Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-edu1!rafferty
From: rafferty@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Colin Rafferty)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 9)
Message-ID: <243@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 23-Apr-85 22:56:47 EST
Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-e.243
Posted: Tue Apr 23 22:56:47 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 26-Apr-85 21:27:47 EST
References: <340@iham1.UUCP>
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 53



>     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. (See 1-13.)
>

Neither was creation, but many have said this before.

>    B.  ALL  ARGUMENTS  FOR  EVOLUTION  ARE  OUTDATED,  ILLOGICAL,  OR
>        WISHFUL THINKING.
>

But isn't that all that Creationism is, anyway: wishful thinking?

    We don't know how this all came about, so lets say that someone real
    nice made it this way.


>      18.   ....  Lucy, a type  of  Australopithecine,  was  initially
>            believed  to have walked upright in a human manner. Recent
>            studies of  Lucy's  entire  anatomy,  not  just  her  knee
>            joints,  now  show  that this is highly improbable [s] and
>            that she probably swung from the trees  [t,u].  For  about       
>            100 years the  world was led to  believe that  Neanderthal
>            man was stooped and ape-like.  Recent  studies  show  that
>            this was based upon some Neanderthal men who were crippled
>            with  arthritis  and  rickets  [v-x]. 

Do the uprooting of some fallacies mean that Evolution as a whole is wrong?
That would be like saying that, since Mendel fudged his numbers, we have to
throw genetics out the window.  And even if we could say that this proved
evolution to be wrong, how does this prove Creationism to be right?

Also, by acknowledging the correctness of the age of these fossil records,
how can you still say that the world was created ~4000 years ago, since
these have been around for an amount of time three orders of magnitude
greater than that?

>   II.  (Astronomical Sciences):

I can't wait to see this .  Maybe he'll say that the Earth isn't perfectly
round, therefore, all of science, as we know it, is wrong.  (-:

                        -Colin Rafferty  {rafferty@cmu-cs-edu1.arpa}


P.S.  I think that if I had to "believe" in something nonscientific, I'd go
      for Descartes' "evil demon" any day of the week.   )-:

                                  translate as 'no joke'--^