From: bvickers@valentine.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 28 Aug 92 17:25:40 GMT
Reply-To: bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Organization: Univ. of Calif., Irvine, Info. & Computer Sci. Dept.


I wrote:
>>That is why I asked if you had any scientific evidence
>>to support your claim that the earth is young.

lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
>No, I don't have and scientific evidence for this.  There are many
>other things for which I have no evidence:
>  - that my life has meaning or purpose
>  - that some actions are better than others (i.e. helping someone up
>    rather than stepping on his face)
>  - that I love my wife
>  - that a stary summer night is beautiful

None of these things is an objectively verifiable event.  The age
of the earth can be measured using available scientific techniques;
it's an objective and scientifically verifiable fact that the
earth is old.  The same cannot be said for your list of subjective
feelings.

>I don't know about you, but these are not things that I am about to
>discard for lack of evidence.  I hold the view that not all things are
>within the realm of science.  Some call this crackpot.  I don't care.

The things you listed are certainly not within the realm of science.
However, the study of the earth and its antiquity is.

I wrote:
>>You basically restated what I just stated, except you used
>>examples.  Evolution explains how life evolved from life.
>>It does not explain how life originated from non-life.  Yours
>>is a common misconception.

You wrote:
>In practice, it is said that evolution explains how humans, dogs,
>horses, etc. came to be.  In _common usage_ (as I said before), this is
>what is meant by where life came from.

Terminology is important in science.  You implied that you thought
evolution explained how "life got here."  Life does not have the
same meaning in this context as it would in other contexts.  For
example, the biological concept of life wouldn't make much sense
in the following sentence: "I wish my life was easier."  Asking
"how life got here" in a scientific context is the same as asking
how life originated from non-life.  The answer to that question
is that nobody knows.

Do you concede that life's origin is not explained by evolution?
This is where I think your misconception was.

>>I don't think I've ever heard a reputable scientist argue for the
>>nonexistence of God based on the fossil record or on any facet of
>>evolutionary theory.

>I should have said that it is taken as evidence of the non-existance of
>God as portrayed in the Bible.

I would therefore addend my sentence to include the "God of the
Bible."  Evolutionary theory is at odds with a literal interpretation
of Genesis -- that's for certain.  But it does not suggest the
nonexistence of any God, not even the one of the Bible.  Science
has no way of dealing with supernatural issues.  You've proven
that you lack the capacity to understand this concept before, however,
by stating that you think evolution is somehow atheistic.  Science never
includes the supernatural, nor should it; can you grasp that?

--
 ___            _    _     _  _        _
(  _) ___ ___ _( )__( )_  ( )( ) o  __( ) _  ___  ___  ___
(___)(_) (__=) (_)_ (_)_   (__) (_)(_((_)(_'(__=)(_) _(_)
Brett J. Vickers (bvickers@ics.uci.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet