Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site oddjob.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!oddjob!matt
From: matt@oddjob.UUCP (Matt Crawford)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: The Rock of Ages and the Ages of Rocks
Message-ID: <1000@oddjob.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 16-Oct-85 17:15:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: oddjob.1000
Posted: Wed Oct 16 17:15:26 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 18-Oct-85 00:45:37 EDT
References: <430@imsvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: matt@oddjob.UUCP (Matt Crawford)
Organization: U. Chicago, Astronomy & Astrophysics
Lines: 87

I thought perhaps Ted Holden had been convinced of the possibility
that he might not be correct, but alas, it was only a news feed
breakdown.  He has issued another posting full of clear untruths
and opinions presented as fact.

In article <430@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes:
>               The funny thing about the creation/evolution debate is that,
>          on  this  one  critical  and  all  important  point,  it  is  the
>          scientists  who  are  dealing  from a position of AXIOMATICS, and
>          therefore dogma.

What do you consider to be an axiom of science?  Some fields (such as
quantum mechanics) are formulated in terms of axioms, but the theories
based on those axioms are subject to testing.  The theory and axioms
are rejected if they are found to be incorrect.  This is similar to
mathematics, where the axioms serve to define the "game being played",
but different in that any axioms whose consequences are contradicted
by experiment are thrown out.

>               There is no reason  to  doubt  the  measurements  of stellar
>          distances which  modern scientists work with.  There is likewise,
>          no reason to doubt that they  are at  least in  the ballpark with
>          their  ages  FOR  THE  UNIVERSE  AS  A  WHOLE, which are based on
>          knowledge of stellar distances and properties of light.   But the
>          ages which  traditional scientists give for our own solar system,
>          for this planet, for  the various  geological epochs  this planet
>          has  undergone,  and,  generally,  for  every  kind of an ORIGENS
>          related timeframe, are not based on any such solid ground.  There
>          are good reasons for doubting these schemes.

You should check into your facts, Ted.  In the past the cosmologists
have had much younger ages for the universe than the geologists had
for the earth.  The geologists have always turned out to be correct.
Their ages were based on physical processes which were much better
understood than the astronomical objects used to measure the universe.

>               Beginning  around  1800  or  so, Lamarck and Lyell and other
>          scientists developed  what came  to be  known as  the doctrine of
>          uniformity, upon which nearly all of our present natural sciences
>          are based.  This doctrine states that  the conditions  we observe
>          in the present can be assumed to have prevailed in all past ages,
>	   ... This amounts  to an  axiom, or  an article of
>          faith;   it is  not something  which anyone  has ever proved, yet
>          this basic assumption stands squarely at the bottom  of virtually
>          every  scheme  by  which  scientists try to estimate ancient time
>          frames.

I cannot think of any science which even believes, let alone presupposes,
that conditions far in the past were similar to those in the present.  In
fact, estimates of the age of the universe, which you admit to having "no
reason to doubt" (above), are based on the big bang model which has mar-
kedly different conditions at early times, and in which some very large
changes occur very abruptly.  If your whole world-picture is based on the
assumption that scientists subscribe to this "doctrine of uniformity",
then there is no point discussing your pet theories any further, as your
assumption is wrong.  I don't mean debatable, I mean just plain WRONG.
One can earn a Ph.D. in physics without ever hearing of this doctrine,
either by name or by description.

>          In  ancient
>          literature, there are  numerous  stories  which  clearly describe
>          cosmic violence  on a  global scale, something which nobody could
>          take seriously while taking  uniformitarianism  seriously  at the
>          same time.

How many of these stories were written by eyewitnesses?  How many
were even supposed to have taken place during the writer's lifetime?
We have many stories of global catastrophe in current literature.
What makes the ancient stories more valid than the newer ones?

>               ...  I HATE to
>               see  "scientists"  get  away  with  portraying  Plato, Ovid,
>               Hesiod, Solon, Socrates, the  authors of  the Old Testament,
>               and, generally, every ancient author who ever wrote anything
>               about origins in this  manner,  because  they  are  dead and
>               thus unable to defend themselves.  

Do you mean to imply that we must take as truth anything written by
any dead person, because they are unable to answer our refutation?
If so, then may I suggest a way for you to make your arguments more
convincing?
_____________________________________________________
Matt		University	crawford@anl-mcs.arpa
Crawford	of Chicago	ihnp4!oddjob!matt

PS:
it's, ORIGENS, inperceptable, emperical, principal, commiting, primative