From: bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Bales is a liar: evidence - one case
Date: 10 Nov 92 20:42:42 GMT


As evidence to show I'm a liar, Jim Meritt posted some questions which he said
I have not answered.  In a previous article, I showed that even if Jim was
right about the questions, it would not prove me a liar.  However, Jim is
wrong: I have answered them.

I admit that I haven't written an article which said, "These are Jim's
questions and here are the answers to them."  But the questions, and the
answers to them, have been common themes in my articles.

In the following section:

$ -- Jim
[] -- my comments as I write this
Unmarked --  quotes from my previous articles.

--------------------------

$IAW Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (didn't want to get esoteric!):

$scientific method - principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of
$knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the
$collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation
$and testing of hypothesis.

$So, does creationism use the scientific method?  
$        If no, never mind because I don't think so.
$        (Bales says "yes")

[Since Jim indicates what I say, I assume he doesn't count this as an
unaswered question]

$       If yes:
$               What data has been collected in support of creationism.

[Posted about July 5, 1992]

The interlocking nature of the feather is strong evidence that it did NOT
evolve. Quoting again from _Vertabrates. . . ._

     "The typical feather has the two rows of barbs of slightly unequal
     length, the one which is anterior on the body being the shorter.
     Each barb has anterior and posterior barbules, the former with hooks 
     or hamuli and the latter with ridges, so that the flat surface or
     vane of the feather is firmly locked together on exactly the prin-
     ciple of the zipper." (page 434)

Here we have another case of of *two* different, independent things, both of
which must be present to accoplish the function.  Evolutionary processes,
assuming they occur,  explain how *one* thing (at a time) can develop via a
mutation and then be selected for, but as I pointred out above, they do not
explain the development of simultaneous features.

On the other hand, the use of multiple different parts working together to
accomplish a function is a hallmark of design.

$               What observations support creationism?

[Posted July 31, 1991]

When we study the fossil record, we do not see an "almost-human" species from
which humans could likely have evolved.  We see apes and we see humans.  We
see no evidence that any organism transitioned between them.  The fossil
agrees with what we would expect to see if man was separately created, but
not with what we would expect if man evolved.

$                What experiments have been conducted (especially, what
$                       experiments have been done, or are possible,
$                        that can _FALSIFY_ creationism?

[Posted July 22, 1991.  Not exactly and experiment, but an observation.  We
can observe the past, but can't really do experiments in it]

Creationism says that different organisms were seperately created.  Were you
to show that one variety of organism came from another, this would falsify
creation.

$              What hypothesis has been formulated and how can it/they
$              be tested?

[Posted April 16, 1990]

Creationism says that individual oranisms were created without links between
them.  In contrast, evolution says there were and are links.

[Two different theories, with two different hypotheses.  They can be tested
by comparing them with the record we have of past and present life.  This has
been done.]

Obsevations show, in the great majority of cases, a lack of organisms to be
even *possible* links.  This is in agreement with creationism.  Evolutionists
have created a number of assumptions and theories to explain how the links
existed but left no traces.  Creationism does not need these extra
assumptions, for which there is not much supporting evidence.

[End of quotations]
 --------------------

Although I asked for a supposed 'lie' big enough that my disproof of it wound
disprove the 'liar' charge, Jim didn't say if this qualifies.  I hope it does,
so that we can put the whole business behind us.

   Bob Bales
   Tektronix, Inc.

I help Tektronix make their instruments. They don't help me make my opinions.
Newsgroups: talk.origins