Re: FW: Hello

David McFadzean (
Fri, 18 Aug 95 13:09:00 CDT

At 01:09 PM 8/18/95 CDT, you wrote:

>I am currently reading Origins by Richard Leakey, it sounds like a fairy
>tale. He presents now fact. It is all theory, actually I would like to
>accuse it of being all hypothesis still, but I won't.

Of course it is a theory. Everything is science is a theory. Newton's
laws of motion, gravity, evolution, quantum mechanics... they are all
theories. Facts are just observable phenomena, data. Theories are
stories made up to explain the data. There is no understanding in facts,
that why we make up theories. I take it you don't understand science at all.

>>How about if I only count scientists that are published in peer-reviewed
>>journals, independent of their respective religious beliefs?
>Great, but how do you know they are unbiased? I do like-wise, but I don't
>blindly follow every word they say, I just recently sent a letter
>questioning a fellow "Creationist" why he believes the way he believes.

Actually I know they are biases. Every publication, scientific journals
included, have biases. Otherwise they would publish everything that fits
regardless of its merits. I wouldn't look at scientific journals if
they were not biased towards logically consistent, interesting,
explanatory articles with merit.

>Why couldn't I say that the pulishings I read aren't peer-reviewed
>journals, independent of their respective religious beliefs?

You can, and it wouldn't surprise me a bit.

>>Don't you realize that even if evolution turns out to be totally wrong
>>that doesn't verify Creationism in the least?
>Which means you agree that evolution has no fact to back it?

Not at all. Why are you twisting my words?

>I never said it would. I don't care if it verifies Creationism, it certainly
>would not disprove it.

Are you really saying that evolution does not disprove Creationism?

>>More water than exists in our solar system.
>How do you know?

Because I can do elementary math. To cover the mountains the sea level
would have to rise 30,000 feet, or approx. 10,000m. That is 4,000,000,000,000
cubic meters of water. From the clouds? The rain would have to fall at
a rate of 375 inches/hour. 3 inches/hour is a severe downpour.

>All of the water is here on the earth. If you want a logical explaination
>just ask me.

Go for it.

>>Do you believe the story where God sent bears to kill a group of
>>children that were mocking His prophet?
>Yes. Then God is very cruel right?

No, insane.

>>The point is there is not enough volume in the ark to hold 2 of
>>every species.
>I know, and I believe there were a lot more existing back then, amazing huh?

No it's ridiculous.

>What does inbreeding have to do with anything? Inbreeding helped us to
>evolve, so why is it so dangerous?

You can't get a healthy population from 2 ancestors. The recessive genes
would kill them.

>>It is relevant because if the stars are actually billions of light
>>years away then the universe is billions of years old. If you don't
>>think that is relevant then your faith is clouding your judgement.
>Why does it mean that the earth is billions of years old? I told you already
>that God had already made the light. It contradicts my faith in no way. I
>think that you aren't calmly discussing with me. Your anger is clouding your

Nice try but I'm not angry and there is nothing in my argument based
on anger. Face the facts: if the universe is billions of years old then
Creationism is disproved.

>How do we know for a fact that the stars are billions of light years away?
>What fact proves it? Have you flown to one recently? I believe that the

I don't have to fly to a star to find out how far away it is any more
than I have to fly to China to find out how far away it is.

>stars are far away, maybe even billions of light years. No God is not trying
>to make the earth look old, He could be trying to show how vast and powerful
>he is. How can we judge what is billions of lightyears out, when we don't

Why would he show off?

>even know the composition of Pluto. We don't even understand our own solsr
>system yet...

Ignorance about one thing doesn't preclude knowledge about something else.
If you want to find out how scientists know how far away stars are,
don't take my word for it, read a textbook on astronomy.

>>It is obvious that you define true empirical science as whatever science
>>does not contradict the bible. That leaves out geology, astronomy,
>>physics, paleontology, chemistry and biology.
>None of the above compromise anything. If it does tell me how. I don't think
>you have done any, unbaised reading, of evidence from the other side have

OK, one last time:

Geologists believe the earth is over 4 billion years old.
Astronomers believe the universe is around 10 billion years old.
Physicists believe miracles are impossible.
Paleontologists believe dinosaurs lived 100 millions years ago.
Chemists believe that water cannot be transmuted into wine.
Biologists believe that humans, like all animals, were not created,
but evolved from earlier lifeforms.

All of these contradict the Bible. Now if you say I haven't shown
you how science contradicts the bible, then I might as well write
mail to someone who will read it.