==* SCICRE_APOLOGY TUN
Article 24426 of talk.origins:
From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Does theory of evolution affect belief in God?
Message-ID: <1992Apr3.144045.23560@city.cs>
Date: 3 Apr 92 14:40:45 GMT
References: <1992Mar30.151720.5719@city.cs> <702207187.25590@minster.york.ac.uk>
Sender: news@city.cs (News)
Organization: City University, London
Lines: 67
In article <702207187.25590@minster.york.ac.uk> cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk writes:
>in article <1992Mar30.151720.5719@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) says:
>> If evolution were proven I would just be very suprised. It could not
>> shake my relationship with God. I would make a public apology to top
>> evolutionists that I had maligned. I would examine my own standards
>> of science. As for God, I would ask Him how and why I went wrong,
>> and repent for leading people astray....
>>
>> ...if evolution were to be proved.
>
>But Lionel, your maligning of "top echelon evolutionists" has nothing
>to do with proofs. The following two extracts are from your earlier
>articles.
>
>>Thank you for your reasoned response. Flames are escalating elsewhere
>>though and in order to reduce the temperature I would like to point
>>out that I suggested `many' scientists take part in evolutionism not
>>`all'. I am glad to see this suggestion refuted here. It is the higher
>>echelons, the `experts', who know full well the inadequacy of their
>>science about whom I contend that they practice evolution_ism_ as a
>>pseudo-scientific religion. This is a no more inflammatory contention
>>than evolutionists accusing say ICR of the same.
>
>and again in another article:
>
>> I am hereby coining the phrase `religious evolutionism' as
>> distinct from the scientific treatment of the theory of
>> evolution. In a tribe the witchdoctors are they only ones
>> who know their wierd religion is hocus pocus - the ordinary
>> people often including the chief are being conned. In the
>> same way the religious evolutionists publishing the most
>> learned papers know what they are doing and compromise science
>> deliberately.
>
>This has nothing to do with "proofs" of evolution, whatever that might
>mean. You have accused them (the "top echelon" as distinct from run of
>the mill scientists? this in itself is weird) of deliberately
>distorting science. We have seen nothing as yet which might lead you
>to make such an accusation.
>
>Scientists themselves are brutal in condemnation of one another when
>scientific standards are compromised. (Pons and Fleichman on cold
>fusion being a highly visible example.) But you make this very serious
>charge with *nothing* to back it up!
>
>If you scrounge the literature, you will find evolutionary scientists
>bickering with one another about various theories and methodology.
>Check out the latest Scientific American and the ongoing brouhaha over
>the "Eve" hypothesis for a recent African origin for humanity. This
>goes on in every field. But I am 99% certain that you can't even
>identify a "top echelon" let alone give any substatiation to your
>accusation that they are dishonest.
>
>You should substatiate your charge, or present your apology. This
>would demonstrate a basic level of honesty, which is necessary for
>any mututal benefit in considering the question of "proofs".
I apologise for presenting claims unaccompanied by the evidence to back
them up. To all those I have offended by not presenting the evidence -
my apologies. I retract the offending statements until further notice.
If I re present these assertions in the future I will try to have some
references handy.
>Cheers -- Chris Ho-Stuart
Lionel Tun (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889
==!
==* SCICRE_LIE JD_MORRIS LIBEL LAWSUIT
Article 24761 of talk.origins:
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Jim hits a new low.
Message-ID: <1992Apr14.133016@IASTATE.EDU>
Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 18:30:16 GMT
Lines: 73
In article , jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim
Loucks) writes:
> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>
> >In article <387s02rJc9fU00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, jloucks@uts.amdahl.com
(Jim
>>Loucks) writes:
>>> For myself, after hearing Morris' response, I've come to the conclusion
>>> that Morris didn't communicate his motives well enough for the audience
>>> to understand what he was trying to say.
>
>> His motives were irrelevant. His butchering of someone else's material
>>to completely reverse the meaning is _not_ a proper way to show "some
>>scientists think there are problems...". Jim, you are rationalizing away
>>a knowing, intentional lie by one of your allies.
>
> In my opinion, motives are never irrelevant and I'm surprised anyone
> would think otherwise.
No imaginable motive excuses his conduct, hence his motives are
irrelevant. Unless he can't read he knew he was changing the meaning
of that passage. Which is it, illiteracy or malice?
> Morris was making a point but didn't communicate it well, and I
> misunderstood what he was saying. Big whoop, it happens. To charge
> that Morris intentionally lied is improper as it is to say that I've
> rationalized the situation. I felt pretty small after posting the
> article and causing such a ruckus, now, with comments such as yours,
> I believe such feelings were wasted.
Excuse me: you are claiming the inversion of meaning was the result
of YOUR editing? Nonsense!
>
>> It is inconcievable that someone could so carefully invert the meaning
>>of a passage "by accident" no matter what their motives. The ICR is a
>>bunch of lying, cheating, assholes and you've decided that your beliefs
>>are so important to you you would rather accept a halfassed nonexplaination
>>than face the truth.
>
> If I were you, I'd be careful not to be guilty of libel. I should
> probably send this to the ICR and see what their lawyers have to
> say about it.
Right. Another pseudo-scientific pile of nonsensical crap attempts
to resort to lawsuits to silence opposition. This is beneath contempt
Jim. If you forward my opinions to the ICR they will loose them; they
know they can't win a libel lawsuit. I have substantial evidence that
they lie, so do you, you have seen it in this forum. The fact you are
rationalizing it away doesn't keep the truth from being a defense
against allegations of libel.
>
>> You've let me down, Jim. I thought your sense of justice might lead you
>>out of the snake pit you're in, but instead you've decided you _like_ kissing
>>cobras.
>
> What can I say, Dan? In chasing the truth I'm bound to run across
> opposition for one reason or another.
Your not chasing the truth. You are intentionally propagating lies
through willful ignorance. Since you have now proved youself beneath
contempt, I'm not likely to read anything you post.
We showed you an ICR lie, exposed it carefully, and you promised to
ask them about it. You come back later with a half-baked rationalization
that doesn't make any sense at all and threaten to have your friends sue
if we don't accept it. You are beyond belief, you jerk. Adio!
Very Disgusted Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
Article 24763 of talk.origins:
From: hamilton@hydra.cs.gmr.com (William E. Hamilton CS50 CS/50)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Jim hits a new low.
Message-ID: <82320@rphroy.ph.gmr.com>
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:06:15 GMT
Sender: news@rphroy.ph.gmr.com
Reply-To: hamilton@gmr.com (William E. Hamilton CS50 CS/50)
Organization: GM Research Labs, Warren, MI
Lines: 40
Nntp-Posting-Host: hydra.cs.gmr.com
In article <1992Apr14.133016@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>In article , jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim
>Loucks) writes:
>> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>>
>> >In article <387s02rJc9fU00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, jloucks@uts.amdahl.com
>(Jim
>>>Loucks) writes:
>>>> For myself, after hearing Morris' response, I've come to the conclusion
>>>> that Morris didn't communicate his motives well enough for the audience
>>>> to understand what he was trying to say.
