(783) Mon 05 Oct 92 12:17 By: David Rice To: Alan Nunn Re: The Problem With Creationists

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

(783) Mon 05 Oct 92 12:17 By: David Rice To: Alan Nunn Re: The Problem With Creationists ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ AN> "I'm sorry mate but I am not familiar with your preacher AN> friend and which current evolutionist book would you suggest AN> I read if I had the time. As we do not have an ACCURATE means AN> of measuring the rocks etc." "We" as in you and the mouse in your pocket. However, scientists have very accurate tools of measuring ages of rocks. K-ar is just one such method. Varves give us a continuous, highly accurate record for a time span of over 200,000,000 years--- when organisms (often plant pollen and micro-organisms) are found in a layer, the age of that organism is known. Varves are dated astronomically, and are thus 100% accurate. AN> "Have your mob got a model yet, which all the known bits fit AN> into?" How could that be possible? Scientists would have to be omnipotent to fit every observation into a unified theory. Every day, more and more observations refine and improve evolutionary theory, making it even better at predicting ipso facto--- sadly for Creationists, evolutionary science proves itself daily. AN> "eg the time span for the formation of the universe and planet AN> earth, coinciding with the current theoretical amount of time AN> needed for the evolution of life." There is no "theoretical amount of time" required for life to evolve. Many fools like to deceive others into believing they know what this imaginary figure is, but they fail totaly in proving their assertions. 1) define what "life" is. 2) how did they come up with their expected frequency? Usually they make stupid errors, as they do not know anything of statistical analysis. 3) how do they falsify their figure, i.e. what test proves them wrong? One of the major faults in the figures Creationists put forth is that they fail to understand that evolution is not random-- yet they assert over and over again that it is. The method these fools (i.e. Creationists, aka Theistic Anti-Evolution) usually take in determining this figure is to sequence DNA and then assume that all molecules bond randomly (which is LAUGHABLE!). Such individuals have no idea how silly they are to real scientists. Another major fault that Creationists make is that evolution does not address how life started--- it only addresses the fact that life evolves. But perhaps THE greatest fault with TAEs (Theistic Anti-Evolutionists, i.e. Creationists) is that instead of producing a better theory, they ignorantly attack evolutionary science. If "Creation 'Science'" were a true science, instead of the cult it is, why do they refuse to tell us what the theory of Creationism is?!?!?!?!?!?!? --- * Origin: The Skeptic Tank (1:102/890)

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank