---

Why are amino acids and other organic molecules (not life, but the building block of life) found in galatic space clouds and in meteorites from outer space. Were they created, too, at the same time, or do they occur through some natural process? Why creation? Why not have the life forms brought to Earth by aliens in a space ark? Is there any way to distinguish between my hypothesis and that of creation? I'm quite serious -- I think point 2 is quite ad-hoc, since there is no evicence for spontaneous creation of life today. >3. All present living kinds of animals and plants have remained fixed > sience creation, other than extinctions, and genetic variations in > originally created kinds has only occured within narrow limits. If all the different kinds were created separately at the same time, then why do they all look so identical at the molecular level (e.g., every life form uses DNA with the same chemical pairs for reproduction)? Such basic similarities seem easier to explain with the hypothesis of shared ancestry than one of separate ancestry. If all the different animals have been here since creation then why are single-celled animals found alone among the oldest rocks and larger life forms only found in relatively young rocks? Why is there no convincing fossil evidence that humans co-existed with dinosaurs? Why did the catastrophe that wiped out dinosuars not wipe out humans? Why do the earliest human written records not acknowledge the existence of dinosaurs if we lived with them? Since humans don't have tails, why do we have the remains of a tail-bone in our body? If humans were created in their present form, then why do we have biological "archaic-ness" built in (useless appendix, goose pimples that try to raise the fur we no longer have, etc.)? Why were different animals created in different places? Kangaroos in one place, buffalos in another. Why would simultaneous creation put different life forms in different places that still have similar climates? Why would simultaneous creations lead to oddball animals? Shouldn't there be more consistency to the animal kingdom? Why create a handful of mammals that thrive in water, when clearly (by numbers anyways) the rule for mammals seems to be they should live on land? Why make one mammal that lays eggs (the platypus), when none of the others do? There are many more examples, but this should surfice. This (and the previous paragraph) all looks very chaotic, suggesting random mutations, not simultaneous creations. >4. Mutation and natural selection are insufficient to have brought > about any emergence of present living kinds from a simple pimodial > organism. The insufficiency here has not been proven. A proper experiment would take millions if not billions of years to perform. Without the experiment, one can only estimate the odds using a large number of assumptions (amount of UV light and lightning available, generation cycle time for early organisms, effects of earlier environments on mutation/selection rates, etc.) Changing these assumptions changes these odds. Also, odds are not evidence of impossiblilty only improbability. And even *if* mutation and natural selection as we understand it could be shown to be inadequate to the task, why does it follow that simultaneous creation is the only remaining choice? We know that mutations and natural selection do occur in the present epoch and we also know that spontaneous creation does not occur in the present epoch. Doesn't it make more sense to invoke some kind of super-mutation or super-selection process (an unknown, but more effective form of what we see now) than to invoke a creation process (which we have NEVER observed)? Isn't it better to extrapolate from what we know than simply jump off into the totally unknown? I bring this last issue up since point 4 is only a refutation of evolution and says nothing to support creation. Point 4 no more supports creation than it does the idea that all life forms on Earth were imported by UFO's. >5. Man and apes have a separate ancestry. Why is this so important that it has to be noted separately? Wasn't this already covered in point three? I really don't see why this needs to be a separate point from point three, unless this result is one of the primary motivating factors behind this "supposed" model. You know, of course, that scientists have looked at the fossil record and concluded that they branched off from the same distant ancester. >6. The earth's geologic features appear to have been fashioned largely > by rapid catastrophic processes that affected the earth on a global > and regional scale (catastrophism). Most of the mountain chains we see were formed by the tedious slow process of continental drift, which can be accurately measured year-by-year today. There have been cataclysmic events in the past as witnessed by sudden changes in the fossil record, meteoric dust deposits, and large scale extinctions. It appears that creationists agree with evolutionists that dinosaurs disappeared after one of the global changes. Since the same fossil record is involved, I can't understand why creationists can't also agree that some new forms of life appear after these global changes. The idea that global changes can only kill off life forms but never lead to new ones indicates that life on earth is a process of attrition and that we are all doomed, each life form eventually picked off by a global change and not replenished or replaced. How gloomy -- the future of life is one of depletion, not of growth. >7. The inception of the earth and of living kinds may have been