What *was* he trying to say? Jim, he and other ICR people have been
caught in so many incidents of this kind, it's quite natural to conclude
the worst. Did he fail to communicate, or did he succeed in deception?
>>
>> If I were you, I'd be careful not to be guilty of libel. I should
>> probably send this to the ICR and see what their lawyers have to
>> say about it.
>
How many people will be won to Christ by a lawsuit, Jim? If an interpretation
of the Bible has to be protected by lawsuits, where is the power of God?
Bill Hamilton
please reply to hamilton@gmr.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Hamilton |
Staff Research Engineer |
GM Research Labs ----+----
Computer Science Dept. | Now faith is the assurance of things
GM Research Labs | hoped for, the conviction of things
Warren, MI 48090-9055 | not seen. Heb 11:1
(313) 986 1474 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The TRUTH does not have to be changed to fit emerging facts
- source unknown
==!
==* SCICRE_LIE WHITCOMB MORRIS OVERTHRUSTS GEOLOGY REFS
sArticle 26281 of talk.origins:
From: zuber_rg@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Robert G Zuber)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.origins
Subject: Hey, Morris and Whitcomb, God is looking! :)
Message-ID: <1992May24.130634.6921@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>
Date: 24 May 92 13:06:34 GMT
References: <18033@plains.NoDak.edu>
<18037@plains.NoDak.edu>
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore
Lines: 85
In article <18037@plains.NoDak.edu> ortmann@plains.NoDak.edu (Daniel Ortmann) writes:
>"do it right" be sure you have evidence. We are talking of high caliber
>scientists, who happen to be Christians and creationists. These people
>(also myself) have great moral accountability to be honest and
>*guileless*. Any Christian who tries to falsify evidence has to face
>God. Even when no one else is looking, God is.
Incredible! As you said, 'Any Christian who tries to falsify
evidence has to face God'. Will you accept the following as 'falsifying
evidence'?
-----------
I'm quoting a second-hand source, so flame me if you will. I
will, however, at least list the primary sources so you can check
yourself. The point here is about creationist misquoting, nothing else.
The following is from source [1] (the second-hand one).
=======================
QUESTION: According to creationists, there are plenty of places
where the fossils are in the wrong order for evolution. This must mean
geologists have to assume evolution so as to arrange the geological time
scale so as to date the fossils so as to erect an evolutionary sequence
so as to prove evolution, thereby reasoning in a vicious circle. When
the fossils are in the wrong order, geologists apparently assume the
"older" rocks were shoved on top of the younger ones (thrust faulting),
or else that the strata were overturned (recumbent folds), even though
there is no physical evidence for these processes. In particular,
Whitcomb and Morris [2] maintain the physical evidence proves the Lewis
Overthrust and Heart Mountain Overthrust never slid an inch. How do you
reply?
ANSWER: Whitcomb and Morris, again, quote their sources badly
out of context. There is plenty of physical evidence having nothing to
do with fossils or evolution that show thrust faulting to be very real.
Let us consider the Lewis Overthrust and Heart Mountain Overthrust [I've
deleted the Heart Mountain bit] in some detail.
The Lewis Overthrust of Glacier National Park, Montana, consists
of the deformed Precambrian limestones of the Belt Formation that were
shoved along a horizontal thrust fault on top of much younger (but
viciously crumpled) Cretaceous shales. ...[deletion]... Ross and Rezak
[3] wrote in their article about the Lewis Overthrust that the rocks
along the thrust fault are badly crumpled, but Whitcomb and Morris (p.
187) lift the following words from this article:
"Most visitors, especially those who stay on the roads, get the
impression that the Belt strata are undisturbed and lie almost as flat
today as they did when deposited in the sea which vanished so many
million years ago."
But if we read the rest of Ross's and Rezak's paragraph, we find that
Whitcomb and Morris quoted it out of context:
".... so many million years ago. Actually, they are folded, and
in certain places, they are intensely so. From the points on and near
the trails in the park, it is possible to observe places where the Belt
series, as revealed in outcrops on ridges, cliffs, and canyon walls, are
folded and crumpled almost as intricately as the soft younger strata in
the mountains south of the park and in the Great Plains adjoining the
park to the east."
Ross and Rezak repeatedly show how "crushed and crumpled" the rocks in
the thrust fault are:
"The intricate crumpling and crushing in the immediate vicinity
of the main overthrust, visible in localities like that near Marias
Pass, shown in figure 139, must have taken place when the heavy
overthrust slab was forced over the soft rocks beneath......"
[Two more quotations deleted]
============================
Now it certainly *appears* that Whitcomb and Morris have
*completely* misrepresented the Ross and Rezak paper. It seems they
quoted to the effect that there was *no* evidence of overthrusting, even
though that paper appears to forcefully say the *exact* opposite! Now
it's fine if creationists want to disagree with certain conclusions if
they can back it up with evidence, but why in hell quote from a paper
that completely contradicts your view?
[1] Weber, Christopher Gregory "Common Creationist Attacks on Geology".
_Creation/Evolution_, Issue II, Fall 1980, pp. 21-22.
[2] Whitcomb, John C., and Henry M. Morris. _Genesis Flood_.
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.: Philadelphia, PA, 1961.
[3] Ross, C. P., and Richard Rezak. "The Rocks and Fossils of Glacier
National Monument". _U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper_ 294-K
(1959).
Rob Zuber
==!
==* SCICRE_LIE GISH PROTEINS BULLFROG CHICKEN MOL_BIO REFS
Article 26282 of talk.origins:
From: zuber_rg@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Robert G Zuber)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Hey, Gish, God is looking! :)
Message-ID: <1992May24.135625.9049@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>
Date: 24 May 92 13:56:25 GMT
References: <18033@plains.NoDak.edu>
<18037@plains.NoDak.edu>
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore
Lines: 194
In article <18037@plains.NoDak.edu> ortmann@plains.NoDak.edu (Daniel Ortmann) writes:
>"do it right" be sure you have evidence. We are talking of high caliber
>scientists, who happen to be Christians and creationists. These people
>(also myself) have great moral accountability to be honest and
>*guileless*. Any Christian who tries to falsify evidence has to face
>God. Even when no one else is looking, God is.
Perhpaps Daniel Ortmann can comment on the folowing. It's a bit
dated (1986), so maybe Mr. Ortmann can call Gish himself.
The following is from the _Creation/Evolution_ journal, Issue XVII (Vol.
6, No. 1) pp. 1-5
================
"Scientific Creationism and Error" by Robert Schadewald (1986)
[deletions]
Ironically, creationists make much of scientific errors. The
"Nebraska Man" fiasco, where the tooth of an extinct peccary was
misidentified as belonging to a primitive human, is ubiquitous in
creationist literature and debate presentations. So is the "Piltdown
Man" hoax. Indeed, creationist propagandists often present these two
scientific errors as characteristic of paleoanthropology. It is
significant that these errors were uncovered and corrected from within
the scientific community. In contrast, creationists rarely expose their
own errors, and they sometimes fail to correct them when others expose
them.
GISH'S PROTEINS
Duane Gish, a protein biochemist with a Ph.D. from Berkeley, is
vice-president of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and
creationism's most well-known spokesperson. A veteran of perhaps 150
public debates and thousands of lectures and sermons on creationism,
Gish is revered among creationists as a great scientist and a tireless
fighter for the truth. Among noncreationists, however, Gish has a
reputation for making erroneous statements and then pugnaciously
refusing to acknowledge them. One example is an unfinished epic which
might be called the tale of two proteins.
In July 1983, the Public Broadcasting System televised an
hour-long program on creationism. One of the scientists interviewed,
biochemist Russell Doolittle, discussed the similarities between human
proteins and chimpanzee proteins. In many cases, corresponding human and
chimpanzee proteins are identical, and, in others, they differ by only a
few amino acids. This strongly suggests a common ancestry for humans and
apes. Gish was asked to comment. He replied:
"If we look at certain proteins, yes, man then -- it can be
assumed that man is more closely related to a chimpanzee than other
things. But on the other hand, if you look at certain other proteins,
you'll find that man is more closely related to a bullforg than he is to
a chimapanzee. If you focus your attention on other proteins, you'll
find that man is more closely related to a chicken than he is to a
chimpanzee."
I had never heard of such proteins, so I asked a few
biochemists. They hadn't either. I wrote to Gish for supporting
documentation. He ignored my first letter. In reply to my second, he
referred me to Berkeley geochronologist Garniss Curtis. I wrote to
Curtis, who replied immediately.
Some years ago, Curtis attended a conference in Austria where he
heard that someone had found bullfrog blood proteins very similar to
human blood proteins. Curtis offered an explanatory hypothesis: the
"frog" which yielded the proteins was, he suggested, an enchanted
prince. He then predicted that the research would never be confirmed. He
was apparently correct, for nothing has been heard of the proteins
since. But Duane Gish once heard Curtis tell his little story.
This bullfrog "documentation" (as Gish now calls it) struck me
as a joke, even by creationist standards, and Gish simply ignored his
alleged chicken proteins. In contrast, Doolittle backed his televised
claims with published protein sequence data. I wrote to Gish again
suggesting that he should be able to do the same. He didn't reply.
Indeed, he has never since replied to any of my letters.
John W. Patterson and I attended the 1983 National Creation
Conference in Roseville, Minnesota. We had several conversations there
with Kevin Wirth, research director of Students for Origins Research
(SOR). At some point, we told him the protein story and suggested that
Gish might have lied on national television. Wirth was confident that
Gish could document his claims. He told us that, if we put our charges
in the form of a letter, he would do his best to get it published in
_Origins Research_, the SOR tabloid.
Gish also attended the conference, and I asked him about the
proteins in the presence of several creationists. Gish tried mightily to
evade and to obfuscate, but I was firm. Doolittle provided sequence data
for human and chimpanzee proteins; Gish could do the same - *if* his
alleged chicken and bullfrog proteins really exist. Gish insisted that
they exist and promised to send me the sequences. Skeptically, I asked
him pointblank: "Will that be before hell freezes over?" He assured me
that it would. After two-and- one-half years, I still have neither
sequence data nor a report of frost in Hades.
Shortly after the conference, Patterson and I submitted a joint
letter to _Origins Research_, briefly recounting the protein story and
concluding, "We think Gish lied on national television." We sent Gish a
copy of the letter in the same mail. During the next few months, Wirth
(and probably others at SOR) practically begged Gish to submit a reply
for publication. According to Wirth, someone at ICR, perhaps Gish
himself, responded by pressuring SOR not to publish our letter. Unlike
Gish, however, Kevin Wirth was as good as his word. The letter appeared
in the spring 1984 issue of _Origins Research_ -- with no reply from
Gish.
The 1984 National Bible-Science Conference was held in
Cleveland, and again Patterson and I attended. Again, I asked Gish for
sequence data for his chicken and bullfrog proteins. This time, Gish
told me that any further documentation for his proteins is up to Garniss
Curtis and me.
I next saw Gish on February, 18, 1985, when he debated
philosopher of science Philip Kitcher at the University of Minnesota.
Several days earlier, I had heralded Gish's coming (and his mythical
proteins) in a guest editorial in the student newspaper, _The Minnesota
Daily_. Kitcher alluded to the proteins early in the debate, and, in his
final remarks, he demanded that Gish either produce references or admit
that they do not exist. Gish, of course, did neither. His closing
remarks were punctuated with sporadic cries of "Bullfrog!" from the
audience.
That evening, Duane Gish addressed about two hundred people
assembled in a hall at the student union. During the question period,
Stan Weinberg, a founder of the Committees of Correspondence on
Evolution, stood up. Scientists sometimes make mistakes, said Weinberg,
and, when they do, they own up to them. Had Gish ever made a mistake in
his writings and presentations? If so, could his chicken and bullfrog
proteins have been a mistake? Gish made a remarkable reply.
He has, indeed, made mistakes.....
[example deleted]
Regarding the bullfrog proteins, Gish said that he relied on
Garniss Curtis for them. Perhaps Curtis was wrong. As for the chicken
proteins, Gish made a convoluted and (to a nonbiochemist) confusing
argument about chicken lysozyme. It was essentially the same answer he
had given me immediately after his debate with Kitcher, when I went
onstage and asked him once again for references. It was also the same
answer he gave two nights later......
[bombardier beetle stuff deleted]
About the chicken lysozyme: three times in three days Gish was
challenged to produce references for chicken proteins closer to human
proteins than the corresponding chimpanzee proteins. Three times he
responded with an argument which essentially reduces to this: if human
lysozyme and lactalbumin evolved from the same precursor, as scientists
claim, then human lysozyme should be closer to human lactalbumin than to
chicken lysozyme, but it is not.
Well, although it is true that human lysozyme is *not* closer to
human lactalbumin than to chicken lysozyme, this comes as no shock and
does not make a case for creationism. Furthermore, it doesn't at all
address the issue that we raised. We were talking about Gish's earlier
comparison of human, chimp, and chicken proteins, and Gish changed the
subject and started comparing human lysozyme to human lactalbulmin!
Few of his creationist listeners know what lysozyme is, and
perhaps none of them knew that human and chimpanzee lysozyme are
identical and that chicken lysozyme differs from both by fifty-one out
of the 130 amino acids [1]. To one unfamiliar with biochemistry and,
especially, Gish's apologetic method's, it *sounded* like he responded
to the question. Whether by design or by some random process, Gish's
chicken lysozyme apologetic was admirably suited to deceive listeners.
