Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!nike!cit-vax!elroy!smeagol!jplgodo!wlbr!voder!pyramid!decwrl!ucbvax!sdcsvax!sdcc6!sdcc3!za56
From: za56@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU (Brian McNeill)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Creation, Evolution, and Flood
Message-ID: <3580@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU>
Date: Sat, 13-Sep-86 15:18:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: sdcc3.3580
Posted: Sat Sep 13 15:18:10 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 17-Sep-86 07:31:11 EDT
References: <203@BMS-AT.UUCP>
Reply-To: za56@sdcc3.UUCP (Brian McNeill)
Followup-To: talk.origins
Distribution: na
Organization: U.C. San Diego, Academic Computer Center
Lines: 141
Keywords: science flood cosmology
Xref: linus talk.origins:42 talk.religion.misc:80
Summary: WHOA!  Hold on here!

In article <203@BMS-AT.UUCP> stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) writes:
>Actually, I don't assume evolution is not part of God's plan.  I don't
>pretend to have been around when God created the world.  I am convinced
>that it happened just the way the Bible describes it.  I get ticked
>off at both creationists and evolutionists because of the irrational
>basis of both theories.  
>
>Evolutionist:	The only alternative to evolution is special creation.
>	Since God doesn't exist, this is clearly impossible.  Therefore
>	evolution is true.  (Despite the evidence.)
>

WHOA!  HOLD ON HERE!  We have 2 choices, as you said...Evolution (or
something similar) or special creation...WE DO NOT ASSUME EVOLUTION
IS TRUE BECAUSE WE ASSUME GOD IS NOT!  We assume evolution because
it is SIMPLER than assuming 2 extras (1) that God exists, and (2)
that God would bother creating an appearance of age...Evolution is
far more likely because Creation requires the above 2 premises, wher
evolution, even should a God exist, requires neither, and should (1)
be true, violates neither...God could have created the universe by
evolution...but the universe couldn't have come about by Creation
without (1) and (2) above...and the EVIDENCE you mention happens to
be rather strongly weighted (read that as NO evidence for Xian
Creationism) towards Evolution!  Where did you get the idea that the
evidence points otherwise?


>Creationist:	Evolution was conceived by heathen, therefore it could
>	not possibly be Biblical (i.e. true).  (No science required.)
>
>The waters are further muddied by the 'apparent age' problem which
>makes any scientific consideration of creation impossible.  (Science
>is only concerned with what we can observe.)
>
>My conclusion: both creationism and evolution are totally unscientific
>and should not be taught in science classes.  (I mean general evolution.
>Specific evolution is well proven.)  Perhaps 'cosmology' would be an
>appropriate name for the subject.
>

What is this "general evolution" and "specific evolution" you are
speaking about here...creationism is totally unscientific...we agree
on that, at least...but EVOLUTION UNSCIENTIFIC?  Check your brain
cells man...I think they're burned out!  Cosmology has little to do
with evolution, and thus is a rather inappropriate name...in any
case, evolution happens to be scientific, at least the version I got
fed in high school seems to be up to date...mind presenting your
arguments about why evolution is unscientific...Id like to see
them...

>I think a subject more approachable from the scientific view is the
>Noahic flood.  Let's have some discussion on the net about the Flood.
>

Yeah sure...the Noahic flood was something rumored about in a work
of fiction...end of scientific analysis...but seriously...WHY should
we scientifically analyze something that hasn't been proven to
happen, and in fact is rather unlikely to have happened?  None of
the ancient history we have indicates any catastrophic event of such
magnitude occurred anytime near the time this was supposed to have
occured (c. 2500-3000 BC)...for crying out loud...the Egyptians
already had a civilization at that time...don't youd think theyd
have made notes about it on their walls...and what about the
Chinese..they have a written history going back almost to 4000 BC
(the time of Biblical Creation, I believe)...how can God have
drowned everybody except Noah and Co, and still have left 2 thriving
civilizations?  This strikes me as enough evidence to forget about
Noah right away...end of analysis!

>Here are some facts from the Bible
>
>Duration:	40 days of rain.  The earth covered by water for more
>	than a year.
>

Musta been one hellofa downpour...DONT YOU HAVE ANY IDEA OF THE
SURFACE AREA OF THE EARTH!?!  Even assuming an inch/hour downpour
across the face of the Earth, it would take a thousand years for the
seas to rise up enough to cover just the highlands, and tens of
millenia before covering the mountains...40 days just does not cut
it!

>Onset:		Sudden.  Only the seven in the Ark had (100 years worth
>	of supernatural) warning.

Again, see above...Even assuming a torrential downpour that we may
assume swept all the lowlanders into the sea, the highlanders would
have had years to prepare for the rising waters...

>
>Water source:	the 'floodgates of heaven' and the 'fountains of the deep'.
>	(The objection that there is not enough water in the atmosphere
>	and polar caps is not sufficient.)
>

Yep..and the only way to get that much water onto the earth in that
short a period of time would require not less than the equivalent of
pouring the ENTIRE PACIFIC OCEAN (what, about 40 trillion gallons,
or something of that kind...in any case, a staggering amount) over
the Earth ONCE A DAY!  This kind of downpour, of course, would kill
anything under it with the force of megatons of water cascading down
every minute, as well as (obviously) breaking the Ark up...

>
>	Changes in lifespan and weather indicate to me that radiation
>		based dating would be totally off base for events
>		prior to the flood.  (I.e. carbon 14).
>

Of course C-14 dating would still be accurate...radiation doesn't
change its half-life for some mere quadrillions of tons of water...
weather has absolutely no effect on radiation, and neither does our
lifespans!

>	Evidently, some species were able to survive the flood without
>		being in the Ark.  (E.g. insect eggs, fish eggs, plants,  etc.)
>		The Bible says that everything that breathed died (Gen 7:22).
>		Only breathing creatures were in the Ark (Gen 7:15).
>

As noted above, the sheer weight of the amount of water falling in a
single day required to make the flood would kill anything! period.

>	Was the flood the demise of dinosaurs?  (They were too big
>		to fit in the Ark?)
>

No, since dinosaurs died out some 60 million years before the Flood,
and never coexisted with man or even any of man's cousins.

>-- 
>Stuart D. Gathman	<..!seismo!{vrdxhq|dgis}!BMS-AT!stuart>

/-----------------------------------------------------------\
| Brian McNeill        ARPA :           za56@sdcc3.ucsd.edu |
| HASA "A" Division    UUCP :  ...!sdcsvax!sdcc6!sdcc3!za56 |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|
| Disclaimer: I hereby disclaim all knowledge of opinions,  |
|   expressed or implied, including this disclaimer.        |
| Flames ---> /dev/null                                     |
\-----------------------------------------------------------/