From: XXX 10 Sep 94 14:41
To : XXX
Subj: CREATION SCIENCE
>No. What is scary is that evolutionism is so ensconced in the halls of
>academia that anyone who should have the temerity to question this
>balderdash is censured/blacklisted.
You've obviously debated many evolutionists and have thus far not been swayed
by their approach. Here are but a few questions you must answer to "prove"
the validity of creationism - or even begin to put it in a scientific context:
1) First, you must PROVE that God exists - using sources other than the
Bible (a book written by ordinary people with grandiose ideas). I'm
talking about sources that would stand up in a court of law in any
civilized country. The typical tactic of using the Bible to "prove"
the veracity of the Bible is an obvious logical fallacy. Just because
a document has been around for centuries and appears old and wise does
NOT make it automatically valid. Plenty of fiction was being written
in Biblical times, yet no one swears that it's the gospel truth just
because it's old and the authors cannot really be traced. You need to
prove that the Bible is entirely a book of FACTS (something I doubt the
original authors ever intended it to be).
2) *After* you've proven that God exists, you must prove that the Christian
God is the ONLY god. In other words, you have to tell the Muslims,
Buddhists and religious folks of all persuasions that their gods and
their creation stories are LIES - and that the Christian creation story
is the only one that makes sense. Just because *you* were raised in the
Christian faith is not adequate proof.
3) *After* you've successfully done the above (not just in your own mind),
you must describe the exact mechanism by which something was created out
of nothing in a matter of seven days, and you must explain (in scientific
detail) why there is NO evidence of this sort of magic nowadays. Proving
any of the above requires that you prove ALL of the above. You can't just
say "the Bible says so" and skip right along.
>What is scary is that any thinking person could actually believe Cindy
>Crawford is the result of mutation plus selection. Which I might add is
>totally inadequate to produce any of the leaps or stages so desperately
>sought by the evolutionists...
That's like saying the existence of the Empire State building or the Great
Pyramids is proof of God. *Anything* is proof of God's existence to someone
who was raised in a fundamentalist household! Nature (and human effort) can
produce amazing things given enough time (although I think there are far
better looking women out there than Ms. Crawford!) Of course, if you believe
the Earth is only a few thousand years old, you have a false concept of
evolutionary time-scales and cannot appreciate the millions of years required
to create mutations and new species.
>I wonder how many professors are convinced that evolutionism is a fraud,
>but are afraid to speak out for fear of their jobs?
If these professors exist, I doubt they're in the biological sciences. Most
of the "scientists" who scoff at evolution are physicists, etc., and dubious
ones at that. If you or anyone you know has relied on high-tech modern
medicines, please thank microbiologists and others who made their discoveries
by studying DNA and evolution (not a 2000 year old book that was written when
we hadn't the slightest concept of such things). Many creationists are
currently being *kept alive* by a branch of science they scoff at. I call
that hypocrisy. What do you make of it?
You don't have the option of picking and choosing which branch of science is
bogus, based on personal religious faith. The world is full of different
religions, yet scientists around the world are in basic agreement on all
branches of science, including evolution. That should tell you that science
has a common thread, while religion is based purely on personal opinions and
the way people are raised.