Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Bales is a liar: evidence - one case
From: skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger)
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 08:56:56 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

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.
>
>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.
>
>In the following section:
>
>$ -- Jim
>[] -- my comments as I write this
>Unmarked --  quotes from my previous articles.
>
>--------------------------
>$So, does creationism use the scientific method?  
>$        If no, never mind because I don't think so.
>$        (Bales says "yes")
>
>[Since Jim indicates what I say, I assume he doesn't count this as an
>unaswered question]
>
>$       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. . . ._
[quote deleted]
>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.

1. This is not data supporting creationism, it is only supposed data
   against evolution.  Even if evolution is false, you would be no
   closer to showing creationism as scientific.

   Imagine the world is much as it is, with most of the scientific
   facts we have today, with one exception.  No one has ever thought
   of Evolution, or any other theory of origins for that matter.
   What scientific evidence do you have to make us accept that a
   Theory of Creation has the answers?

2. Where in the theory of evolution does it say that 'only one trait
   can develop at a time'?  Please give references concerning this in
   the standard evolutionary literature.  Also, how do you know that
   these traits are independent?

0>On the other hand, the use of multiple different parts working together to
>accomplish a function is a hallmark of design.

The hallmark of design is conscious forethought in implementation.
What specific scientific evidence do you have of this?

>$               What observations support creationism?
>[Posted July 31, 1991]
>When we study the fossil record, we do not see an "almost-human" species from
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  [I'll get back to this later w/ the other
                                    highlighted parts.]
>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.

I take it you're ignoring the Australopithecus species and the other
species of Homo.  How would you explain those?

>$                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]
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Creationism says that different organisms were seperately created.  Were you
>to show that one variety of organism came from another, this would falsify
>creation.

Exactly how could you show this?

>$              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.]
>
>Obsevations show, in the great majority of cases, a lack of organisms to be
>even *possible* links.  This is in agreement with creationism.  Evolutionists
>have created a number of assumptions and theories to explain how the links
>existed but left no traces.  Creationism does not need these extra
>assumptions, for which there is not much supporting evidence.

How do you explain the several cases where the links do exist?  What
are these assumptions you are talking about?

>[End of quotations]
> --------------------
>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.

Mr. Bales, from the posts of yours I've seen in the past, I get the
impression you are a Young-Earth Creationist.  I'm I correct about
this?  Haven't I seen posts from you saying that dating methods used
are inaccurate and that the Earth isn't any more that 10,000 years
old?  

Above, in the parts I've highlighted, you've made several appeals to
the fossil record, with the assumption that scientists are accurate
about it being a historical record.  While this seems ok for a
Old-Earth Creationist, for a YEC it appears highly inconsistent.  I'm
I mistaken in assuming you're a YEC?  Does your use of the fossil
record as possible evidence for your side indicate you accept:
      The Earth is substantially more than 10,000 years old?  (If so
      how old would you say it is?)
      The fossil record shows a sequential pattern through
      stratigraphic layers?
      That stratigraphic layers ==> time/age?
      That radiometric dating methods which confirm the above relation
      are accurate (like isochron of example)?
If you don't accept these, then how does the fossil record represent
history?

>   Bob Bales


|======================================================================|
| 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        |