From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Back to "Bales' scales"
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:25:34 GMT
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <7082@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales) writes:
}I ask that if Jim is going to continue to call me a liar, that he post the
}BIGGEST example of what he considers to be a lie, an example big enough that
}when I disprove it (as I'm confident I can), he will stop calling me a liar.
}This is a direct challenge: either prove I am a liar or stop accusing me.

OK.  You are a liar.  Examples have been provided.  Your inability to tell
the difference between a falsehood and truth is itself telling.

Why don't you back up a dozen or so of your assertions that, when challenged,
you dropped?  Say:

>From: sarima@gryphon.COM (Stan Friesen)
Date: 15 Jul 89 15:49:15 GMT

In article <3215@tekfdi.FDI.TEK.COM> bobb@tekfdi.FDI.TEK.COM (Robert Bales) writes:
>In article <14391@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Brian T. Coughlin) writes:
>>  Creationism is valid as a BELIEF... *NOT* as a science. A science MUST
>> have the ability to question and doubt itself, and Creationism falls sadly
>> short in that area.
>Untrue. Creationism (and creationists) are subject to question and doubt.
>Creationists stand by the theory not because they have not questioned it, but
>because they *have.*
...
>Is it "question and doubt" only if the outcome is rejection?  Some things that
>I hold to undoubtedly are not true.
	I would certainly like to see evidence that you have seriously
considered alternatives to a hyper-literal interpretation of Genesis.  I
have never seen any, from you or from any other Creationist.

>>  Another thing. Please don't fall into the trap of calling Creationism a
>> THEORY. It is not. A theory, by definition, MUST be capable of enduring
>> the scientific method: Hypothesize, Experiment, Observe, Conclude.
>
>Creationism is capable of enduring the scientific method, as defined here.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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")

        If yes:
                What data has been collected in support of creationism.
                What observations support creationism?
                What experiments have been conducted (especially, what
                        experiments have been done, or are possible,
                        that can _FALSIFY_ creationism?
                What hypothesis has been formulated and how can it/they
                be tested?


>Alternatives are refused for lack of evidence that they are correct.
>
	OK, show me these observations and deductions.  I have yet to see
any that actually mean anything, and I have been watching this news group
for nearly four years.  The *closest* I ever saw to a valid observation
suggesting a young universe was the Polonium halo stuff.  I was sufficiently
intrigued by it that I did a literature search on it in the technical journals.
As a result I found out it was really almost as weak as the other so-called
evidence for Creationism.  But at least I was willing to *consider* the
possibility that I was wrong.  In fact I change my opinions all the time.

>> You'll also note that the same theory has been revised countless times to
>>accomodate new data. Creationism is incapable of doing the same.
>
>Yes, it is.
>
	OK, show me.  In what *substantive* way has the theory of creationism
been modified in the last ten years?  And I do *not* accept waffling and
shifting the basis of arguments as evidence of modification in a theory.
What statements in the basic manifesto are now considered to be incomplete
or incorrect by the leading practicing creationists?  If you really want
I will give you a list of statements in "The Origin of the Species" that
are now considered wrong.  Can you do the equivalent:  say, using the
original statement of position from the Institute for Creation Research?
I doubt it, I suspect that that document has never been revised or updated
other than to make it sound more scientific.
Newsgroups: talk.origins