One who was taken in by it was Crockett Grabbe, a physicist with
the University of Iowa. As a result, Grabbe wrongly accused Gish of
claiming that chicken lysozyme is closer to human lysozyme than is
chimpanzee lysozyme. Gish then counterattacked, playing "blame the
victim" and pretending it was Grabbe's own fault that he was deceived
[2]. But if the chicken lysozyme apologetic fooled a professional
scientist, it is unlikely that many of the creationist listeners saw
through it.
Gish's refusal to acknowledge the nonexistence of his chicken
protein is characteristic of ICR. Gish's boss, Henry Morris, gave Gish's
handling of the matter his tacit approval by what he said (and didn't
say) about it in his _History of Modern Creationism_. Morris refferred
to the protein incident and took a swipe at Russell Doolittle (whom he
identified as "Richard Doolittle"), but he offered no criticism of
Gish's conduct. Instead, he accused PBS of misrepresenting Gish [3]!
Meanwhile, Gish had been obfuscating behind the scenes. The only
creationist publication to directly address the protein affair has been
_Origins Research_, which first covered the matter in its spring 1984
issue. Then, in the fall 1985 issue, editor Dennis Wagner revisited the
controversy. However, in his article, he (1) wrongly identified Glyn
Isaac as the source of Gish's bullfrog and (2) wrongly stated that Gish
had sent me a tape of the lecture in which Isaac supposedly made the
satement. Wagner's source, it turns out, is a February 27, 1984, letter
Gish wrote to Kevin Wirth, in which Gish apparently confused the late
Glyn Isaac (an archaeologist and authority on early stone tools) with
Garniss Curtis. He also claimed to have a tape and a transcript of the
'Isaac' (presumably Curtis) lecture, and he claimed that he had reviewed
them. In the same paragraph, Gish claimed that he had sent me his
'documentation,' and Wagner quite naturally assumed that that meant at
least the tape. But Gish sent me neither, nor has he sent copies of said
tape or transcript to others who have requested them. As with his
chicken proteins, we have only Gish's word for their existence.
For the record, it is no longer important whether Gish's
original statements about chicken and bullfrog proteins were deceptions
or incredible blunders. It is now going on four years since the PBS
broadcast, and Gish has neither retracted his chicken statement nor
attempted to justify it. (Obviously, the lysozyme apologetic doesn't
count, but it took Gish two-and- one-half years to come up with that!)
And if the Curtis story is all he knows about his chimpanzee protein, on
what basis did he promise to send me its sequence at the 1983 National
Bible-Science Conference? Gish has woven himself into an incredible web
of contradictions, and even some creationists now suspect that he has
been less than candid.
[rest of article deleted]
=================================
[1] Awbrey, Frank T., and Thwaites, William M. Winter 1982. "A Closer
Look at Some Biochemical Data That 'Support' Creation,"
_Creation/Evolution_, issue VII, p. 15.
[2] Gish, Duane T. August 14, 1985. "Creationism Misassailed." _Cedar
Rapids Gazette_.
[3] Morris, Henry M. 1984. _History of Modern Creationism_ (San Diego:
Master Book Publishers), p. 316.
==!
==* SCICRE_LIE RUPKE BROADHURST POLYSTRATE FLOOD REFS
Article 26284 of talk.origins:
From: zuber_rg@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Robert G Zuber)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Polystrate Trees
Message-ID: <1992May24.152708.12708@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>
Date: 24 May 92 15:27:08 GMT
References: <18033@plains.NoDak.edu>
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore
Lines: 64
In article <18033@plains.NoDak.edu> ortmann@plains.NoDak.edu (Daniel Ortmann) writes:
>E has problems with fossilized forests that were fossilized vertically
>*with* leaves still intact. E has no alternative but to invoke a
>"catastrophe", but does so on a "local" scale. He dare not consider
As this is rather vague, I can only guess at what this is about.
You may want to check Strahler's "Science and Earth History" (page 221-)
for further details.
From [1]: (I've also listed the references mentioned in [1])
"QUESTION: Creationists like Dr. N. A. Rupke, a geologist of the
State University of Groningen in the Netherlands, claim that certain
fossil trees (which they call 'polystrate fossils') extend vertically
through many meters of strata. Rupke says they are found in such
coal-producing areas as the Ruhr region of Germany, Lancashire in
England, and Joggins in Nova Scotia. How do you reply?
ANSWER: The creationists again mishandle their sources. The
evidence shows that the vertical trees were really buried by flooding
rivers.
For instance, _Scientific Creationism_ [2] quotes F. M.
Broadhurst [3] as saying:
"It is clear that trees in position of growth are far
from being rare in Lancashire (Teichmuller, 1956 reaches
the same conclusion for similar trees in the Rhein-Westfalen
Coal Measures), and presumably in all such cases there
must have been a rapid rate of sedimentation."
However, Broadhurst has some evidence that river floods buried these
trees, evidence that the creationists do not mention. He continues:
"... there must have been a rapid rate of sedimentation. This
sedimentation occurred, without doubt, in water that could
not have been fast-flowing, since the trees were left in a
standing position. It is possible that the land surface with
its trees was inundated by flood water (possibly on numerous
occasions) from adjacent waterways, the flood water bringing
with it large amounts of sediment."
He goes on to say that fossil polystrate trees are found only in the
coarse- grained rocks, but not in the fine-grained ones. The reason is
that the sediments of the latter probably did not settle fast enough to
bury the trees before they rotted away:
"The most likely explanation of the apparent absence of
such trees from these sediments is that the latter
accumulated too slowly; any trees decayed and collapsed
before they could be enclosed by sediments."
Hence the river flood theory can explain why the trees are found upright
and why trees were preserved in some rocks but not others; the
creationist catastrophe theory cannot.
===================================
[1] Weber, Christopher Gregory "Common Creationist Attacks on Geology"
Creation/Evolution II, p. 14.
[2] "Scientifc Creationism." ed. by Henry M. Morris. General ed.
Creation- Life Publishers: San Diego, CA, 1974, p. 108
[3] Broadhurst, F. M. "Some Aspects of the Palaeoecology of Non-Marine
Faunas and Rates of Sedimentation in the Lancashire Coal Measures".
American Journal of Science, Vol. 262 (Summer, 1964), pp. 858-869.
==!
==* SCICRE_LIE TUN CONVINCE CONVERT
Article 26199 of talk.origins:
From: ford@hpmcaa.mcm.hp.com (Dan Ford)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.origins
Subject: Re: I saw Duane Gish at the University of Utah last night
Message-ID: <1992May22.182848.20065@hpmcaa.mcm.hp.com>
Date: 22 May 92 18:28:48 GMT
References: <1992May22.141441.10500@city.cs>
Organization: HP Cardiology Business Unit - McMinnville, OR
Lines: 19
lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>
> I don't think it is possible to convince anyone who is not already
> in agreement with the theory of evolutione.