relatively > recent. Evidence? Moon rocks are dated at roughly 4 billion years old. Some life forms have fossils dating back to a few million to a hundred million years ago. Other, simpler life forms, have fossils dating back far further. >There are statements about each of the above that give a little more >details. Which if any do you want me to expand on? > >>Why would God leave all those fossils lying around if He wanted us to >>embrace Creationism as a scientific theory? Why would he implant >>rocks with radioactive elements that give false readings of the rocks' >>age? >For one thing, how can you trust radioactive elements. It makes too >many assumptions. How do we know the something created 6000 years ago >had the same amount of radioactivity as something created today? Who >says the creator intended radioactive elements to be used for dating. Radioactive elements decay with clocklike precision from one element/isotope to another. Measure the amount of the radioactive element remaining relative to the amount of the redioactive decay product and you can figure how long ago the radioactive element was deposited into the rock. The assumptions are far more testable and far less numerous than those used by creationists to defend the point 4 conclusion. Why should their point 4 be more reliable than rock dating? >About the fossils, it's obvious. He left systematic gaps to occur >between fossil record, that demonstrate things did not evolve. Point >to an intermediate fossil between any of the following: >single-celled organisms, invertebrates, vertebrates. Or between >fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, or mamals. Or between "lower" >mamals and primates. The vast majority of life perishes on this planet without leaving any fossils. Fossils only occur under special conditions. So, we know going in, that we are only going to find fossils for a small fraction (perhaps 1 in a million? probably less) of the creatures that lived on this planet. The gaps are easily explained by the rarity of fossil formation -- no divine guidance is needed. For example, assume a life form is stable for ten million years, but then evolves to a different form over ten thousand years following a global change. The new form also is stable for ten million years. Say you're able to find three fossils of this evolving creature from the fossil record spanning those 20,010,000 years. How likely is it that one of the three fossils will be during the short transition period? The odds are 667 to 1 AGAINST you being lucky enough to have a fossil from the transitional era. If the creature almost dies off during the transition period and thus the transition population of the creature is, say, 100 times smaller than the stable form populations, then the odds against finding a transition fossil among the three fossils increases to 66,700 to 1 against!! So, if natural selection accelerates during global climate changes, as it should, then the gaps are readily understandable given the paucity of data. If God really wanted to demonstrate to us conclusively that evolution isn't at work (as you suggested above), she would've left a different calling card in each animal kind, instead of the same old, tired, reused strands of DNA that we find in all of them. Try this analogy: If archaeologists can find human dwelling ruins from the bronze age and the stone age but have yet to find a dwelling ruin showing the transitional stage, are we to automatically conclude that there have always been bronze users and stone users simultaneously from the start of creation? It doesn't follow. Since these ruins are found at two different ages in the fossil record, it seems more credible to hypothesize a transition from one technology to the next. >>Read your biology textbooks on abiogenesis. Life certainly was not >>created out of 'muck,' whatever that is. Well, the building blocks of life (amino acids, etc.) are EASILY created out of "muck", as shown by the Urey-Miller experiment and others. >Sorry, I do not have one handy. How was life created? (IYO) >>Joshua. Jericho. There's the implication that the sun revolves >>around the earth. >I don't have a bible handy, but I will look it up. I certainly hope that the "scientific" theory of creationism does not state that the sun revolves around the Earth. I don't think it does, which is too bad -- that means the biblical story of the sun stopping in its tracks is unsupported by the creationism "theory" as well as our knowledge of celestial mechanics. >>"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Well and >>good; amen and preach it. As an affirmation of God's authority over >>the universe, I buy it. But there's nothing that stops us from using >>science to map out how He did it. The Theory of Evolution, imperfect >>as it is, is a product of scientific inquiry. I have yet to see a >>Theory of Creationism that can make the same claim. >Does the above come closer? No. End of Part I. For really wild stuff, read my Part II post where I try the ridiculous by attempting to apply creationism to other planets! :-) ========================================================================= From: Scott W Roby To: All Msg #111, Feb-21-93 03:10PM Subject: CREATIONISM II: Other Planets (repost) Organization: University of Delaware From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) Message-ID: Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.religion.misc Part I of this post dealt with Creationism as applied to Earth. In this, Part II, I attempt the ridiculous by applying Creationism to other planets! Gaaaack! Please note once more that I do not wish to disparage anyone's belief systems. Science does not deal in the realm of faith or the super-natural. I am merely pointing out that a super-natural based creationism "theory" does not fit into the realm of science. Begin Part II ---------- One last thought about creationism vs. evolution. Evolution theory which uses only natural processes, allows one to set constraints on the timescale and environment needed for the evolution of intelligent life to occur (in the limiting case of one example: the earth). With these constraints, one can intelligently discuss the probability of the existance of other planets supporting intelligent life forms in our Milky Way galaxy containing 100 billion stars. Since creationism invokes a super-natural process to create life, no physical constraints can be put on the conditions necessary to create life. (In other words, being a super-natural process one can not readily say when and where it will occur.) Creationism is unable to make an intelligent guess as to the probability of intelligent life elsewhere in our galaxy. Other questions that Creationism can't really answer (due to the ad-hoc nature of the creation process) follow. When the creation process occurred on Earth, did it also occur on the other eight planets of our sun's system, and those life forms simply died off due to their inhospitable climates? Gad - what a waste. Or did the creation process somehow know that the earth was at the right distance from the sun for liquid water and so the other planets were ignored? This latter scenario suggests that the creation process is somehow triggered by a planet with water, but only once and not continuously. Why? If we can somehow make changes to Venus or Mars (terraforming) so that they have oceans of water, will life then spontaneously be created on them? We see both dead stars and new-born stars in the galaxy today, proving that the formation of stars (and planets) is an ongoing process in the galaxy. Now if the life-creation process occurs only once in the history of the universe then only those stars formed at the same time the sun was formed have a chance at life on their planets. All other stars (formed earlier or later) would be "barren". What makes the sun's "generation" more special than the other generations? Alternatively, is it possible that the "life-creation" process occurs everytime a star and its planets form, but only once, shortly after formation? If this is the case, then someday, we may be able to visit a newly formed star system and watch the creation process at work. If you are an astronaut on a planet about to undergo life creation, is it dangerous? What happens if a life form pops into existance in the same place you are standing? Or do you pop out of existance as other life forms pop into existance? There is so much about this "life-creation" process that remains to be answered! :-) Does this "life-creation" force (which produced buffalos in North America, yet kangaroos in Australia) produce different intelligent life forms on different planets or are they always human creations? If the latter, then we have proof of creationism via the humanoid aliens on Star Trek! :-) ----- Some of the questions I have posed CAN be intelligently addressed by the theory of evolution due to its basis in known natural phenomena. They can only be widly speculated at with the creationism "theory" due to the ad-hoc and so-far completely unobserved process of spontaneous life creation. I hope that some people may notice that some of the situations that occur under the creationism "theory" sound sort of absurd. With regard to the question of life in the universe, evolution bears fruit and creationism is barren. This is not surprising to me since the former has its origins in observations of the world and universe about us and the latter has its origins in an earth-centered, human-based religion ================================================================= From: scharle To: All Msg #138, Feb-22-93 09:27AM Subject: Re: NOAH'S ARK ON TV Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame From: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle) Message-ID: <1993Feb22.172703.4922@news.nd.edu> Reply-To: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle) Newsgroups: talk.origins In article <1993Feb22.021554.61123@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, jsg1@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JONATHAN SCOTT GIBSON) writes: |> All of you who are staunch supporters of evolution, did any of you see the |> program on television on Saturday the 21 of February on Noah's Ark? If not, |> well, you missed a great show. If you did, I am anxious to hear what you |> all |> have to say after they proved scientifically that there actually was a flood |> and that there is an ark on Mt. Ararat somewhere. The whole proof of Noah's |> Ark also proves that the Bible is a bit more than a book full of ancient |> myths. Please respond as to what opinions, if any, you have on this program |> and what you think this does to the reliability of the Bible. |> |> -- |> Jonathan Scott Gibson |> JSG1@LEHIGH.EDU |> BOX 479 X0264 This is a legitimate question, and deserves a serious response. Let me say that what I post here is in the spirit of frankness, and I don't intend this to be taken personally. Also, I'm a complete amateur, so I'm not pretending that this is anything other than one man's opinion. First of all, it should be quite clear that this program was _not_ intended as an unbiassed examination of the