NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/origins/14265

Text File | 1992-11-16 | 36.7 KB | 793 lines

Newsgroups: talk.origins
Path: sparky!uunet!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!linus!linus.mitre.org!mwunix!m23364
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: In case Bales has convinced you of his honesty...
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News Service)
Nntp-Posting-Host: mwunix.mitre.org
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 14:18:15 GMT
Lines: 781


The first on the list is a question that has been asked in talk.origins
MANY times other than just as part of this list.  I have never seen
an answer.  Has anyone?

    Robert Bales has a tendency to pop up every once in a while
and post a canned selection of complaints/objections.   When these
"arguments" have been completely demolished, or when it is pointed
out that Bales himself doesn't know what he is talking about, he
vanishes for a period and then reposts - virtually without change -
the same "arguments", apparently hoping that why they are invalid has
been forgotten.  For those who think these positions are new, novel, and reveal
pearcing insights the following is provided.  Please note that he is using
the same arguments, the same position, and almost the same phraseology.
He is behaving as though (he wishes) that these same points had not ever
been addressed before.  Unfortunately, they have been - by him.


    Posted initially in this collection Feb 13, 1990,.  Bales
acknowledged seeing them (again) with a "I'll answer one if I get
around to it.".  No answers seen...  Nor have I heard from anyone
else that he has answered, either.  Has anyone seen any objective
evidence, presented by Robert Bales, to support his statements?
Naturally, the individual issues have been presented (many) additional
times, but the collection has been posted as claimed.  He seems to
enjoy "yes I have" type statements much more than actually doing so.
Watch his posts.  The # lines devoted to "I did that" FAR outweighs
any pretentions of actually doing so.  And his "addressed that" so far
has consisted of reassertions (restating the same thing, possibly
rephrased so it is less easily recognizable), redefinitions (so that
the original contention on his part is defined out of existence) or
just assertions that "he has" or "it is known" or that a reference that
nobody else can find "clearely shows".

Please note NO "distortions" of what Bobby "said".  Direct quotes.
Message ID and dates provided.

 March 1, 1990, March 24, 1990, April 10, 1990, April 16, 1990, April 26, 1990,
 May 11, 1990, May 31, 1990, June 4, 1990, June 19, 1990, June 25, 1990,
 June 29, 1990, July 8, 1990, July 16, 1990, July 23, 1990, August 25, 1990,
 August 29, 1990, September 11, 1990, September 17, 1990, September 25, 1990,
 September 27, 1990, October 3, 1990, October 16, 1990, October 19, 1990,
 October 22, 1990, Segmented & Reposted October 24, 1990, at R. Bales's request
 January 14, 1991, sections reposted February 14, 1991, April 22, 1991,
 June 27, 1991, July 22, 1991, August 7, 1991.

 And on and on and on, and in fragmented form the separate questions have
 also been reasked.

 This seems a sufficient number of times to confirm the general idea.  I'll
 be glad to delete things from the list that someone OTHER than Bales
 claims (with justification/specifics) that he has accidently answered
 something listed.


    Please note:  ANSWERED, not "replied to".  This involves
actually saying something informative, on the subject, and not
in a circular manner.  To my knowledge, including requests to other posters,
he has never provided this "evidence" or "support" he claims to provide.

    I (and others) have been looking closely for his answers.
If anyone has seen the answers, please let me know.  NOTE:  This request
has been provided with EVERY reposting and never has ANYONE provided an
instance.  Clearly, his word on what he has and has not done is of no
value.  All it would take is him posting what he claims exists or
someone else providing evidence that it ever existed.  No show so far.

Please note that these are OLD unresolved items.  He hasn't covered a LOT
of recent items (like "how do 5 isochrons give the same date", "how does
argon get INTO an object in vacuum", "what is the evidence for an old
universe that you keep mentioning" and more.  I didn't want to mess up
my count.  Besides which, why should he answer recent questions asked
once when he will not answer these which have been asked dozens of times
over a much longer period?

