From: czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Calling Young-earth Creationists
Date: 26 Jul 92 01:49:38 GMT
Reply-To: czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <BryLrs.Bus@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cmaier@uiuc.edu writes:
>In <1992Jul23.115606.202088@uctvax.uct.ac.za> fllant01@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:
>
>>As a born-again Christian, I subscribe to the theory of a young earth
>> (6000 to 10000 years old).
>
>>Does anyone have scientific evidence to support this?
>>(Stuff on dating methods, dynamic vs. atomic time, etc.)
>>Please e-mail or post.
>
>>Thanks in advance,
>>Anthony Faull.
>
>Your best source for info would be:
>
>The Institute for Creation Research
>P.O. Box 2667
>El Cajon, CA 92091
>
>I have most of their materials and have participated in most of their activities
>over the past several years.

This explains everything!

>                              They are an effective and dedicated group of
>Christian scientists (and are thus constantly besmirched by the denizens of

Hardly. They are a bunch of charlatans who misrepresent respected
scientists (eg Eldredge), fake evidence (Paluxy) and generally ignore
things that don't match their religion's creation myths. As far as
I can see, it's just a backdoor attempt to break the First Amendment:
get the biblical creation myth accepted as science in schools, and then
it'll be easier to get religion taught.

>this newsgroup) who publish on the scientific evidence for a young earth and

And what EVIDENCE is that? Everything I have seen from them sets out to
try and show that evolution could not have happened, by misrepesentation,
in order to show that the biblical creation myth is The Truth (tm). It's
like saying I'm not a dog so I must be a cat. Even if they manage to
prove that changes over time (which the word "evolution" was coined to
describe) are all a figment of somebody's imagination then they STILL
have to prove their creation myth. And their only base is a collection of
myths, legends and allegories from a tribe of nomads who existed a few
thousand years ago.

>flood geology and immutability of created biological prototypes.
>
>The best line of evidence is simply the fact that there is no physical evidence of
>human existence prior to the time of the Floood.

Perhaps because there was NO world-wide flood as described in the bible?

>                                                  That is , of course, if you
>discount the vivid tales and a coffin full of mouldy ape teeth that 
>paleoanthropologists would have us believe mean something.
>
>Hopefully, they will soon make their materials available on diskette so we
>in the newsgroups can 'Flood' the world with this important information.
>

Have you ever wondered why their material is so full of holes? Why they
only publish material in their own magazines? Why they don't publish in
mainstream scientific journals? Why everybody treats them as a joke?

Their material is intended to reassure their own supporters, and is not
intended for the scientific community at large. Witness Jim Loucks, who
posted long extracts from ICR publications here without checking their
veracity, and got deeper into the mire each time because he believed
the ICR mis-quotes and didn't check the original sources.

>chuck

Chris Lee
Newsgroups: talk.origins