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!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!bill From: bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: Darwinism vs catastrophic evolution Message-ID: <478@utastro.UUCP> Date: Sat, 3-Aug-85 14:19:18 EDT Article-I.D.: utastro.478 Posted: Sat Aug 3 14:19:18 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 6-Aug-85 05:56:07 EDT References: <364@imsvax.UUCP> Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX Lines: 117 > Four or five years ago, in Roanoke, Va., a debate took place > between creationists and evolutionists. By all accounts, the > debate was conducted fairly, the Christians in the audience > behaving themselves in exemplary fashion. And by all accounts, > including those of reporters from the Washington Post, Richmond > Times, and Norfolk papers, the creationists won the debate going > away. The evolutionists haven't managed to work up the guts for > a return match since or, at least if they have, I've not heard > about it. This makes me wonder if any of our so called > "scientists" ever feel shame. I mean, if I'd ever lost a debate > to Falwell and his minions, I'd still be out in the forrest > somewhere hiding underneath a rock. These days, debates between Creationists and Evolutionists are regularly won by evolutionists. Reason? Evolutionists now are familiar with the bogus arguments of creationists and know how to blow them out of the water. Five years ago this was not the case. Sorry about that. > Any competant Baptist minister could destroy Darwinism in 15 > minutes; a really dedicated creationist like Ron Kukuk (whom I > enjoy reading) can apparently destroy Darwinism in 116 ways. > That's really heavy. Even in the most one-sided contests I've > ever seen or read about, Sitting Bull vs Custer, Genghis Khan vs > Persia, Duran-DeJesus III, Oklahoma vs Kansas State 1971, nobody > ever got demolished 116 ways. Maybe 112 max. NOT A SINGLE ONE OF RON'S ARGUMENTS IS VALID. Nor has he bothered to defend them against the criticism they deservedly got on the net. If there had been any shred of validity to them, he would surely have defended his postings. Silence, in this case, is eloquent. I have heard Jerry Falwell argue against evolution. It was evident that he is scientifically illiterate. So much for Baptist ministers. By the way, I am still waiting for anyone, anywhere, to post just ONE SINGLE VALID PIECE OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR CREATIONISM. That was what Ron's postings were supposed to be, but we drew a blank. In more ways than one. > Most of Ron's arguments seem logical enough to me. However, Naive people are easily fooled by Creationist Bogosity. > he doesn't even need most of his arguments. It should be obvious > even to evolutionists (so simple even they could understand it), > that if even five of his 116 points are valid, Darwinism along > with the notion of uniformitarianism in geology and astronomy are > untenable. ALSO UNTENABLE WOULD BE THE NOTION OF THE HUGE TIME > FRAMES WHICH NATURAL SCIENTISTS ARE SO FOND OF. What are the > odds against Ron being correct on fewer than five of 116 counts? The "probability" that ANY of Ron's arguments is valid is precisely 0. In science, it is not the number of arguments, but their correctness, that counts. > If Ron's 116 aren't good enough, I've got several more. The > one that really kills Darwinism as far as I'm concerned goes as > follows: chance mutations are mostly harmful or fatal and even > these are rare. The ones which aren't harmful are extremely rare > and are isolated in time and local e.g. a child with six fingers > may be born in Paris in 1725 A.D. and the next such child in > Chicago in 1912 A.D. What are the chances of these two marrying > and having six-fingered children? Further, many higher animals > will simply kill mutants. Amongst humans, in every century prior > to this one, this phenomenon took the form of the witchcraft > trial. Picture walking around with six fingers in medieval > France? Groups of humans with six fingers are known. The trait breeds true. There is one such group in (I believe) Appalachia. Usually this happens because the group is relatively small, so there is a lot of inbreeding. As a result, a trait can more easily become fixed in the population. Many examples of beneficial mutations have been documented in this newsgroup. Obviously you haven't been paying attention. Finally, mutation is probably a minor (though important) mechanism in evolution. Duplication and rearrangement of genetic material are thought to be much more important, and they are experimentally well documented. > In recorded history, no entire species has ever perished > from a major continent other than at the hand of man. Ancient > man was not capable of this, especially not against sabre-tooths, > super-lions, Pterotorns etc. ONLY VELIKOVSKIAN EVOLUTION CAN > EXPLAIN EXTINCTION. Whole species became extinct not from being It is well established that the first people in the Western hemisphere were responsible for the extinction of most of the large mammals in North and South America. They had nothing but stone weapons, but their methods were extremely effective. > unfit, but from being at the wrong place at the wrong time as > tidal waves rolled over whole continents and other unhealthy > events occurred. The largest animals were particularly > susceptible to extinction since they had the hardest time getting > to high ground or cover. That is, of the large animals which > perished long after the flood. Others, including a few left-over > large dinosaurs, perished when the force of gravity itself > changed on the earth, shortly after the flood. Really? And what mechanism do you propose to "change the force of gravity on the Earth"? And you call this 'science'? Evolutionists are sometimes accused of speculation, but this is orders of magnitude wilder than anything we are accused of! What nonsense! No, wait. It just struck me. You are really a sensible person and are giving us a parody of Creationists and Velikovskyites, to show up how ridiculous their ideas are. Well, you could have fooled me. -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)