>
> --
> Lionel Tun (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
> Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889
That statement is demonstrably false. I used to believe that
mutations were always harmful, but after reading some biology, the
evidence compelled my to abandon that untenable position. Following
that, and after additional investigation I also completely abandoned
young-earth creationism and opted for evolution as the best explanation
for life available.
So I stand as a living disproof of Lionel's statement. ;-)
Dan
==!
==* SCICRE_LIE JD_MORRIS EUGENICS REFS
Article 26267 of talk.origins:
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.origins
Subject: message to Ortmann (II)
Message-ID: <86887@bu.edu>
Date: 23 May 92 23:59:03 GMT
Sender: news@bu.edu
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome
Lines: 46
In article <18037@plains.NoDak.edu> ortmann@plains.NoDak.edu (Daniel
Ortmann) writes:
>We are talking of high caliber
>scientists, who happen to be Christians and creationists. These people
>(also myself) have great moral accountability to be honest and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>*guileless*.
See the paragraph below (it is from an article I wrote a while
ago). Also, I'll be waiting to see your "great moral accountability"
regarding evidence for the intellectual dishonesty of evolutionists. I
don't view slandering hard-working, honest scientists without any
evidence to back up your point as honest or guileless.
>Any Christian who tries to falsify evidence has to face
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>God. Even when no one else is looking, God is.
A recent issue of the journal _Evolution_ (1) has a book
review of Berra's book, "Evolution and the Myth of Creationism."
It also contains some examples of recent creationist rhetoric,
including this accusation. John Morris (2) asserts that issues of
Evolution "frequently feature articles which describe how
modern society should be shaped." These articles, according
to Morris, encourage killing "older or weaker members unable
to contribute to the good of the larger group."
This is an outright lie by an ICR member. Would you
consider this falsifying evidence?
Chris Colby --- email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu ---
"'My boy,' he said, 'you are descended from a long line of determined,
resourceful, microscopic tadpoles--champions every one.'"
--Kurt Vonnegut from "Galapagos"
REFERENCES:
(1) Shapiro, 1991, A myth is as good as a mile, Evolution 45: 1061 -
1062
(2) Morris, 1990, Why do we marry? Back to Genesis #20, ICR, El Cajon,
C.A. (quotes taken from Shapiro's article, not the original tract)
==!
==* SCICRE_LIE GISH BRAINWASH REFS
Article 26383 of talk.origins:
From: alc@netcom.com (Chris Stassen)
Subject: Re: Let's go Gish bashing
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 27 May 92 14:52:27 GMT
Organization: The Lion's Den, San Jose
In article <1992May27.080058.6857@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>
dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
> I've tried to track down references by Gish, as I think it is possibly
> more concrete to critique his actual writings than second hand oral
> accounts of his talks.
True, however transcripts and tapes of his talks are saved. It is
my opinion that Gish is often rather "careless" in debates -- more
so than in his printed works. (Not that there isn't plenty of room
to criticize those as well.)
> This is what I came up with:
>[1] "Evolution, the fossils say no," Creation-Life Publ., California, 1979
>[2] "Evolution: the challenge of the fossil records," Master Books, 1985.
These are essentially the same book, the latter being an updated
version of the former. Except in a "used book" store, you won't be
able to find [1]; The ICR's Master Books sells [2] for $8.95.
>[3] "Creationist Research," 1964-1988
This is a short book (32 pp.) which (according to the Creation
Research Society) discusses research reported in the Creation
Research Society Quarterly. CRS sells [3] for $4.95.
>[4] "Creation Research," 1989
I couldn't find anyone selling this.
>[5] "Dinosaurs: those terrible lizards," Master Books, 1977
This is a children's book ("ages 6-12", says ICR) that is still
sold through Master Books for $10.95.
>[6] "Creation & Evolution," IVP, 1985, Ed. D. Burke.
I couldn't find anyone selling this. The fact that it is edited
by someone else probably means that it is largely not Gish's
work.
> Any others to add to the list?
Gish shares authorship of two other current books sold by the
ICR (aimed at a "junior high through adult" level):
[7] (Bliss, Gish, Parker) _Fossils: Key to the Present_ ($5.95)
[8] (Bliss, Parker, Gish) _Origin of Life) ($5.95)
And Gish is also author of (though it is a little too expensive
for me at the moment):
[9] _The Amazing Story of Creation_ ($18.95)
The ICR is offering a sampler of pamphlets for $2.95. When I
ordered this (two months ago), it included four copies of "Have
You Been Brainwashed" by Gish. This is the pamphlet for which
Ian Plimer tore up Gish, in their debate a few years back.
Plimer pointed out about a half-dozen "lies" in one small
section. In response, Gish said that the pamphlet was old and
that some of the information was now incorrect (that is, Gish
admitted to knowing that those things were wrong). Plimer
retorted that he had bought it (from the display of creationist
materials) on his way into the auditorium.
The pamphlet STILL claims that man and dinosaur prints
are found together at the Paluxy River site; it STILL claims that
there are no precambrian fossils. And the ICR STILL sells it.
This is an organization that is interested in spreading truth?
--
Chris Stassen stassen@alc.com
DISCLAIMER: My employer's account, but not their opinions.
==!
==* SCICRE_LIE GISH DINOSAURS CHILDREN REFS
Article 26395 of talk.origins:
From: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
Subject: Re: Let's go Gish bashing
Message-ID: <1992May27.194023.3452@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Date: 27 May 92 19:40:23 GMT
References: <1992May27.080058.6857@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>
Sender: news@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: Program in Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, Indiana University
Lines: 88
Nntp-Posting-Host: sunflower.bio.indiana.edu
In article <1992May27.080058.6857@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>I've tried to track down references by Gish, as I think it is possibly
>more concrete to critique his actual writings than second hand oral accounts of
>his talks.
>
>This is what I came up with:
[A listing of books 1-4]
>[5] "Dinosaurs: those terrible lizards," Master Books, 1977
This is the one that scares me the most. It's a children's book! Why does
it scare me? Because Gish uses the same bullshit tactics to preach to
little kids as he does with adults. Here's what the blurb on the back
of the book says:
"No one living in the world today has ever seen a real live
dinosaur - but did people in earlier times live with dinosaurs?
Were dragons of ancient legends really dinosaurs? Does the
Bible speak about dinosaurs? The answers are in this book!"
Gish first gives a brief overview of very basic facts about dinosaurs &
dinosaur fossils: definition of "dinosaur," global distribution of fossils.
Then he has a section called "Where did dinosaurs come from?" He gives one
paragraph "explaining" evolution. His "definition" of evolution stresses
"in-between forms," and the dates "about 200 million years ago" and "about
70 million years ago." Then he spends four paragraphs on creation: one
paragraph on a definition, and three on biblical grounds for creation.
His next section begins, "Is there scientific evidence that Man and dinosaurs
lived at the same time?" He stresses that if they did we would be very
unlikely to see actual fossils of them together, because of patchy
fossilization. Then comes (you'll never guess) - the Paluxy River footprints.