=============================================================================
1.
>From: [e-mail] (Stan Friesen)
Date: 15 Jul 89 15:49:15 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Bales) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian T. Coughlin) writes:
>>  Creationism is valid as a BELIEF... *NOT* as a science. A science MUST
>> have the ability to question and doubt itself, and Creationism falls sadly
>> short in that area.
>Untrue. Creationism (and creationists) are subject to question and doubt.
>Creationists stand by the theory not because they have not questioned it, but
>because they *have.*
...
>Is it "question and doubt" only if the outcome is rejection?  Some things that
>I hold to undoubtedly are not true.
    I would certainly like to see evidence that you have seriously
considered alternatives to a hyper-literal interpretation of Genesis.  I
have never seen any, from you or from any other Creationist.

>>  Another thing. Please don't fall into the trap of calling Creationism a
>> THEORY. It is not. A theory, by definition, MUST be capable of enduring
>> the scientific method: Hypothesize, Experiment, Observe, Conclude.
>
>Creationism is capable of enduring the scientific method, as defined here.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IAW Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (didn't want to get esoteric!):

scientific method - principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of
knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the
collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation
and testing of hypothesis.

So, does creationism use the scientific method?
        If no, never mind because I don't think so.
    (Bales says "yes")

        If yes:
                What data has been collected in support of creationism.
                What observations support creationism?
                What experiments have been conducted (especially, what
                        experiments have been done, or are possible,
                        that can _FALSIFY_ creationism?
                What hypothesis has been formulated and how can it/they
                be tested?


>Alternatives are refused for lack of evidence that they are correct.
>
    OK, show me these observations and deductions.  I have yet to see
any that actually mean anything, and I have been watching this news group
for nearly four years.  The *closest* I ever saw to a valid observation
suggesting a young universe was the Polonium halo stuff.  I was sufficiently
intrigued by it that I did a literature search on it in the technical journals.
As a result I found out it was really almost as weak as the other so-called
evidence for Creationism.  But at least I was willing to *consider* the
possibility that I was wrong.  In fact I change my opinions all the time.

>> You'll also note that the same theory has been revised countless times to
>>accomodate new data. Creationism is incapable of doing the same.
>
>Yes, it is.
>
    OK, show me.  In what *substantive* way has the theory of creationism
been modified in the last ten years?  And I do *not* accept waffling and
shifting the basis of arguments as evidence of modification in a theory.
What statements in the basic manifesto are now considered to be incomplete
or incorrect by the leading practicing creationists?  If you really want
I will give you a list of statements in "The Origin of the Species" that
are now considered wrong.  Can you do the equivalent:  say, using the
original statement of position from the Institute for Creation Research?
I doubt it, I suspect that that document has never been revised or updated
other than to make it sound more scientific.

=============================================================================
2.
>From: [e-mail] (Jim Meritt)
Date: 31 May 89 15:15:31 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Bales) writes:
}In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Keith Doyle) writes:
}>>In order to get natural process to explain the origin and/or development of
}>>life, they must be extrapolated far beyond any observations. There is no
}>>indication the extrapolation is valid.
}
}>No, the fact that there is no indication that natural processes are invalid
}>in explaining the origin and/or development of life, is an indication that
}>it is valid:
}
}I could just as well say, "the fact that there is no indication that
}creationism is invalid in explaining the origin and/or development of life, is
}an indication that it is valid."

Yes, you could.  Now, what indication would you take that is was invalid?
Name a SINGLE process that "life" has that does not have a possible
physical explaination.  ONE barrier to natural forces.
Currently, his "answer" has been "Anything that could stop it."  A
circular reply and NOT an answer.

}The indication that the "natural process" explanation is likely invalid is
}the fact that natural processes known to be capable of producing the origin
}and development of life have not been found.

This is not true.  Now, show ONE process for which natural processes
CANNOT provide an explaination.  You may want to consult the reading
list I posted that contains natural explainations for a great deal before
you start your magic search.

}My thesis is that known natural processes cannot lead to the origin and
}diversity of life we see.  I'm still waiting for the experiment to prove me
}wrong.

Please tell us ONE thing that could show this thesis wrong.
ONE testable, demonstratable thing.
You name the experiment, and we'll do it.
Come on - ONE objective, operational, reproducable experiment.
Or something that could appear in nature.  Something verifiable by
human beings.

Like you said above, there is NO indication that natural processes are
invalid.  There is NO indication that unnatural processes are required.
PRODUCE THAT INDICATION!!!!  Heck, what IS an "unnatural process"!?!?!?

=============================================================================
3.
>From: [e-mail] (Jim Meritt)
Date: 31 May 89 15:21:45 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Bales) writes:
}In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Erik Hardy) writes:
}>>My position is that it doesn't look like life has evolved by natural
}>>processes?
}
}>ok, so what does it look like?
}
}It has the characteristics that we commonally associate with intelligent
}design.

Very interesting.  And your descriptions of what it should look like
has so far included snowflakes and clouds as designed and nails as
not.  Would you mind trying again?

}>how do you determine this?
}
}By looking at things which are known to be the results of spontaneous natural
}processes -- a building after a tornado has hit it, the change in the condition
}of a piece of anything that has been left outside for a few years, radio
}static.
}
}And also by looking at things which are known to be the result of intelligent
}design -- a new building, a new computer, a radio program.

Come on.  HOW do you tell which is which?  I bet we could come up with
quite a few things that if you looked at them without foreknowledge you
couldn't tell which was which.

}Also, someone is almost sure to say, "But if life was designed, why does it
}have this kludge?" (Often the "kludge" is the Panda's thumb.) Demonstrate that
}the designated feature is indeed a kludge, and then we'll talk. (For instance,
}how would the Panda be better off with a different thumb?)

What would it take to display something as a "kludge"?
Your term, and you asked for a display.  So tell us EXACTLY what you are
looking for.

Partial credit:  Bales gave three tests for a specific example.
He did NOT answer the question "what is a kludge" but did give
"this would be a kludge if".  Unfortunately for him, the example
he picked was the "panda's thumb", and his "tests" were trivial
to pass. (disadvantages, better off).  I have watched a panda use
that thumb, myself, in person.  I would like to see an answer to the
question I asked which was a direct question from his posting.

=========================================================================
4.

Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 31 May 89 13:14:57 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> Robert Bales writes:
>It may be consistent, but the important question is, "is it correct?"

When ever we test it it comes out o.k. Can you please name one test of
creationism that comes out o.k.?

=============================================================================
5.
>From: [e-mail] (Philip Nicholls)
Date: 1 Jun 89 06:25:02 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Bales) writes:
>No, but they appeal to assumptions that many things happened that we have no
>evidence either can or did happen: postulating common ancestors based on
>similarities that may or may not mean common ancestry; assuming that life
>developed spontaneously from non-life (the term was "earth history," not
>"evolution."); declaring that the genetics of an organism changed to give
>rise to a new type of organism when the genetics and possible changes therin
>are not even known; and, in general, extrapolating operservations far, *far*
>beyond the region of known validity.

What criteria do you use to judge the validity of extrapolation?  Please
explain what the "region of known validity" is.  Is it, perhaps, somewhere
near Clevland?  I would find this VERY interesting.  My masters degree
is in Operations Research / general systems analysis specializing in
advanced modelling.  I am slightly competent to discuss model limits, and
always interested to find them.

=============================================================================
6.
>From: [e-mail] (Jim Meritt)
Date: 1 Jun 89 12:45:48 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Bales) writes:
}In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stan Friesen) writes:
}>. . .show me some aspect of life that is unique to it and provides an
}>unambiguous seperation of the universe into life and non-life and you will
}>have gone a long way to disproving abiogenesis.
}
}The problem is not disproving abiogenesis, but proving it.

You are incorrect.  That is not science.  Unless, of course, you mean
proving it TO YOU, which again is not science.

SPECIFICALLY, what would it take to "prove" it?
His "answer" on this one is "show it happened" - a reply, not an answer.

=============================================================================
7.
>From: [e-mail] (Jim Meritt)
Date: 1 Jun 89 14:37:04 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Keith Doyle) writes:
}In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Bales) writes:
}What evidence that would be predicted by evolution, would prove it
}true to your satisfaction?  Note I add "would be predicted by evolution"
}because statements that distill down to "I want to see a lizard give
}birth to a bird" do not describe events that are predicted by evolution,
}nor are statements such as "I want to see something macro evolve" as
}evolution does NOT claim these things happen in numbers of generations you
}can count on your fingers.
}
}What evidence would prove creationism false to your satisfaction?
}
}If you have no answers to these two questions, then statements to the
}effect of evolutions "invalidity" carry no weight, as you are unable
}to come up with any criteria that would demonstrate either evolution
}*or* creation to be true to your satisfaction.


=============================================================================
8.
>From: [e-mail] (Dennis J. Kosterman)
Date: 1 Jun 89 13:16:41 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Bales) writes:
|In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stan Friesen) writes:
|>The sequence from "simple" clays to simple, unquestioned life consists of
|>such small, innocuous steps that it is very plausible.
|
|It is *philosphically* plausible to some people. Something that has never been
|shown to be possible cannot be said to be *scientifically* plausible.

     Right.  And you still haven't told me how the sudden appearance of
complex lifeforms is scientifically plausible.  If you think that the
standard scientific model of the origin of life is "implausible",
please propose a more plausible model.  Hint: "creation" doesn't cut
it -- not scientifically.
     Look -- either life has always existed, or it "spontaneously" origi-
nated at some point.  If the spontaneous origin of simple single-celled
lifeforms is "implausible" to you, how can you possibly support the spon-
taneous origin of *complex* lifeforms?  It is orders of magnitude *more*
implausible!
I believe the current summary is that 1+1+1+1=4 cannot happen, but
somehow 0+0+0+0=4 can.  Very, very odd...

=============================================================================
9.
>From: [e-mail] (Greg Hennessy)
Date: 1 Jun 89 15:45:41 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> Robert Bales writes:
>It is *philosphically* plausible to some people. Something that has
>never been shown to be possible cannot be said to be *scientifically*
>plausible.

Have weakly interacting massive particles been shown possible?
Have photinos been shown possible?
Have virtual particles been shown possible?
Have quark stars been shown possible?


=============================================================================
10.
>From: [e-mail] (Jim Meritt)
Date: 2 Jun 89 14:31:32 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Bales) writes:
>It has the characteristics that we commonally associate with intelligent
>design.

>>how do you determine this?

>By looking at things which are known to be the results of spontaneous natural
>processes--a building after a tornado has hit it, the change in the condition
>of a piece of anything that has been left outside for a few years, radio
>static.
>And also by looking at things which are known to be the result of intelligent
>design -- a new building, a new computer, a radio program.

I have been looking at RB's idea of "intelligent design" and realize his
circularity here again.  To him, as far as I can tell, EVERYTHING is the
result of intelligent design (when pinned down).  He came up with
"spontaneous natural process" by means of a few examples of things that
I HAVE seen declared the results of intelligent action on the part of
some "god".  So:

1. Precisely what is a "spontaneous natural process"?
2. Precisely how do you show that something is NOT the result of
intelligent design (i.e. falsify the theory that some specific item is
the result of intelligent design)?

It has been noted recently that this is worthless, anyway.  If Bobby can
produce ANY "uncreated thing" his premise goes away, but if he cannot his
"life" point goes away.

=============================================================================
11.
>From: [e-mail] (John Livesey)
Date: 5 Jun 89 21:46:10 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Bales) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Erik Hardy) writes:
>>>My position is that it doesn't look like life has evolved by natural
>>>processes?
>>ok, so what does it look like?
>It has the characteristics that we commonally associate with intelligent
>design.
>>how do you determine this?
>By looking at things which are known to be the results of spontaneous natural
>processes -- a building after a tornado has hit it, the change in the condition
>of a piece of anything that has been left outside for a few years, radio
>static.
>And also by looking at things which are known to be the result of intelligent
>design -- a new building, a new computer, a radio program.
>Since life resembles things in the second category much more than things in the
>first, I judge it much more likely to be the result of design than spontaneous
>processes.

Truly fascinating, Bob.   There are just two little points here
that need a little clarification.

    1.    Are you now saying you can tell that something
    was 'designed' just by looking at it, while at the
    same time demanding that evolutionists prove
    what they say rigorously?

    2.    What about the Creator?    Does he/it display the
    characteristics you think prove indicate design,
    and if so, who or what designed the Creator?


=============================================================================
12.
>From: [e-mail] (Mutant for Hire)
Date: 15 Jul 89 07:48:20 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Bales) writes:
>Untrue. Creationism (and creationists) are subject to question and doubt.
>Creationists stand by the theory not because they have not questioned it, but
>because they *have.*

Could you give me an example of this questioning. Most Creationists start
with the *assumption* that God created the earth a few thousand years ago
and then look for all data that fits into this pattern.

=============================================================================
13.
>From: [e-mail] (Bruce Salem)
Date: 17 Jul 89 20:50:35 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Bales) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian T. Coughlin) writes:
>>  Another thing. Please don't fall into the trap of calling Creationism a
>> THEORY. It is not. A theory, by definition, MUST be capable of enduring
>> the scientific method: Hypothesize, Experiment, Observe, Conclude.
>
>Creationism is capable of enduring the scientific method, as defined here.

    Please define the method. I've been asking you to do that for a
long time, Bob, and YOU do nothing. If you would give us a systematic
development of your assumptions, then we could discuss a method, not
until you do, Bob.


=============================================================================
14.
>From: [e-mail] (Stan Friesen)
Date: 29 May 89 23:22:45 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Bales) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bruce Salem) writes:
>>Bob asks us to not use similarity arguments because he claims we cant prove
>>there are transitions.
>Exactly!  The evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record relies on the
>principle that similarities indicate transitions. The statement "evolution is
>a fact" says that this principle is a fact. And if it is a fact, it should be
>demonstrable. And it can only be demonstrated by demonstrating transitions, not
>just similarities.

Help for the cognitatively impaired:  saying that something can't be found
because you choose to define it in such a way that there are no identifying
characteristics is no answer.  Thought problem:  What is a transition?

(note: no credit for restating the unsupported assertion.  Unless you care to
specify exactly how to tell what a transition IS that disagrees with what
everyone else seems to think it is.  HOW is a transition demonstrated?
WHAT is a "transition"?  By saying that transitions are missing you have to
say what one is so that it could be tested.  No show.  This "define the problem
away" is one of Bob's favorite "I did that" lines...)

    Now, if the question was "prove that transitions occur" then the
restriction is reasonable, and even necessary.  Now the problem becomes,
just what evidence would you accept for the existence of transitions?  We
have cited many levels and types of evidence, but you have reject each one.
Just what is it you are after?  Transitions from what to what?  Since
we have seen in historical (i.e. recorded) instances of speciation,
this at the species level seems to be demonstrated by purely natural
operators.  Does this help?  I got it from Chris:
.........................

}For those interested in evaluating "intermediate forms", I'd recommend
}Chris McGowan's _In The Beginning_ (Prometheus).  It's a "good place to
}start" for the layman (but by no means sufficient all by itself).  He
}devotes two chapters (pp. 110-141) on detailed study of Archaeopteryx
}and the Cynodonts, comparing their features to those of the two groups
}which they fall between.
}
}While Archaeopteryx appears too late to itself be the transitional form
}between reptiles and birds, it does fall between the two categories.  The
}Creationists contend that it is a bird - but a detailed study of features
}shows that it has less in common with birds (feathers, wishbone) than it
}does with Theropod dinosaurs (pubic peduncle, bony tail, no pygostyle, no
}bony sternum, three well-developed fingers, three well-developed metacarpal
}bones, metacarpal bones unfused, metatarsal bones separate, no hypotarsus,
}abdominal ribs).  The first specimen found was accidentally classified as
}a reptile because the feather impressions were too faint to discern (until
}the fossil was specifically examined for them).
}
}I'll deal with Cynodonts more briefly, but when evaluated in 14 main areas
}where reptiles and mammals differ skeletally, they are clearly intermediates.
}They share five of the features with reptiles, five with mammals, and are
}somewhere in between on the other four.  Since they appear in the fossil
}record at the proper time, and are connected by many other "transitional"
}fossils in a very detailed sequence, they represent one of the most
}well-documented transitional forms.  (It should be no surprise that more
}recent transitions are better documented.  More fossils are available,
}and more complex creatures probably change more slowly.)

=============================================================================
15.
>From: [e-mail] (Scott Gibson)
Date: 17 Jul 89 20:08:26 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Bales) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian T. Coughlin) writes:
>>  Another thing. Please don't fall into the trap of calling Creationism a
>> THEORY. It is not. A theory, by definition, MUST be capable of enduring
>> the scientific method: Hypothesize, Experiment, Observe, Conclude.
>
>Creationism is capable of enduring the scientific method, as defined here.

In what way?  This is not a flame - if you feel this to be true, what
evidence can you provide to support your claim?  How does one experiment
with or observe the operation of Creation?  Even you must admit that
Creationism violates the scientific method in at least one way:  it
begins, not with an hypothesis, but with a conclusion.


=============================================================================
16.
>From: [e-mail] (Paul Neubauer)
Date: 18 Jul 89 15:06:47 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Bales) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mutant for
>Hire) writes:
>>To prove creationism you must find positive evidence that things happened
>>exactly as they are described in the bible. So far there has been a dearth of
>>such data.
>
>Depends if you want to "prove" the Bible or creationism.

I don't mind which you want to prove, Bob.  Cite some evidence for either.

>>No biologist will question the fact of evolution.
>
>Non-evolutionary biologists do.

Would you care to name a few?  That is, people working in biology, doing
real science, publishing in peer-reviewed journals, etc.  Not just people
whose only claim to the name is that they work for the Institute for
'Scientific Creationism'.  (I don't insist on omitting someone merely
because of that particular institutional affiliation, I just want to see
some evidence that the person is a biologist rather than a polemicist.)

=============================================================================
17.
>From: [e-mail] (Greg S. Hennessy)
Date: 22 Jul 89 20:45:42 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Bales) writes:
#Now with regard to creationism, although I believe it, I cannot prove that it
#is *the* correct theory.  I contend that the characteristics of life agree
#with the observed characteristics of created objects, and hence creationism is
#consistent with observed facts, and hence creationism is a viable theory.
#

The last time you posted something along these lines I pointed out
that salt crystals fufilled your criteria. I again point out salt
crystals fufill the criteria you posted last time. I would object to
salt crystals being called alive. You seem to deny that radioactive
decay rates can be used to date rocks because they "might" be wrong,
and then you contend that this vague statement, "characteristics of
created objects" is science! I am personally and professionally
offended that you call that statement a scientific statement.

A theory must make predictions or it is not a theory. Name one
prediction that creationism makes. This is about the eighth time I
have asked in the past year. The only reason I am asking now for
something is so new readers will realize you NEVER post answers to our
questions, but just pop every now and then to take pot shots at
evolution and then duck back into silence when asked to back up your
statements.


=============================================================================
18.
>From: [e-mail] (Greg S. Hennessy)
Date: 22 Jul 89 21:58:17 GMT

#>So Greg asked:
#>When ever we test it it comes out o.k. Can you please name one test of
#>creationism that comes out o.k.?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Bales) writes:
#
#Let me explain. Two different claims can be made for a theory: that it is
#a viable theory or that it is to be taken as the correct (as far as we know)
#theory.  The second claim requires stronger evidence.  Since it is this claim
#I hear being made for evolution, I look for the stronger evidence.  I contend
#that the actual evidence is only consistent with the first claim.
#

That is interesting. Do you mind answering my question?

=============================================================================
19.
>From: [e-mail] (Keith Doyle)
Date: 23 Jul 89 07:05:36 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Bales) writes:
.Now with regard to creationism, although I believe it, I cannot prove that it
.is *the* correct theory.  I contend that the characteristics of life agree
.with the observed characteristics of created objects, and hence creationism is
.consistent with observed facts, and hence creationism is a viable theory.

But Bob, I asked you the following question before, and you failed to respond:

1. What then, is a characteristic of a NON-created object, so we may know
how it can be determined whether or not such characteristics agree.  If you
are unable to come up with a definition of an object that was NOT created,
your arguments that the characteristics of life "agree with the observed
characteristics of created objects" are meaningless, because by such a
definition, ALL characteristics of ANY objects can be said to be "in
agreement with the observed characteristics of created objects".

}I don't want to speak for Bob, but I think this one has been answered,
}at least partially.  In <[e-mail]> he wrote that there
}was no way to distinguish created life forms from evolved ones.

But he claims that it is consistent with observed facts, and then that those
facts cannot be observed?!?!?!?
Sounds like a non-answer.  Evasive at best.

=============================================================================
20.
>From: [e-mail] (Scott Gibson)
Date: 24 Jul 89 17:15:59 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Bales) writes:
>I don't think I've said this. Quite a while ago, I did post an article posing
>the "light-in-transit" theory as an explanation of a young universe. I got
>response(s) mentioning that light from super novas would have had to have been
>created "in the stream" before the event.  This was something I had neglected,
>and now I'm not sure if I believe the theory or not. (Does this qualify as
>re-evaluation in the face of new evidence? :-) :-))
>
>Most of my postings have been related to the age of the earth, which is a
>different question -- one more susceptible to direct measurement.

Have you now, in this posting, seperated the issue of the age of the Earth
from the issue of the age of the rest of the universe??

{ I have re-asked this, especially since Bobby has said he will debate
the age of the earth question.  Unfortunately, in the post in which
he said that he neglected to give his position.   -jwm}

>Again, I don't know.  I discuss mainly evolution and the origin of life,
>secondarily with the age of the earth, least of all with the age of the
>universe.

Dang, you did it again!!

So, are you opening up the possibility that you consider these to be seperate
issues?  That the various cosmological phenomenon that are at odds with your
view of a "young" Earth occur because it is only the Earth that is young?

Can these be seperated?  Since you are treating them as seperate issues,
can we assume that YOU seperate them?

I am curious; when the Earth was [as you say] created, what existed prior
to that creation?  Was the sun here?  Doesn't that refute the biblical
account of creation?  Were other stars [including, of course, those which
were actually PLANETS] present?  Again, doesn't this refute the bible?
How about the moon?  Was it in orbit about the sun [provided the sun was
there]??

If the solar system existed sans the Earth, how was it stable, with
respect to planetary orbits?  Wouldn't the introduction of the Earth
into such a stable system de-stabilize it?

More importantly, why is a "created, young Earth" mandatory in creationism,
when a far older universe is hinted at by you??

I noted a short time ago that I was waiting for you to answer these and other
questions with views and evidence.

I am still waiting, Bob.
{ So am I, but a LOT later than this post.  -jwm}

=============================================================================
21.
>From: [e-mail] (Wayne A. Throop)
Date: 2 Oct 89 13:14:35 GMT

> [e-mail] (Robert Bales)
> [.. more about the panda, symmetryic treatment of evidence, etc ..]

Bob has not responded to my previously raised points. I'll append those
articles to the end of this one.  But some new points are brought up,
in particlar some assertions about the nature of created objects.

>    1. Created objects tend to have differnt parts, of different
>       compositions, which must all work together to accomplish a
>       purpose.

Many created objects are all of a peice, of one composition, which
works to accomplish a purpose which only the creator (and perhaps some
cronies) can understand.  And since standard creationism makes it
impossible to understand the creator, this simply doesn't apply in any
useful sense to distinguish created from non-created objects.

Or do you claim to know the purpose of living things?

=============================================================================
22.
>From: [e-mail]
Date: 27 Mar 90 16:09:36 GMT

(please note date.  I am including this later post as a recurring, but
unanswered, theme - jwm)

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
>
> AHAH!  Bob Bales is back again.  Please, Bob, could you answer the question
> that has been posed to you several times....?  What would you consider
> convincing (to you) evidence that the Bible view of creation is not viable?
>
I am reposting this since I do not yet have an answer from Bob Bales.

> Yet another question...
> What would you consider convincing evidence that evolution is the best
> explanation of life on earth?

Mr. Bales, why no answer?  I have posed my questions as simply as possible.
Are they too explicit for you?


(as an aside, Bobby claims he once answered a question.  "What
would it take to show creationism is not viable?"  His two non-
answers were 1. imposible to do (his evaluation) and 2. a restatement
of the question (show it is impossible).  No credit.))

=========================================================================

I would love to discuss rationally these issues with any creationists.
I am not interested in evasiveness, curcularity or other displays.

(Like "How do things diffuse INTO a rock FROM a vacuum?")

--
James W. Meritt:  [e-mail] - or - [e-mail]
The opinions above are mine.  If anyone else wants to share them, fine.
They may say so if they wish. The facts "belong" to noone and simply are.