RE: Hello

Fri, 18 Aug 95 15:15:00 CDT

From: David McFadzean
Subject: Re: FW: Hello
Date: Friday, August 18, 1995 13:11PM

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

Nope, not at all.

Fine, he presents no laws based on empirical evidence.

>>>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.

Who defines logic?

>>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.

Would you read them?

>>>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?

You state that evolution just might not be true. If you have logically
evaluated it, and find no contradictions, and all the evidence is complete,
then why would you even propose a thing?

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

>Are you really saying that evolution does not disprove Creationism?

"Not at all. Why are you twisting my words?"

Did you not read what you said:
"Don't you realize that even if evolution turns out to be totally wrong
that doesn't verify Creationism in the least?"

I am saying that non-evolution would 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
>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.

How do you know that all that water does not exist in our solar system?

The mountains ranges could have been vastly different, not so tall. Also,
there was a canopy of water around the earth. Where is it now? Simple
geology, under the crust of the earth, in the oceans, in the clouds, etc.

Your math is based on the assumption that the earth was the same then as it
is now. Yes, it was a severe downpour, it is my theory on why all of the
rock layers are out of whack. Or do you have a better suggestion?

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

>Go for it.

I will compile some nice refs for you with a nice red ribbon if you would
like... Give me some time to gather my rescources.

>>>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.

Insane huh?

>>>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

>No it's ridiculous.

Less rediculous and easeir to prve than evolution...

>>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.

An old argument...

God made Adam and Eve with a perfect pair of Levi's.

>>>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
>>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

>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.

What proof do you have for the universe being billions of years old. Stop
doing circles with me and just come out and give me the evidence! Or is
there any?

>>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.

People have, walked, flown and driven to China. No scientist has gone to a
star, so I think my question is quite relevant. You bring up two different

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

>Why would he show off?

Why not.

>>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.

I have. But this could mean scientists are ignorant of a lot of things. It
is all speculation, no truth yet.

>>>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
>>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.

Not all geologists, nor do they have any facts or "laws" to prove it.

>Astronomers believe the universe is around 10 billion years old.

Some believe the universe is 300 billion years old, some believe a few

>Physicists believe miracles are impossible.

Not all physicists. God can defy physics, he made them.

>Paleontologists believe dinosaurs lived 100 millions years ago.

Not all palentologists. Some people can be wrong.

>Chemists believe that water cannot be transmuted into wine.

Not all of them. Besides this is what makes the power of God seem more
powerful, that He can defy the laws of chemistry.

>Biologists believe that humans, like all animals, were not created, but
evolved from earlier lifeforms.

Not all biologists.

>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.

Notice that you said "believe", therefore they don't know, which means they
are taking leaps of faith.

Read some articles that show you where science contradicts evolution.

I am going to classes next week, so I won't be able to contact you until the
28th. I appreciate the chat.

Till next time,
In Him,

David McFadzean
Memetic Engineer
Merak Projects Ltd.