Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sphinx.UChicago.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!bellcore!allegra!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth From: beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (beth d. christy) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 17) Message-ID: <552@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> Date: Fri, 24-May-85 01:11:53 EDT Article-I.D.: sphinx.552 Posted: Fri May 24 01:11:53 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 26-May-85 21:27:02 EDT References: <359@iham1.UUCP> Organization: U. Chicago - Computation Center Lines: 67 In Message <359@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > > C. NEW RESEARCH SHOWS THAT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE ARE SO > COMPLEX THAT CHANCE AND EVEN BILLIONS OF YEARS CANNOT EXPLAIN > IT. > > 29. Computer-generated comparisons have been made of the > sequences of amino acids that comprise a protein that is > common to almost all forms of animal and plant life. The > results of this study seriously contradict the predictions > of the theory of evolution [a-d]. > > a) Personal communication from Robert Bayne Brown. > b) Ginny Gray, ''Student Project 'Rattles' Science Fair > Judges,'' ISSUES AND ANSWERS, December 1980, p. 3. > c) Robert Bayne Brown, ABSTRACTS: 31ST INTERNATIONAL > SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING FAIR (Washington D.C.: Science > Service, 1980), p. 113. > d) Dr. Colin Patterson is the Senior Principal Scientific > Officer in the Palaeontology Department at the British > Museum of Natural History. In a talk he gave on > November 5, 1981 to leading evolutionists at the > American Museum of Natural History, he presented some > new data on amino acid sequences in several proteins > of a number of animals. The relationships of these > animals, according to evolutionary theory, has been > taught in classrooms for many decades. Dr. Patterson > pointed out to a stunned audience that this new data > contradicts the theory of evolution. In his words, > ''The theory makes a prediction; we've tested it, and > the prediction is falsified precisely.'' Although he > acknowledged that scientific falsification is never > absolute, the thrust of his entire talk was that he > now realized that ''evolution was a faith,'' that he > had ''been duped into taking evolution as revealed > truth in some way,'' and ''that evolution not only > conveys no knowledge but seems to convey anti- > knowledge, apparent knowledge which is harmful to > systematics [the science of classifying different > forms of life].'' [''Prominent British Scientist > Challenges Evolution Theory,'' Audio Tape > Transcription and Summary by Luther D. Sunderland, 5 > Griffin Drive, Apalachin, New York 13732. Also see > Luther D. Sunderland and Gary E. Parker, ''Evolution? > Prominent Scientist Reconsiders,'' ICR IMPACT, No.108, > June 1982.] > > Ron Kukuk > Walt Brown You boys are going to get real SOMEday, right? What the h*ll kind of SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE is this crap?!?! "Somebody else (a "Prominent British Scientist" no less!) says that there's a prediction made by a theory and there's data that contradicts it." Well what the h*ll is the prediction, and what the h*ll is the data, and why the h*ll does the unspecified data contradict the unspecified prediction?!?!?!?! If you really do have evidence, then post it. But direct the above garbage to /dev/null. Get it out of here. -- --JB "The giant is awake." Disclaimer? Who wud claim dis?