From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: 17 Supposed Evidences against Evolution
Keywords: evolution, creationism
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 23:01:29 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.


The crux of
the matter, at least in the eyes of the commited anti-evolutionist:

>   17. THE BIBLE
>    Lastly, and most importantly, the Bible says that God created
>the universe and every living thing, so the world must have  been
>created. 

It is blasphemy for the creationist to say that the physical evidence
left by God does not testify to His handiwork. Were the creationists
there when the foundations of the world were laid? No! So by what 
effrontery do they claim the unique authority to infallibly interpret
Scripture and so prescribe how God may and may not have realized His
creation?


> In denying this we call God a liar.

No: in denying this, we call the creationist mistaken.


>And so you can  see
>how  evolution  theory undermines the omniscience  and  even  the
>existence  of  God. And if there is no God, why not  do  our  own
>thing? Or if God is not all-knowing, indeed, a liar, why put  our
>trust in Him? Evolution theory logically leads to these  humanis-
>tic  ideas. Christians must take a stand for the Word of God,  or
>be  accountable on that judgment day for the souls of those  whom
>we did not warn.

Ethics is not science. If creationists think that a study of material
reality defines human reality to the extent that science can so
challenge or substitute for ethics, then they are calling humanity
purely material, and denying our spiritual natures! Did any Godless
Communist ever claim more? The creationist position is the more
profoundly materialist one, since it professes that a study of rocks 
and bones can lead to conclusions about how humans ought to live.
No evolutionary biologist, or any thinking person, could make such
a mistake.

[16 points of darkness preceded the above; as many of these as I
could stand are answered below:]

>   1. MOON DUST
>However, only about one-eight of an inch of dust was found, indi-
>cating a young moon.

No, it indicates that vacuum welding of dust particles goes on, 
exactly as many scientists expected.

>    Meteoritic material contributes nickel to the oceans.  Taking
>the amount of nickel in the oceans and the supply from meteoritic
>dust yields an age figure for the earth of just several  thousand
>years, not the millions (or billions) expressed by evolutionists.

This totally ignores the biological and geological processes which
remove nickel and other minerals from sea water. Did the source
realize that the entire volume of seawater circulates down into 
and through the crust every few million years? This alone would
ensure that the composition would stay near equilibrium.


>   2. MAGNETIC FIELD
>    The earth's magnetic field is decaying rapidly, at a constant
>(if  not  decreasing)  rate. At this rate,  8000  years  ago  the
>earth's  magnetism would have equaled that of a magnetic star,  a
>highly  unlikely occurrence.  Also, if electric currents  in  the 
>earth's core are responsible for the earth's magnetism, the  heat
>generated by these currents 20,000 years ago would have dissolved
>the earth.

The source ought to know that the Earth's magnetic field has reversed 
itself scores of times in the last hundred million years. The source 
should also know how foolish he looks for making a linear
extrapolation from a process known to be cyclical (that is, non-
linear. (Another, equally silly example: "The temperature in Dallas 
last night at midnight was 70 degrees. Today at noon at was 80 
degrees. Obviously, 8000 years ago it was 58 million below zero in
Dallas! Answer that, you evolutionists!")


>   3. FOSSIL RECORD

> [Poster whines about lack of transitional forms, then tries to show
why Archaeopteryx is not one.]
Nuts. Only an idiot would look at Archaeopteryx and not see it as
a transition between reptiles and birds, or insist on quoting
experts out of context. No evidence, except maybe God's own home
movies of the process, would convince them.


>   4. EMBRYONIC RECAPITULATION
A straw man. No biologists use recapitulation as an evolutionary
argument, either.


>   5. PROBABILITY

Another straw man, and a gross mis-application of probability
which completely ignores the self-organizing capacity of a
system far from equilibrium. Would the source care to
calculate the amazing odds against a single snowflake assembling
itself from atoms of hydrogen and oxygen? And yet the laws of
physics assure us that, under the right conditions, their
formation is likely. As indeed it is.


>   6. SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS

Straw man #3. Does this person have no shame, or is he merely
retarded? The convection cells in a pan of boiling water are
organized structures that form all by themselves. All you have
to do is heat it at the bottom. Life forms on the surface of
Earthlike planets; all you have to do is heat them from the top.


Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,talk.politics.guns