(783) Mon 05 Oct 92 12:17 By: David Rice To: Alan Nunn Re: The Problem With Creationists

(783)   Mon 05 Oct 92 12:17
By: David Rice
To: Alan Nunn
Re: The Problem With Creationists
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AN> "I'm sorry mate but I am not familiar with your preacher
AN> friend and which current evolutionist book would you suggest
AN> I read if I had the time. As we do not have an ACCURATE means
AN> of measuring the rocks etc."

"We" as in you and the mouse in your pocket. However, scientists
have very accurate tools of measuring ages of rocks. K-ar is just
one such method. Varves give us a continuous, highly accurate
record for a time span of over 200,000,000 years--- when organisms
(often plant pollen and micro-organisms) are found in a layer, the
age of that organism is known. Varves are dated astronomically,
and are thus 100% accurate.

AN> "Have your mob got a model yet, which all the known bits fit
AN> into?"

How could that be possible? Scientists would have to be omnipotent
to fit every observation into a unified theory. Every day, more and
more observations refine and improve evolutionary theory, making it
even better at predicting ipso facto--- sadly for Creationists,
evolutionary science proves itself daily.

AN> "eg the time span for the formation of the universe and planet
AN> earth, coinciding with the current theoretical amount of time
AN> needed for the evolution of life."

There is no "theoretical amount of time" required for life to
evolve. Many fools like to deceive others into believing they
know what this imaginary figure is, but they fail totaly in
proving their assertions.

  1) define what "life" is.
  2) how did they come up with their expected frequency? Usually
  they make stupid errors, as they do not know anything of statistical
  analysis.
  3) how do they falsify their figure, i.e. what test proves them
  wrong?

One of the major faults in the figures Creationists put forth is
that they fail to understand that evolution is not random-- yet
they assert over and over again that it is. The method these fools
(i.e. Creationists, aka Theistic Anti-Evolution) usually take in
determining this figure is to sequence DNA and then assume that
all molecules bond randomly (which is LAUGHABLE!). Such individuals
have no idea how silly they are to real scientists.

Another major fault that Creationists make is that evolution does not
address how life started--- it only addresses the fact that life
evolves.

But perhaps THE greatest fault with TAEs (Theistic Anti-Evolutionists,
i.e. Creationists) is that instead of producing a better theory,
they ignorantly attack evolutionary science. If "Creation 'Science'"
were a true science, instead of the cult it is, why do they refuse
to tell us what the theory of Creationism is?!?!?!?!?!?!?
---
 * Origin: The Skeptic Tank (1:102/890)