From: skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creation vs. evolution
Date: 13 Nov 92 19:53:59 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

Richard.Rearden.@.914/901@f8.n10.z1.fidonet.org writes:
>Here is whatEvolution truly is.  All Evolution is, is
>man's attempt to prove there is no God.

If so, why are there many believers in God who accept evolution?

>  You see, given the same facts,  an
>evolutionist and a Creationist come up with two different stories.  In fact,
>evolution is nothing more that the most modern way to explain where life came
>from.  In its own right evolution is a religion.  Unfortunately, most will

Very few, if any, creationists know all the facts about evolution.

Evolution is a scientific theory with a lot of evidence in its favor.  It
provides a testable and coherent explaination for life and the way it
currently exists.

>deny
>that because that would put take it out of the realm of science and fact, and
>place it with religion and faith.  So, lets look at the facts.  If I wanted to
>prove to somebody I killed somebody yesterday, how would I prove it.

Ok, so how would you do the same with Creation?

>first question my sanity, and my judgement, but it I explained myself enough
>times you would probably believe me.

Sorry, but ad nausiaum arguments don't impress me at all, particularly
without corroborating evidence.

>  This is the way it is with evolution.

No, it isn't.  At least they have a lot of detailed corroborating evidence
in their favor.

>They claim many facts support their theory,  and the Creationist claim the
>same
>facts support theirs as well.  

Ok, so what is your Theory of Creation, and what evidence is there to
support it.

>You see, Evolution and Creation both similar in
>many ways.  Both are based on a belief system of the past.  In other words,
>the
>claims of both can not be scientifically proven.  A person cannot take a
>continent into a lab.  Put pressure on it, and make it divide.  Even if they
>could, it still could not prove that is exactly what happened before.

But these actions do leave effects behind for us to examine, don't they?
Can't these be scientifically examined to see if they are consistent with
either theory?  Isn't any scientific experiment measuring the effects of the
past, no matter how recent?  Do you really exert full control over a
scientific experiment?

The name of the game in science isn't "proof."  You can't even prove gravity
with science.  But, you can see whether your scientific theory is consistent
with the evidence.  You can see whether your theory really explains
something, and allows you to apply succesfully to other problems.

>Second, most evolutionists refuse to even admit there are
>massive flaws in the evolutionary theory.  Instead they "Preach" it as fact.
>Why do you think that is?

It depends.  Just what are these massive flaws in evolution?

> Rick Rearden.


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