He ends this section with, "Are there human footprints and dinosaur footprints
together in Paluxy River bottom? . . . We will not be able to say absolutely
sure one way or the other until more work is done." In addition to all of
this, the illustration on this page is of a human walking next to a dinosaur,
both leaving footprints. Scary, huh? (By the way, the latest version of this
was published in '88, and it's still on sale today - you've gotta love guys
who lie to kids)
Next comes the biblical evidence for the coexistence of man with dinosaurs -
description of the "behemoth" (Job 40: 15-24)
Then Gish gives descriptions of various kinds of dinosaurs, interspersing them
with quotes like, "If this strange creature [_Triceratops_] slowly evolved,
as evolutionists believe, then we aught to be able to find transitional forms
. . . but none are found!", and lots of talk about the "purposes" of various
structures (i.e. _Stegosaurus'_ plates). My favorite quote from this section
is, "[again, about _Stegosaurus] Not a single such in-between form can be
found! . . . This is good evidence that these creatures did not evolve but
were created by God." (p. 25) (The old "if evolution isn't true, our version
of creation must be" argument - this time being used against children!)
Eventually Gish gives up all appearances of impartiality in this section,
saying things like "No in-between forms! That's because God created them."
(p. 27)
The next section is called "Ancestors for Birds?" and says such things as
"The bird type hip suddenly appears in certain kinds of dinosaurs, with
no in-between forms showing where the bird-hip came from. That's because
God created them!" (p. 49)
The next section is five pages entitled "Dragons and Bombardier Beetles."
Of course, this section focuses on how the Bombardier beetle ("Mr. B. B.")
couldn't have evolved his defense mechanism: "Could evolution make all
of that happen by a zillion accidents? No way!" (p. 55) Of course, no
reference to the fact that this argument has been shown to be a bunch of
hooey.
The last section is "Whatever Became of the Dinosaurs?" Gish's answer?
Weather changes caused them to go extinct. I think we all know what his
mechanism for the weather changes is (Hint: Starts with an F, ends with a
D, and has LOO (as in toilet) in the middle).
DISCLAIMER: Unlike Derek (who actually did a good job of being unbiased), I
didn't separate my comments from my summary. However, the summary parts
are as unbiased as I could make them. In addition, I'd like to assure
everyone that all the ellipses [. . .] in the above quotations _do not_
remove anything from the meaning of the quotes.
--
--Andy
"So, Nat'ralists observe, a Flea / Hath smaller Fleas that on him prey. /
And these have smaller Fleas to bite 'em, / And so proceed _ad infinitum_."
--Jonathan Swift, _On Poetry: a Rhapsody_
==!
==* SCICRE_LIE MAIER GISH PLIMER BRAINWASH REFS VIDEO
Article 26723 of talk.origins:
From: stassen@alc.com (Chris Stassen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Bible verses and "Facts" (was: "Re: Literal Genesis")
Message-ID: <1992Jun4.165513.12201@alc.com>
Date: 4 Jun 92 16:55:13 GMT
References:
Sender: news@alc.com
Organization: The Lion's Den, San Jose
Lines: 183
Nntp-Posting-Host: cortez
Chuck Maier writes:
[A lot about a number of Bible verses and how they support his reading
of Genesis. I'm just going to pick one example to make a more general
point about how Chuck is reading Scripture:]
#
# Recall we're discussing whether the N.T. writers believed in the
# historicity of Genesis. vs. 39 reads "All flesh is not the same;
# one KIND is human; another KIND is animal, another is fowl,
# another is fish."
#
# This clearly a reference to the separately created kinds, as in
# Genesis.
I think Chuck is stretching here, badly. This verse is far from being
in alignment with his beliefs. I was thinking about posting it myself,
and was shocked to see a creationist produce it. My translation says
that each is of "one flesh."
The clear meaning, under Chuck's assumption that it is a reference
to "created kinds," is that there is only *one* "kind" each of fish,
animal, and bird. I don't know of many "creationists" who would
accept that, except maybe the old-earth variety.
# Is it any wonder any wonder that ardent evolutionists want to keep our
# schoolchildren in the dark about the facts, scientific and biblical.
I rarely stoop to responding to stuff like this, but I will make an
exception for Chuck, who usually sounds more reasonable than this.
Regarding theology, I am sure that the geocentrists could give us some
Biblical "facts" to oppose heliocentric astronomy. Would you vote
for their inclusion in a science class?
Regarding science, here is an exercise for anyone who wants to (as
Chuck apparently does) claim that creationists have any interest in
giving honest information to people:
Call the ICR's publishing house (Master Books) at 619-448-1121. Order
catalog item "CRESAM," a sampler of creationism pamphlets, for $2.95
(plus $3 s/h). Read "Have You Been Brainwashed?" -- you will receive
four copies, so you can get three friends to participate and split the
costs.
In it, you will note claims of human and dinosaur footprints
together at the Paluxy River site. Also, note claims that the precambrian
is void of fossils. (See below for evidence that Gish, the author of
the pamphlet and very influential in the ICR, knew the latter claim to
be false as of 1985.)
Call a noted scientific publisher, say, Sinauer or W.H. Freeman. See
if you can find a book that uses piltdown or nebraska man to build a
case for human evolution. You will fail.
Now, tell me: based on the results of your exercise, which side cares
about presenting "facts"? Which side is diligent about refusing to
propagate misproven or misleading "information"? Why do you think
this is so?
=======================================================================
Below is a written transcript that I made from a videotape of the
Gish/Plimer debate in 1988. Plimer obtained a copy of the same
pamphlet, and hammered Gish for the inaccuracies in it.
=======================================================================
These are from the video tape of the March 18, 1988 debate between Ian
Plimer and Duane Gish. The debate took place in Australia; the video
tape has been converted to American TV format and my own copy is an
unknown-number-of-times removed from the original and is of mediocre
quality (especially the sound).
When I am not sure of a word, it appears with a question mark
following. Editorial remarks are in [square brackets]. All punctuation
is my own invention, which I use in an attempt to convey the flow of
the talk.
Note that Plimer, in my opinion, was overly aggressive and mean-spirited
in this debate. I don't think that he conducted himself well during
much of the debate. However, in my opinion he thrashed Gish mainly due
to the same pamphlet which is discussed above.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Plimer's statement during his 45-minute debate speech:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What I want to now talk about are some of our scientific publications
which come from our (?) creationists. The creationists will not allow
refutations by scientists. They will not allow a process of improving
or correcting. I use the same principle.
[I am not sure what Plimer means by "[using] the same principle."
Either he is saying that *he* won't allow a "process of improving
or correcting" either, or he is saying that he is using the same
principle of investigating creationist claims as he had been using
earlier in his talk.]
