From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Bales is a liar: evidence - one case
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 13:41:24 GMT

In article <7540@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales) writes:
}As evidence to show I'm a liar, Jim Meritt posted some questions which he said
}I have not answered.  In a previous article, I showed that even if Jim was
}right about the questions, it would not prove me a liar.  However, Jim is
}wrong: I have answered them.

False.  Since we disagree, how about SOMEONE ELSE'S evaluation of the
contention.  BALES says that he has answered himself, MERITT says that
he has not.


}I admit that I haven't written an article which said, "These are Jim's
}questions and here are the answers to them."  But the questions, and the
}answers to them, have been common themes in my articles.

False.  And the opinions of those OTHER THAN YOU is?

}In the following section:
}
}$ -- Jim
}[] -- my comments as I write this
}Unmarked --  quotes from my previous articles.
}
}--------------------------
}
}$IAW Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (didn't want to get esoteric!):
}
}$scientific method - principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of
}$knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the
}$collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation
}$and testing of hypothesis.
}
}$So, does creationism use the scientific method?  
}$       If yes:
}$               What data has been collected in support of creationism.
}
}[Posted about July 5, 1992]
}
}The interlocking nature of the feather is strong evidence that it did NOT
}evolve. Quoting again from _Vertabrates. . . ._
}
}     "The typical feather has the two rows of barbs of slightly unequal
}     length, the one which is anterior on the body being the shorter.
}     Each barb has anterior and posterior barbules, the former with hooks 
}     or hamuli and the latter with ridges, so that the flat surface or
}     vane of the feather is firmly locked together on exactly the prin-
}     ciple of the zipper." (page 434)
}
}Here we have another case of of *two* different, independent things, both of
}which must be present to accoplish the function.  Evolutionary processes,
}assuming they occur,  explain how *one* thing (at a time) can develop via a
}mutation and then be selected for, but as I pointred out above, they do not
}explain the development of simultaneous features.

In case you didn't read what you wrote, your entire discussion revolves
around what you do not believe evolutionary processes do and does NOT even
mention creationism.  Hence, this is not evidence FOR creationism.

}$               What observations support creationism?
}
}[Posted July 31, 1991]
}
}When we study the fossil record, we do not see an "almost-human" species from
}which humans could likely have evolved.  We see apes and we see humans.  We
}see no evidence that any organism transitioned between them.  The fossil
}agrees with what we would expect to see if man was separately created, but
}not with what we would expect if man evolved.

Incorrect.  Your statement said "we", and since this has been demonstrated
to be an incorrect statement (since there exist those who do not concur
with your statement) this is demonstrated to be another lie.

}$                What experiments have been conducted (especially, what
}$                       experiments have been done, or are possible,
}$                        that can _FALSIFY_ creationism?
}
}[Posted July 22, 1991.  Not exactly and experiment, but an observation.  We
}can observe the past, but can't really do experiments in it]

Like I said and that you acknowledge, not an experiment.

}$              What hypothesis has been formulated and how can it/they
}$              be tested?
}
}[Posted April 16, 1990]
}
}Creationism says that individual oranisms were created without links between
}them.  In contrast, evolution says there were and are links.
}
}[Two different theories, with two different hypotheses.  They can be tested
}by comparing them with the record we have of past and present life.  This has
}been done.]

And under every condition where a "link" (as you term it) has been found, 
you remodify the conditions of the test invalidating the test.  Hence, the
creationism position cannot be falsified by this test.

}Obsevations show, in the great majority of cases, a lack of organisms to be
}even *possible* links.  

So?  If ONE existed, than evolutionary processes would have been demonstrated
to be possible.  Are you here acknowledging that it CAN work?

}Although I asked for a supposed 'lie' big enough that my disproof of it wound
}disprove the 'liar' charge, Jim didn't say if this qualifies.  I hope it does,
}so that we can put the whole business behind us.

You do not substantiate that you do not lie by either unsubstantiated assertion
nor by lying to do so.  I can easily see why you would not wish your past
to be recalled.  I'd be ashamed of such nonesence, too.

It is my opinion that your "case" presented does NOT validate your assertion.
Does anyone else?  And until _I_ think it does, I shall continue to dredge
up your past posturing.  I am, of course, open to an opinion from anyone else.