RE: Hello

David McFadzean (
Fri, 18 Aug 95 15:15:00 CDT

At 03:15 PM 8/18/95 CDT, you wrote:

>>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.

Then, by your own admission, you don't know what you are up against.

>Fine, he presents no laws based on empirical evidence.

He is an anthropologist. Anthopology doesn't have any laws.
Theories are explanations, not laws.

>>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?

People. Logicians and mathematicians, mostly.

>>>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?

Not unless I had reason to believe that it would be worthwhile to read them.

>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?

Scientific theories are never verified because evidence is always
incomplete. Theories are always provisional, they change or are
thrown out when the evidence is against them. That is science.

>>Are you really saying that evolution does not disprove Creationism?
> "Not at all. Why are you twisting my words?"

I'm not trying to, I'm just asking for clarification before I disagree.

>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.

That is true.

>>>>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?

I suppose it could. Maybe God melted Io, the moon around Jupiter, and
sent it to earth. But that would be silly if he could just create the
water and make it disappear after the flood.

>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.

If the water was still above the crust, then we would still be under
30000 ft of water. If it is now under the crust, then the crust in now
30000 ft above where it used to be before the water.

>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?

My better suggestion is that the flood never happened. Where is the
evidence 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.
>Insane huh?

Insane by human standards. If I killed a bunch of children for mocking
my friend I would be locked up. When God does it, that's OK. That seems
more than a little strange to me.

>>No it's ridiculous.
>Less rediculous and easeir to prve than evolution...

What is ridiculous about evolution? I've simulated it myself in
a computer. It works, I've done it.

>>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.

If we all came from Adam and Eve we wouldn't have different races
of humans. Would you count that as evidence?

>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?

I have a fossil on my shelf of a creature that has lot lived for hundreds
of millions of years. Would you like to see it?

What can I possibly show you? If the answer is nothing, than why are
you asking?

>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

Our own galaxy has 100 billion stars. There are 100 billion galaxies.
Even if each star was touching its nearest neighbor and each galaxy
was touching, then the farthest stars would be millions of miles away.
Do you dispute any of these facts?

>>Why would he show off?
>Why not.

I imagined God to be more mature than that. My mistake.

>>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.

Yes, it is all speculation. If you need more than that you should stick
to religion. Personally I would rather believe something that might be
true, than something that certainly is false.

>>Geologists believe the earth is over 4 billion years old.
>Not all geologists, nor do they have any facts or "laws" to prove it.

I meant virtually all geologists and they have plenty of facts.
But you can easily ignore them. If they show you a canyon that
took hundreds of thousands of years to create, you can easily
say that god created it perfectly formed 4000 years ago. You can
also say that god created it 10 minutes ago and noone can prove
you wrong.

In any case, the bible contradicts geology.

>>Astronomers believe the universe is around 10 billion years old.
>Some believe the universe is 300 billion years old, some believe a few

Virtually all astronomers believe the universe is around 10 billion years old.
The bible contradicts this belief.

>>Physicists believe miracles are impossible.
>Not all physicists. God can defy physics, he made them.

Virtually all physicists believe miracles are impossible.
If god can defy physics, than the bible contradicts physics.

>>Paleontologists believe dinosaurs lived 100 millions years ago.
>Not all palentologists. Some people can be wrong.

Almost all paleontologists believe dinosaurs lived 100 millions years ago.
The bible contradicts them.

>>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.

If he does, then he contradicts most chemists.

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

Almost all biologists. The bible contradicts them too.

>>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.

I realize I don't know for sure. I have faith in the evidence, not
despite the evidence. See the difference?

>Read some articles that show you where science contradicts evolution.

Do you think the 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts evolution?
It doesn't because the earth is not a closed system. It gets energy
from the sun.