And I use our friend's book, or booklet -- it's more like a comic --
which is called "Are You Being Brainwashed?" [Plimer gets the title wrong,
I think] I go to page 8. There is a diagram there that says, "precambrian:
void of fossils." That is a lie. The precambrian is not void of fossils;
the precambrian is extremely rich in fossils. He [Gish] has come to the
country where there are many precambrian fossils going back to 3 thousand
3 hundred million years ago.
On the same diagram, he says the "earth's crust" is "void of fossils."
That is a lie. Every fossil found on this planet is from the earth's
crust. That is from his book, "Are You Being Brainwashed?" page 8.
We also see on the same page, the Cambrian; a geological time period
some time ago. And I quote, "The billions of fossils found are all of
highly complex forms of life." That is a lie. There on one simple
diagram we have three lies. That is their scientific publication.
[The diagram appears to be unchanged in the current copy.]
We turn now to page 9. And we read, "not a single indisputable
multicellular fossil has been found anywhere in the world in a rock
supposedly older than Cambrian rocks." That is a lie. But what (?)
we see is a repetition of these lies, all the time. "You don't find
fossils in old rocks; you don't find fossils in old rocks; you don't
find fossils in old rocks." And eventually someone believes them.
So we've read two or three (?) pages and we've got ourselves four
lies. And we have an interesting situation here.
[Plimer digresses for a while about Australian creationist Andrew
Snelling who claimed that precambrian rocks are rich in fossils.
I omit that section because it is not relevant to the pamphlet,
other than in showing that some creationists contradict Gish.]
And continuing with page 9, "billions of highly complex animals...
just suddenly appear, with no signs of gradual development from lower
forms." That is a lie. So we now have 55 words and 5 lies. One lie
every 11 words in his publication.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gish's response during his 10-minute rebuttal period
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Now, furthermore, Dr. Plimer quoted from my book, or little "Brainwashed"
booklet, written 17 years ago. It's a little, ah, book, you might call
it a comic-style book, it's not written in comic terms at all, but it was
written 17 years ago.
And at that time, according to Dr. Preston Cloud, one of the world's
leading evolutionary geologists, there were no undoubted precambrian
fossils. [crowd noise] That's what he said. [More crowd noise]
And I quoted, many years ago, Dr. Cloud to that effect. Because he said,
first of all, you would not know, you could not establish whether these
rocks were precambrian or cambrian... some of these rocks [oops! -CS].
And furthermore there were many pseudo-fossils that had been discovered.
Now, since that time, as I described in my debate, there are many published
reports of micro-fossils in precambrian rocks. And furthermore, the
Ediacaran which I did describe in my talk, is supposed to be precambrian.
I discussed all of them in my book, "Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil
Record," which was published two years ago.
[Note here that Gish is saying that he *knows* now that there are
precambrian fossils, and that he has known it for at least a couple
of years.]
Why didn't Dr. Plimer consult this book? [crowd noise] Why didn't he see
what I had written that is up to date? To accuse me of lying is terribly,
terribly wrong. I stated the facts as I knew them then, as Preston Cloud
and others have stated. In this edition [waving book], 1985, 15 years
later, I have published what I described in my lecture. Dr. Plimer
completely ignored what I said in my lecture, and what I said in my book,
to try to accuse me of lying.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Plimer's response during his 10(?)-minute rebuttal period
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[crowd noise] This little book seems to have caused a little trouble
with our friend. It was written 17 years ago and he refuted it. Why
is it I could buy it outside, 20 minutes ago? [crowd noise]
[And the ICR is *still* selling it without correction or disclaimer.
Gish got hammered for distributing the pamphlet in 1988. He admitted
that he knew no later than 1985 that some of the claims in it were
false. WHY IS THE ICR STILL SELLING IT?]
======================================================================
--
Chris Stassen \ "An intelligent mind acquires knowledge,
stassen@alc.com \ and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge."
408-943-0630 \ Proverbs 18:15
==!
==* SCICRE_LIE SAMPLER
Article 27788 of talk.origins:
From: max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: ICR whopper sampler
Message-ID: <1992Jun23.052333.3735@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com>
Date: 23 Jun 92 05:23:33 GMT
Sender: max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb)
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Northwest, Beaverton Oregon
Lines: 457
This is a small sampler of creationist whoppers, gleaned from talk.origins
in recent months. When I wrote that I had sent an unnamed creationist a
small sampler of ICR whoppers, many people wrote and asked for a copy.
I have much more distributed throughout my file system, and in books and on
paper at home, but have not yet had a chance to gather them together.
[plus my @#$!ing mailer seems to be broken. Sorry to those who wrote me
and got no reply...]
So many liars, so little time! Until then, here is what I had sent to
the creationist in question..
If you would like to enter your favorite creationist lie, mendacious
misquotation or attack of amnesia, please mail them to me here, and
much honor and glory will accrue to your name. Well, maybe a little.
From Rob Zuber:
...
QUESTION: According to creationists, there are plenty of places where
the fossils are in the wrong order for evolution. This must mean geologists
have to assume evolution so as to arrange the geological time scale so as
to date the fossils so as to erect an evolutionary sequence so as to prove
evolution, thereby reasoning in a vicious circle. When the fossils are in
the wrong order, geologists apparently assume the "older" rocks were shoved
on top of the younger ones (thrust faulting), or else that the strata were
overturned (recumbent folds), even though there is no physical evidence for
these processes. In particular, Whitcomb and Morris [2] maintain the physical
evidence proves the Lewis Overthrust and Heart Mountain Overthrust never
slid an inch. How do you reply?
ANSWER: Whitcomb and Morris, again, quote their sources badly out of
context. There is plenty of physical evidence having nothing to do with
fossils or evolution that show thrust faulting to be very real. Let us
consider the Lewis Overthrust and Heart Mountain Overthrust [I've deleted
the Heart Mountain bit] in some detail.
The Lewis Overthrust of Glacier National Park, Montana, consists of
the deformed Precambrian limestones of the Belt Formation that were shoved
along a horizontal thrust fault on top of much younger (but viciously
crumpled) Cretaceous shales. ...[deletion]... Ross and Rezak [3] wrote in their
article about the Lewis Overthrust that the rocks along the thrust fault are
badly crumpled, but Whitcomb and Morris (p. 187) lift the following words
from this article:
"Most visitors, especially those who stay on the roads, get the
impression that the Belt strata are undisturbed and lie almost as flat today
as they did when deposited in the sea which vanished so many million
years ago."
But if we read the rest of Ross's and Rezak's paragraph, we find that Whitcomb
and Morris quoted it out of context:
".... so many million years ago. Actually, they are folded, and in
certain places, they are intensely so. From the points on and near the
trails in the park, it is possible to observe places where the Belt series,
as revealed in outcrops on ridges, cliffs, and canyon walls, are folded
and crumpled almost as intricately as the soft younger strata in the
mountains south of the park and in the Great Plains adjoining the park to
the east."
