Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Genesis - fact or fiction
From: skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger)
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 22:47:16 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>  until 2 days ago, i was quite uninformed about the scientific evidence
>that blew evolution to pieces.  but 2 days ago i found the following book.

Scientific evidence against evolution?  If it really existed the scientific
community would be scrambling.  I don't see that, so you must be mistaken
about its being scientific or evidence.

>  in the book _In The Beginning_ [Walter T. Brown, Jr., 5th edition, (Phoenix:
>Center for Scientific Creation, 1989)] Brown shows that in 127 areas, based on
>evolutionists' data and quoted conclusions, the theory of organic evolution
>is invalid, secondly, the universe, the solar system, the earth, and life
>were recently created and thirdly that the earth has experienced a worldwide
>flood.

And these areas are? ...

>  each of the three above statements dealing with the life sciences, 
>astronomical sciences and earth sciences are divided each into three main
>arguments:
>
>  organic evolution:
>	- organic evolution has never been observed

Wrong, organic evolution has been observed.

>	- the arguments for evolution are outdated and often illogical
>	- new research shows that life is so complex that chance processes
>		and even billions of years cannot explain it

Fundamentally right.  But then who ever said that chemical reactions were
governed by chance?

>  the universe...:
>	- naturalistic explanations for the evolution of the solar system
>		and universe are unscientific and hopelessy inadequate
>	- techniques that argue for an old earth are either illogical or
>		are based on unreasonable assumptions
>	- most dating techniques indicate that the earth, the solar system,
>		and the universe are young.

I've certianly never heard of any _scientific_ methods that date the earth
as young.  I've heard of several _unscientific_ and _erronous_ dating
methods that indicate the earth is young, but they don't count.

>
>  that flood thing:
>	- archaelogical evidence indicates that Noah's Ark probably exists
>	- many of the earth's previously unexplainable features can be
>		explained by a cataclysimic flood
>	- the seemingly impossible events of a worldwide flood
>		are really quite plausible if examined closely
>
>
>  now i haven't gone through all the sources for the 127 points that
>lead to the above conclusions, and i've decided to not bother.

I should have guessed.

>  enough
>of them are sound and enough are actually quoted that i'm not going to 
>go to the effort to check them all, especially when many are from 
>darwin himself, and many of the most reputable scientific journals that
>have ever existed.

Ahh.  But are they quoted in context?  Are they being used to support the
same conclusions the authors of these sources made or are their views being
misrepresented?  Just because a reputable source is quoted, doesn't mean it
was quoted correctly.  Did you see the threads about misquoting in the JW
creationist book here recently?  What makes you think your author is immune
to such things?  Considering that, I feel the honest thing to do would be
to check the sources.

Also, evolutionary theory has come a long way since Darwin so I wouldn't be
suprised if he said a few things that were latter improved or superceded.

>initially i was concerned that Brown was merely
>drawing his own conclusions based on potentially ambiguous data, but 
>he is merely compiling evolutionists' conclusions from relevant fields
>within the earth, life and astronomical sciences based on their own data.

How do your really know that when you haven't even looked up any of the
sources?

>i don't suppose this book represents an exhaustive list of all evolutionists'
>attempts to verify evolution and the big bang that ended up supporting 
>those theories invalidity, but based even on only about 20-25 of the 127
>cases, one can easily see the invalidity of these theories.

Well, you won't get anywhere with stating just conclusions.  Would you care
to post a summary of these 127 points?  And, cross-post these to
talk.origins to see how well they go over?

Actually I have another idea.  I have read a bit of creationist literature
and have personally found it to be bogus, as in their facts are obviously
wrong, even at first glance, so their entire argument falls apart.  Even
though I've never seen the book before, I personally think I could blow at
least 100 of the 127 points out of the water, in writing, within 24 hours.
I propose a challenge (to me):  You post (and email me a copy) a decent
summary of these 127 points at a predetermined time (I'd suggest either
Tues., Aug.  25, or Thurs., Aug.  27, at 9:00am Pacific Daylight (1600GMT).)
From the time of that post, I'd then have 24 hours to post a rebuttal,
which would hammer on at least 100 of those points, mostly off the top of
my head.  How's that sound?  (I, at least, would find it an interesting
test for myself.)

>  not surprisingly this book may be hard to find, tho any reputable
>scientific bookstore ought to have it in stock if you check.

Yeah, right.

>if not,
>i've found it in christian bookstores and it can be ordered from the 
>publisher:

That's FAR more likely.

|======================================================================|
| Seth Kroger                       "If God made us in His image we    |
| skroger@pan.calpoly.edu               have certianly returned the    |
| Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo             compliment."  -Voltaire        |
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:14445 sci.physics:13267 sci.chem:3131