that you're still waving your hands yourself. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "Danger signs, a creeping independence" |