From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Creation vs. evolution
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 00:18:16 GMT

  You aren't kidding about book.  Of course, it is shorter than Ted's FNAQs
(Frequently Not Asked Questions).  I'll try to address everything, but I do have
alot of grading backed up . . .

In article <n0e24t@ofa123.fidonet.org>,
Richard.Rearden.@.914/901@f8.n10.z1.fidonet.org writes:
> This is the first time I have even read this net and it is fascinating
> to read the diversity of messages as well as the diversity of origins of the
> messages.  My favorite subject is Creation.  Most of what I read are broken
> conversations, but what I get is that that there is little evidence being
> given
> from either side on this subject, weather scientific or otherwise.

  You just hit a low information point because most people on the system have
been here for a while.  Every now and then some new creationists show up, the
ususal FAQs get posted, and the creationists turn to mumbling inconsistent, low
information content one-liners.  When there is nothing to debate there is little
evidence being posted.

>     Just to establish a little basis on the subject.  Last time I was in a
> biology
> at a local junior college, the instructor, who came highly recommended,
> start his class with this statement.  "Evolution is a fact, and there is
> nothing
> that can prove to me otherwise."

  Rather silly.  I can think of several things that would disprove evolution. 
Nobody has come even close to providing those, or any others, but they do
exist.

>  I wish I knew then, what I know now.  But I
> did't.  So, hear is intro to Creation 101a.  Is Evolution a fact or theory.

  Both.  Evolution, the belief that genetic diversity changes over time, is an
obvious fact.  The mechanisms behind evolution are theory.

> Most will say it's a theory, but there is nothing else to dispute it.  The
> true
> Evolutionist will state that it is a fact of life.  Christian's, that small
> fraction of the world's population,

  Christians compose nearly one third of the Earths religious population.  The
small part is the Christians who believe Creationsim.

> Claim it is a lie, a false teaching,
> a sign of the times'.  Here is whatEvolution truly is.  All Evolution is, is
> man's attempt to prove there is no God.

  False.  Evolution is science.  It is not concerned with the existance or
nonexistance of God (Hmm, once again time for me to offer to make a FAQ on the
subject).  The two concepts are orthogonal: you can believe neither, either, or
both.  As an example, the cadre of Christians (including myself) who aren't
Creationists (CWACKs) in t.o.

>  You see, given the same facts,  an
> evolutionist and a Creationist come up with two different stories.

  Um, can you give me the "facts" that Creationists use?  They certainly don't
seem to be the ones I have seen.

>  In fact,
> evolution is nothing more that the most modern way to explain where life came
> from.

  Ah, are you talking about common descent, or abiogenesis?  Either way the
above still holds.

>  In its own right evolution is a religion.

  Hmm?  Can you explain your definition of religion?  The standard definition is
"a beliefe, or set of beliefs about God or gods".  Evolution is suprisingly mute
on the subject.

>  Unfortunately, most will
> deny
> that because that would put take it out of the realm of science and fact, and
> place it with religion and faith.  So, lets look at the facts.

  Great.

>  If I wanted to
> prove to somebody I killed somebody yesterday, how would I prove it.

  Wait, hold it.  Where are the facts we were going to be talking about?

>  I would
> tell you what happened, show you a few items to support my story, and if it
> all
> stuck together, you would believe
> me.  Now lets say I tell you I killed somebody
> 40 years ago.  I have no evidence to support me, not even a convincing tone.
> Would you believe me.  You say no.  Yet, Hitler proved to a nation of people
> that the whole Jewish race was inferior and needed to be exterminated.  And
he
> was almost successful.

  And what does this have to do with evolution.  Let us make the examples a
little more convincing:

  You claim to have killed somebody.  You are holding a smoking gun, pointing it
at a dead body on the floor.  Carefull examination of the dead body shows that
the cause of death was a bullet that exactly matched the one fired from the gun
you were holding.  Furthermore only your fingerprints are on the Gun, it is
registered in your name, and there are powder burns on you hand.

  This is only slightly less than the amount of evidence for evolution.

>  So, as even a whole nation can be convinced of a lie.
> So can an individual.  Obviously, he must of had facts to support his theory.
> And he most of had a convincing tone.  What does this have to do with
Creation
> and Evolution.  Not a lot, I just want every person to realize that he/she
> (must
> be politicly correct), can believe a lie no matter how preposterous, if we
are
> told often enough.  This goes both ways.  Now, back on the subject at hand. 
> For
> me to prove I have committed a murder, the average person would expect some
> proof.  Most would want a lot of proof.  If I showed the you the smoking gun,
> where I did it, and how I did it.  Would that prove that I did it?  Or
> would that prove only that I knew more about the crime than you.  You would
> first question my sanity, and my judgement, but it I explained myself enough
> times you would probably believe me.  This is the way it is with evolution.

  See above for a slightly more accurate representation of the evidence.  Add to
that that there are thousands of people doing everything they can to disprove
it, and have turned up nothing so far.

> They claim many facts support their theory,  and the Creationist claim the
> same
> facts support theirs as well.

  Actually, I haven't even met a Creationist who could state the theory, much
less provide a fact that supports it.  All they have done is tried to disprove
evolution.

>  You see, Evolution and Creation both similar in
> many ways.  Both are based on a belief system of the past.  In other words,
> the
> claims of both can not be scientifically proven.

  Au contraire.  The scientific method is to hypothesize, collect data, and see
if the hypothesis was correct.  This can be done just as well with past events. 
(ie, to show coal layers were layed down over long periods of time, one can
hypothesize that if it were true there would be fossilized plants above taller
plants.  Then look at various coal layers and see if there are any.  If there
are it supports the hypothesis, if not it weakens it.)  This is done for
evolution all the time.  Is it done for creationism?

>  A person cannot take a
> continent into a lab.

  But one can simulate these things on a computer or in a tank.

>  Put pressure on it, and make it divide.  Even if they
> could, it still could not prove that is exactly what happened before.

  Again, how m,uch evidence before it is "proven"?  Usually alot of evidence
(gathered as above) is required before the theory is accepted.

>  So,
> then
> we have two theories, one is taught as fact in all the public schools, the
> other
> is looked upon as a myth, or an allegory at best.  There are many facts to
> support both.

  If you can provide one (just one is all we need) to support Creationism then
you have done better than any other Creationist here.

>  But, just as the clues left a t a crime scene don't tell
> exactly
> how, when or why the crime took place,  you know it did.  For all you can see
> is
> the result.  Two different detectives may come up with two different
theories.
> The irony is that most Evolutionist, refuse to even take the Creationist 's
> theory into spectulation.

  Au contraire yet again.  Every piece of evidence posted here has been
seriously considered, examined as thoroughly as any scientific claim, and has
always been found to be false.  No exceptions so far.

>  Nor even the average heathen.  And here is why.
> If Creation is true,  then there would have to be a God.

  True, but if evolution is true there may or may not be a God.

>  If there is a God,
> we would be obligated to follow his rules.  Most people, don't even want to
> consider that.  Second, most evolutionists refuse to even admit there are
> massive flaws in the evolutionary theory.

  Could you name one?  Antti said he could, flubbered a bit, and then
dissapeared despite every polite (and some impolite) attempts to get him to tell
us.  And he insisted he was a great biologist.

>  Instead they "Preach" it as fact.
> Why do you think that is?

  One could say the same thing about math.  It is a problem with the educational
system, not the subject being taught.

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
Newsgroups: talk.origins