issues. Very little time was given to people with different opinions. This, of course, is OK. I just mention it because that means that we have to approach the analysis of the program in a different way, as an examination of how well they did the advocacy of their point of view. I am sure that others will mention the large amount of evidence which was ignored totally by the program. Also, remember that even if the program was very poor, and even if Noah's Ark is not on Mt. Ararat, that that has nothing to do with the truth of the Christian faith. Here are some things which I think a fair-minded person would wonder about when watching the program. There was considerable time spent on people's observations of _something_ made of wood on Mt. Ararat. And they concentrated on saying that so many honest people must have seen something. One could, however, completely acknowledge that there is something made of wood on Mt. Ararat and not find that convincing evidence that it was Noah's Ark. To me, they were covering up (I don't mean that they did this intentionally, however, it could be mere carelessness) the lack of evidence for the object being the ark, by concentrating on the honesty of the observers. For example, they gave a polygraph test to one witness. However, even honest and intelligent observers can be fooled, whether intentionally or not, and especially under extreme conditions. I'm willing to believe that these people were prefectly honorable and sincere people. That doesn't make their conclusions reliable. Why did they believe that what they saw was Noah's Ark, and not, for example, (a) a hoax built to look like Noah's Ark (b) a pagan temple meant to house cattle for sacrifice (c) something built by a Christian community to honor Noah's faith? Even at that, there were confusing parts which made it appear to me that their stories were not consistent. Was it difficult to get to near the summit of Mt. Ararat, where the ark lay? Or was it rather easy, if you knew the right people? The photographs that I saw were very blurry, and there seemed little justification for the superimposed lines outlining the supposed ark. At one point, they seemed to be saying that the object was in two pieces, at another, in three pieces, at another, that someone walked into an intact ark. There was, I recall, one photograph which showed a considerable enlargement, so that all one could see were large gray squares, and someone gave what, to me as a layman, was a not very convincing interpretation. It was not kept clear throughout when there was speculation, and when there was good evidence for what they were saying. For example, in the description of Biblical scenes, much of what was said was pure speculation with no Scriptural basis for what was said. Likewise, with modern evidence. To take a few examples: they at least twice said that the wood was dated to 5000 years old. Yet I saw no evidence for that -- how the wood was dated, by whom, even just how old it was. (Scientists will usually say something like X years before the present, plus or minus Y years.) If they used a technique like radiocarbon dating or dendrochronology, does that mean that they accept the use of such techniques (which otherwise give a lot of problems to believers in recent, special creation)? The model of the ark which was apparently supposed to demonstrate structural soundness and stability was not described enough. Was it just a solid block of wood? Did they take account of scaling factors? (How big was the model?) How does stability relate to structural soundness? I felt uneasy with the sloppiness in the production. For example, when referring to Minoan civilization, they showed a picture of a central American structure of much more recent times (probably around 500-1000 C.E.) and half a world away. They did not at all identify when they were showing reconstructions of events as distinguished from actual photographs of the events. How can one tell whether a photograph on the program is real or reconstructed? I recall a claim at the beginning of the program that they did not intend this to be a religious program. Yet there was a lot talked about which was of a certain religious orientation. It is, of course, anyone's right to present his own religious views, but it is at least carelessness to say that this was not a program with a religious orientation. There were cases of bad (I think this is the cinematographic term) "continuity". People were infrequently identified. When they were identified, it wasn't a good identification. For example, I think that one person was identified as "Professor of Hydrology". It was not mentioned _where_ he was a professor. Another person was identified as a former researcher at NASA (or some such -- it was spoken, not in print, and I don't have a tape of the program). It didn't say _what_ kind of research he was involved in. They really should have _uniformly_ placed a caption on the screen saying something like "John Q. Smith, Professor of ABC, XYZ University". People might want to read some of what professor Smith has to say on this and other topics. Charles Berlitz was given some time. And they also brought up the supposed Grand Duchess Anastasia. There are plenty of other minor points which irritated me, loose ends which they surely could have addressed in two hours, but I'll stop here. -- Tom Scharle |scharle@irishmvs Room G003 Computing Center |scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA

---

The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.

Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank