From: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Newsgroups: k12.ed.science
Subject: Re: Evolution
Date: 8 Jan 93 23:07:09 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1993Jan8.153925.13073@isc-br.isc-br.com>
     bruceh@access.isc-br.com (Bruce Hogan) writes:

>       I find 
>       the same problem (absence of thought process/ignorance of the facts) 
>       with some folks who hold to the evolution view of origins.  You can 
>       find this phenomenon on both sides of the question.

However, those that profess a belief in a young earth style
creationism are much more likely to misunderstand or be unaware of the
scientific side of the issue.  Scientists (and proponents of science)
may be ignorant of relevant scriptural or theological issues, and thus
make unsupportable claims that science and scripture are incompatible.
That should have no bearing whatsoever on science and what should be
taught in science classes.  Then again creationists misunderstanding
science shouldn't have a bearing either...

>       But there is no conflict between 'a creation' and the fact of the 
>       existence of dinasaurs.  The scientists who maintain that creation is 
>       the only reasonable explanation for the evidences of geologic and 
>       paleontologic history does not do so by ignoring the fossil record at 
>       all.  The bones are there, even the carcases (sp?) are there in some 
>       cases.  I believe they were on Noah's Ark, or could have been.  No 
>       problem there.  
>
>       Do you see one?

Let's start with this:  There are about 47,000 described species of
vertebrates.  There are over 300,000 described species of *beetles*!
There are around 5,000 described species of *tapeworms*.  There are
around 37,000 species of *cockroach*. ... I think you get the picture.
These numbers represent only those animals known to have been alive at
some time during the past three or four hundred years.  

If you were to add up all of the extinct species (did the ark really
have a *pair* of seismosaurs?), your claim that they would fit on the
ark is easily seen to be ludicrous.  And if you claim that not all
species were on the ark, but that later forms developed from those
that were, then you're postulating evolution to occur at a much
greater rate than any reputable scientist ever suggested.  The only
reason that you can think (or convince others) as you do is because of
a rampant innumeracy in american society.  You can prove me wrong by
coming up with numbers that satisfy the data.  

Everyone please remember *testable* predictions.  Mr. Hogan, please
tell us the volume of your ark (we'll get to the feasibility of making
such a structure from wood later), and then do independent
calculations for the volume of all the plants and animals that would
need to fit on it in order to account for biodiversity both past and
present.  When you're done, compare the two numbers...

>       Also, just a comment about "I am a paleontologist so that says which 
>       side I am on".  Nowadays, that doesn't say which side you're on.  All 
>       Paleontologists are not evolutionists by any means, but they may all be 
>       in the circles you frequent.  

Why is it that you keep making unsubstantiated assertions like this,
and not responding when people call you on them?

>       Though it is impossible (I think) to be 
>       entirely unbiased, it is the coolly objective scrutiny of many 
>       paleontologists, who are not associated with any particular religion 
>       BTW, that has led them to conclude that the fossil record does not 
>       contain the evidence of millions of years of transitional change, or 
>       even "spurts" of change, 

That you seem to think there's a dichotomy between "millions of years
of transitional change" and "even 'spurts' of change" indicates that
you're more familiar with creationist misstatements about paleontology
than you are about the actual subject.  Finished your full court
press, yet?

>       but rather is a record of the sudden appear-
>       ance of the different species who were caught in a hydraulic 
>       catastrophe that buried them with the normal sifting and sorting that 
>       accompanies the falling out of solution and the laying down of layers 
>       you would expect from an event like that.

And the people that believe these things tend to make statements about
the violent nature of the flood that smashed continents while
simultaneously gently layering sediments.  They also leave you
wondering about all those flowering plants that went running up the
hills to make sure that they weren't buried down there with the
mesozoic ferns and cycads...  Mr. Hogan's claim that familiarity with
the data leads you to believe in a cataclysmic flood is either
disingenuous or seriously uninformed.

Incidentally, the same innumeracy described above is necessary for
believing Mr. Hogan's assertion about the "laying down of layers".
The most charitable reading of the length of the genesis flood is that
it lasted for about a year.  There are millions of layers in the Green
River varve formation--Mr. Hogan's claim would have you believe that a
new layer was put down about every three seconds.  Everyone please
remember again, *testable* predictions.  If Mr. Hogan is correct, then
you could make a suitable aquarium and demonstrate the feasibility of
putting down well sorted layers at such a rate.  Mr. Hogan, are you
willing to try it?

Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: k12.ed.science