From: yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau)
Subject: Re: DOES GOD EXIST?  (different from previous posting).
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 19:16:57 GMT

Hit 'n' now.

Here we go again.  Yet another person who thinks he found something
new and informative.  Please read the FAQ before posting.  But, since
the post was made, let's examine the arguments...

Have you considered posting this to talk.origins.  They will, 
no doubt, have much more to say on the simplistic interpretation
of selected evidence contained within.

In article <tjohn.25@elaine.ee.und.ac.za>, tjohn@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (THIAGARAJ JOHN : THIRD) writes:

|> I hope we can have a sensible discussion on some of the proofs presented 
|> below.

[much fluff deleted (doesn't contain any "proofs", so tjohn shouldn't 
complain)]

|> CREATION IS THE PROOF OF GOD! 

Ok, so his goal is to prove creation by an intelligent creator.  
Good luck.

|> 		Creation Without a Creator?
|> 
|> The theory of evolution provided the atheist an explanation of a
|> creation without a Creator. 

Evolution tries to explain creation??? (which, of course, requires
a creating mechanism).  Watch the use of loaded language.  It does
not strengthen any argument or proof.

|> But this misguided "rationalism" failed utterly to account for
|> the origins of things and of life; and today the more candid
|> among geologists and biologists confess that they do not know
|> how life could have evolved from inanimate matter, through the
|> simple life forms, to the complex, interdependent species we see
|> about us, finally to man. Lamarck's theory of "use and disuse,"
|> Darwin's "natural selection" and other theories have now fallen
|> by the wayside, and the "mutations" theory explains only the
|> occurrence of varieties less fit to survive.

This guy is asserting that all of these theories are false.  Where
is his proof?  The only reasonable point in the above is that
"biologists ... do not know how life could have evolved from
inanimate matter..."  There has never been universal agreement
among scientists on any theory, but that is not proof that all of
their theories are incorrect.

|>                 Amazing New Knowledge of Science
|> 
|> Now suppose we confine ourselves to facts! 
|> 
|> What, then, has science actually determined? 

[radioactive elements decay]

|> 		
|> 		Has Matter Always Existed?
|> 

[Uranium decays eventually into lead.]

|> I have seen it myself, in the darkroom of an X-ray laboratory.
[fluff deleted]
|> Actually what I saw
|> were the emanations of tiny particles being emitted by the
|> radium, greatly magnified.

This guy claims to have seen Alpha particles, greatly magnified,
and expects to be credible?

|> We know, therefore, that there has been no past eternity of
|> matter!

What is the logical path to this conclusion?  It seems to me, that
he is not looking at all available evidence.  Oh, I see that
he addresses it as...

|>                     When Matter Did Not Exist
|> 
|> The radioactive elements in existence today have not yet been in
|> existence long enough to have run their course, and disintegrated
|> into lead. To have ALWAYS existed, without any definite time of
|> starting in the past, this "life" period of radioactive elements
|> long ago would have run its course. All radioactive elements
|> would have long ago disintegrated into lead. Since these elements
|> exist only for a definite span of years, and all the uranium,
|> radium, thorium and other radioactive elements in the world today
|> have not yet existed that many years, there was a time, prior to
|> the duration of this span in the past, when these elements DID
|> NOT EXIST!

What about regeneration of these elements in other reactions (i.e.
fusion)?  What about the Big Bang or pulsating universe theories?
Note, that I do not feel that Big Bang and creation (via an intelligent
creator) theories are necessarily mutually exclusive, but the Big Bang 
does not REQUIRE an intelligent creator.

|> Here we have definite scientific proof that MATTER HAS NOT ALWAYS
|> EXISTED. Here we have definite specific elements which once, in
|> the long ago, did not yet exist. Then there came a time, later,
|> when these elements CAME INTO EXISTENCE.

He has not presented proof that matter has not always existed 
(although there is good evidence that this may be the case).

|> Evolution usually postulates that things come about GRADUALLY,
|> through the slow-moving natural processes of the present. Try to
|> imagine, if you can, something coming into existence out of
|> nothing, GRADUALLY! Can your mind entertain the idea?

Evolution is trying to explain the existence of the universe???
This guy is seriously screwed up in his thinking!  Evolution
NEVER tried to explain the existence of the universe.

Also, who said that matter in the universe came out of nothing?
He certainly hasn't provided proof of that assertion.

|> I think not. No, I think if you are rational, you will have to
|> accept the fact of a special and necessarily instantaneous
|> CREATION. And SOME POWER or SOME ONE had of necessity to do the
|> creating. There is a cause for every effect. And in accepting
|> that inevitable FACT, proved by the findings of science, of the
|> existence of that GREAT FIRST CAUSE, you have accepted the FACT
|> of the existence and preexistence of the Creator - GOD!

So, all of this proof comes down to the first cause argument (which
you also used in your previous post).  Read the FAQ.

|> 		Where Did LIFE Come From?

|> The works of Tyndall and Louis Pasteur, in the field of bacteria
|> and protozoa, finally demonstrated scientifically once and for
|> all in these more minute fields what Redi first demonstrated with
|> larger organisms. 

Aren't these just a bit dated?

|> All the advances of medical and surgical science in the treatment
|> and prevention of germ diseases are based upon this great truth
|> of the law of biogenesis - that LIFE can come only from
|> preexisting LIFE. 

Define life first.  I'm not up on the current research, so
I'm not going to comment further.

Much of the rest deals with how Mr. Armstrong cannot 
cope with the possibility that there is no purpose in the 
universe.  Thus, he offers Christion mythology as the only 
possible alternative.  I'm not going to debate those points, as 
none of them relate to proof of a creator of either the universe
or of life.

|> --------------------------------------------------------------------
|> The above was taken from the booklet "Does God Exist?" published by
|> The Worldwide Church of God.  Original text by Herbert W. Armstrong
|> (1892-1986).

Why is it that all of their booklets (such as the one you
previously posted) intentionally try to mislead the reader into
thinking that they have presented an accurate and intelligent
discussion of *all* points?  Why is it that they continuously try
to compliment the intelligence of the reader?  Could it be
that they are trying to condition the reader into not trying
to independently pursue some of the discussion contained within?

tjohn, any rebuttal?

-- 
Dan Yergeau                         He's dead Jim.  Take his phaser
yergeau@gloworm.Stanford.EDU        and I'll get his wallet.