From: btd@IASTATE.EDU (Benjamin T Dehner)
Subject: Re: Genesis - fact or fiction
Reply-To: btd@IASTATE.EDU (Benjamin T Dehner)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 21:50:21 GMT

In article <1992Aug22.135023@IASTATE.EDU>, kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren
Vonroeschlaub) writes:
> This was posted to talk.religion.misc.  Sorry, I have a feeling the arguments
> this guy gives are four days older than water, but at least this thing can be
> hit while it is mall enough.  Followups to both t.r.m and t.o.
> 
> In article <sbuckley.714449558@sfu.ca>, sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen
Buckley)
> writes:
> > Mike Serafin writes:
> > 
> > >Paal Steinar Berg writes:
> > 
> > >>In my view the genisis is a simple explanation for the people living
> thousands of
> > >>years ago, and must be looked upon in that way. I believe that the
> evolusionists
> > >>have a better explanation of the way it realy happened..
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>Paal....
> > 
> > >I, being a scientist, once believed that evolution had all the answers. 
> > >But, evolution presents some gross inconsistencies with modern scientific 
> > >laws. Evolution requires that all matter somehow came together to form 
> > >life.  The law of entropy states that all systems will tend toward a state
> > >of maximum entropy (maximum disorganization).  If this law is valid, then 
> > >how, without some outside force, did matter come together to form life?

	What kind of scientist were you?   The 2nd law of entropy crap is 
LONG been known to be a nonsensical arguement based on the ignorance of both
the presenter of the arguement and the listener.  I have a major ignoramous
alarm that goes of whenever someone mentions 'evolution' and 'thermodynamics'
in the same paragraph.
 
> > 
> >   until 2 days ago, i was quite uninformed about the scientific evidence
> > that blew evolution to pieces.  but 2 days ago i found the following book.
> > 
> >   in the book _In The Beginning_ [Walter T. Brown, Jr., 5th edition,
> > (Phoenix: Center for Scientific Creation, 1989)] Brown shows that in 127 
> > area, based on evolutionists' data and quoted conclusions, the theory of 
> > organic evolution is invalid, secondly, the universe, the solar system, the
> > earth, and life were recently created and thirdly that the earth has 
> > experienced a worldwide flood.

	Never seen the book.  Anyone on t.o familiar with it?  (As if I have
to ask :)

> >   each of the three above statements dealing with the life sciences, 
> > astronomical sciences and earth sciences are divided each into three main
> > arguments:
 
> >   organic evolution:
> > 	- organic evolution has never been observed
	Wrong.  It has been observed.  I'm sure references are forthcoming.
> > 	- the arguments for evolution are outdated and often illogical
	Which particular arguements?
> > 	- new research shows that life is so complex that chance processes
> > 		and even billions of years cannot explain it
	Chance did not produce life.  Known physical laws and mechanisms did.

> > 
> >   the universe...:
> > 	- naturalistic explanations for the evolution of the solar system
> > 		and universe are unscientific and hopelessy inadequate
	This is pure bullshit.  You got something against the law of 
conservation of angular momentum?  Be more specific.
> > 	- techniques that argue for an old earth are either illogical or
> > 		are based on unreasonable assumptions
	Which assumptions, and why are they unreasonable.
> > 	- most dating techniques indicate that the earth, the solar system,
> > 		and the universe are young.
	This is commonly known as a lie.  Please show me how I would be wrong
in calling the person who made this statement a liar.

> >   that flood thing:
> > 	- archaelogical evidence indicates that Noah's Ark probably exists
	What archeological evidence?  A few scraps of wood of dubious origin
brough back from a mountain?
> > 	- many of the earth's previously unexplainable features can be
> > 		explained by a cataclysimic flood
	Which features are those?  Mountains are easy to understand.  River
valleys aren't very hard.  Hmm, what else?
> > 	- the seemingly impossible events of a worldwide flood
> > 		are really quite plausible if examined closely
	What evidence would it leave behind that we could look for?  I.e., make
a prediction.
  
> >   now i haven't gone through all the sources for the 127 points that
> > lead to the above conclusions, and i've decided to not bother.  enough
> > of them are sound and enough are actually quoted that i'm not going to 
> > go to the effort to check them all, especially when many are from 
> > darwin himself, and many of the most reputable scientific journals that
> > have ever existed.  initially i was concerned that Brown was merely
> > drawing his own conclusions based on potentially ambiguous data, but 
> > he is merely compiling evolutionists' conclusions from relevant fields
> > within the earth, life and astronomical sciences based on their own data.
> > i don't suppose this book represents an exhaustive list of all
evolutionists'
> > attempts to verify evolution and the big bang that ended up supporting 
> > those theories invalidity, but based even on only about 20-25 of the 127
> > cases, one can easily see the invalidity of these theories.
> > 
> >   not surprisingly this book may be hard to find, tho any reputable
> > scientific bookstore ought to have it in stock if you check.  if not,
> > i've found it in christian bookstores and it can be ordered from the 
> > publisher:

	From what you have posted, it seems like a lot of scatological nonsense 
based on vague generalities and oversimplification.  I would like to see more 
specifics of what this gentlemen thinks he is talking about.  Furthermore, I do
not trust any creationist when he/she starts 'quoting' from 'reputable 
scientific journals', after the demonstrated duplicity of the ICR at misquoting
and taking material out of context.
	Furthermore, as has been noted, what does darwin have to do with it?
Darwin is honered because he came up with the first naturalistic explanation
of the existence of life.  Not surprisingly, in the 100+ years since his
theory, ideas have changed a bit.  It's like trying to disprove general
relativity by quoting Euclid - despite what Euclid said and did, the universe
is not euclidean and does not obey his postulates.
 
> >   Center for Scientific Creation
> >   5612 N. 20th Place
> >   Phoenix, AZ
> >   85016
> > 
> >                  it's $9.00 + 10% shipping. 
> 

P.S.  Any reputable scientific bookstore would have used something like this
as oddly packaged preused toilet paper.  
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner    Dept. of Physics and Astronomy 
btd@iastate.edu       Iowa State University 
                      Ames, IA 50011

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc