Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!prls!amdimage!amdcad!decwrl!decvax!tektronix!zehntel!dual!mordor!ut-sally!utastro!padraig
From: padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 7)
Message-ID: <41@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 22-Apr-85 11:36:36 EST
Article-I.D.: utastro.41
Posted: Mon Apr 22 11:36:36 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 27-Apr-85 05:49:51 EST
References: <338@iham1.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 73


I am seriously beginning to think that this forum is a waste of time. I
get the strong impression that many creationists think that a 
thousand lousy arguments add up to at least one cood one. 
On the off chance that some useful discussion may come of this
I include the following:

>      THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
> 
> I.  (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID.

Well, here we go again. YOU DO NOT PROVE CREATIONISM BY ATTEMPTING TO
DISPROVE EVOLUTION

> 
>     A.  EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. (See 1-13.)

This has alredy been discussed. However it is interesting to note that
there have been no responses to any criticisms whatsoever.

>     B.  ALL  ARGUMENTS  FOR  EVOLUTION  ARE  OUTDATED,  ILLOGICAL,  OR
>         WISHFUL THINKING.
> 
>        14.  It is illogical  to  maintain  that  similarities  between
>             different  species  imply a genealogical relationship [a];
>             they may imply a common Designer.

A real gem this one is. Since when is a designer within the domain of
science? The ignorance of science and the scientific method illustrated
in these articles is both depressing, and frustrating.

>             a)  ''. . . it is unscientific to maintain that morphology
>                 may  be  used  to prove relationships and evolution of
>                 the higher categories of units, . . . .'' [N. Heribert
>                 Nilsson,  (Lund  University),  SYNTHETISCHE ARTBILDUNG
>                 (Lund Sweden: Verlag CWK Gleerup, 1953), p. 1186.]

Evolutionists do not reach their conclusions solely on the basis
of morphological similarities.

> 
>        15.  The existence of human organs whose  function  is  unknown
>             does  not  imply that they are vestiges of organs from our
>             evolutionary ancestors.  In fact, as medical knowledge has
>             increased,  the functions of all of these organs have been
>             discovered [a]. The widespread absence of vestigial organs
>             implies that evolution never happened.
> 
>             a)  Jerry Bergman, ''Vestigial Organs:  Putative  Evidence
>                 for   Evolution   of   Homo   Sapiens''   (Unpublished
>                 Manuscript, 1306 North Orleans  Ave.,  Bowling  Green,
>                 Ohio 43402: 137 pages, 1984).

This argument is trash. First you imply that organs of unknown function
exist, then you quote science as saying they don't.

>        16.  There are many single cell forms of life, but there are no
>             forms  of  animal  life  with  2,  3,..., or even 20 cells
>             [a,b]. If organic evolution happened, these forms of  life
>             should   exist   in   great   abundance.    None  do.  The
>             evolutionary tree has no trunk [c].
> 

If you examined the literature more carefully would have learned that
there are two kinds of single celled creatures; those with and without
nuclei. It has been proposed that originally organelles like
nuclei were separate creatures, and entered into a symbiotic relationship
 with others. Therefore it could be claimed that a single celled animal
with nucleus is an example of a two celled structure - one within the other.
The argument can be generalized to include structures like chloroplasts,
mitochondria etc.

Padraig Houlahan.