Ross and Rezak repeatedly show how "crushed and crumpled" the rocks in the
thrust fault are:
"The intricate crumpling and crushing in the immediate vicinity of
the main overthrust, visible in localities like that near Marias Pass, shown
in figure 139, must have taken place when the heavy overthrust slab was
forced over the soft rocks beneath......"
Now it certainly *appears* that Whitcomb and Morris have *completely*
misrepresented the Ross and Rezak paper. It seems they quoted to the effect
that there was *no* evidence of overthrusting, even though that paper
appears to forcefully say the *exact* opposite! Now it's fine if creationists
want to disagree with certain conclusions if they can back it up with
evidence, but why in hell quote from a paper that completely contradicts your
view?
...
[2] Whitcomb, John C., and Henry M. Morris. _Genesis Flood_. Presbyterian
and Reformed Publishing Co.: Philadelphia, PA, 1961.
[3] Ross, C. P., and Richard Rezak. "The Rocks and Fossils of Glacier
National Monument". _U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper_ 294-K (1959).
[I have checked these -- Max]
From: lippard@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
...
By the way, it is of interest to compare the debate summaries published
in _Acts and Facts_ to the debate summaries published elsewhere. What
follows are the summaries of the May 10, 1988 debate between Gish and
Ken Saladin which took place at Auburn University which were published,
respectively, in the August 1988 issue of _Acts and Facts_ and in the
November/December 1988 issue of the _Creation/Evolution Newsletter_.
(A transcript of the entire debate is available for $10 from the
National Center for Science Education, P.O. Box 9477, Berkeley, CA
94709-0477. The transcript clearly shows that Gish was trounced.)
_Acts and Facts_, August 1988, pp. 2, 4:
AUBURN UNIVERSITY DEBATE
Dr. Duane Gish's opponent for the debate on the campus of Auburn University,
Auburn, Alabama, on the evening of May 10, was Dr. Kenneth Saladin,
Professor of Biology at Georgia College, Milledgeville, Georgia. The
moderator was Dr. Cathy Hennen, Director of Debate and Assistant
Professor of Speech and Communication at Auburn University. The debate
was jointly sponsored by the Horizons Committee and the Religious
Affairs Committee of the Auburn University Program Council. Each
debater had 45 minutes for his initial arguments, followed by 15-minute
and 5-minute rebuttals. Almost all of the 800 seats in the auditorium
were filled.
Saladin, who was the first speaker, listed seven criteria of science,
and declared that creation theory failed to meet these criteria. He
stated that belief in a deity is unscientific because it is non-falsifiable.
He then listed about ten items he claimed were taught in the Bible. He
outlined a series of transitions involved in the origin of life, and claimed
that much of this has already been demonstrated by evolutionists. He made
a caricature of the creationist explanation for the distribution of fossils
in sedimentary strata, projecting a slide showing trees walking uphill.
He showed a slide which portrayed a series of mammal-like reptiles with
no gaps in the series, claiming this proved that reptiles had evolved
into mammals.
In his initial argument, Gish began by asserting that the subject of the
debate was *how* the universe and the living things on earth had come
into existence (not *when*). He defined the general theory of evolution,
quoting Julian Huxley, and the general theory of creation. Based on
these definitions, he then presented the scientific evidence from
thermodynamics, probability, and the fossil record. Using a series of
slides, he illustrated the metamorphosis of the Monarch butterfly, and
challenged Saladin to explain how this process could have evolved by
any process of evolution.
In his rebuttal, Saladin claimed that the formation of snowflakes and
crystals proves that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is no barrier to
evolution. He argued that Dr. Charles Oxnard did not deny that
australopithecines were intermediate between apes and humans.
In his rebuttal, Gish, displaying a photocopy of the article from
which Saladin had obtained his illustration of the series of mammal-like
reptiles, pointed out that two of the creatures were totally hypothetical,
others had hypothetical structures drawn on them, they were not arranged
in a true time sequence, and they were not drawn to scale.
In refuting Saladin's claim that success had been accomplished in
origin-of-life experiments, Gish quoted from an article by John Keosian,
an evolutionist who has been working in this field for 30 years, in
which he asserted that claims of origin-of-life evolutionists are simply
unreal, and that experiments in this field are either irrelevant or lead
to a dead end. He pointed out that the formation of snowflakes has no
relevance to evolution, since the processes involved go in exactly the
opposite direction to that required for the origin of life.
_Creation/Evolution Newsletter_, November/December 1988, pp. 11, 14:
THE DEBATE CIRCUIT
Saladin-Gish Debate
July 10, 1988 at Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama
Reported by Kenneth S. Saladin
Georgia College, Milledgeville, GA 31060
My second debate with Duane Gish took place before an audience of about 800
last spring at Auburn University. It differed only in detail from out 1984
debate (see C/E N 4(4):11-12), and Gish was utterly predictable.
In my 45-minute opening, I discussed the philosophy of science and
contrasting attributes of creationism, age of the cosmos, origin of life,
fossil stratigraphy, transitional fossils, and evidentiary examples from
embryology and atavisms. I finished with a stern critique of creationist
credibility, with slides and quoted passages on Gish's fire-breathing
dinosaurs, Morris' non-living plants, a _Creation Research Society
Quarterly_ article on the theology of radioactivity, Gish's misquotation
of authority, and creationist "arkeology."
My fundamental format and technique were similar to 1984. I change
slides about every 40 seconds, but keep my graphics simple. Many were
no more than a color photograph of a grizzly bear or a solar flare, for
example--something attractive to keep the audience alert and form a visual
association with an organism or concept under discussion. I used one of
my students as a projectionist so he could change slides at the
appropriate moments without my calling for them. In 1984 some audience
members commented that this created a notably smooth and effective
presentation (one was "almost mystified" at how appropriate pictures kept
coming up without my saying anything). My principal improvement in 1988
was probably in speaking style. I was more experienced and comfortable
before a large audience and, I felt, gave a smoother presentation.
One new tactic I introduced to this debate was to gig Gish with tape
recordings of his statements in previous debates. When the NCSE met in
Los Angeles in 1985, Fred Edwords debated Gish on a KABC radio talk show.
A caller asked Gish about the quest for Noah's ark, and while Gish denied
that any evidence of the ark had been found, he also denied that the ICR
sponsors expeditions to look for it. The next evening Karl Fezer and I
visited the ICR and were entrusted by a secretary to roam their creationist
museum after hours alone. (She asked us to lock up the ICR when we left!
See our report of this foray in C/E N 5(3):16-17.) We listened to a
sound-slide program on Noah's ark which proudly affirmed that the ICR *does*
sponsor these expeditions. In 1986, Gish debated David Schwimmer at the
University of Georgia, and in the Q/A period I confronted Gish with this
contradiction. He sarcastically accused me of fabricating it and again
denied ICR involvement.
So I entered our debate this year prepared to repay him for his sarcasm,
armed with a microcassette onto which I had dubbed the seminal portions of
the Gish-Edwords and Gish-Schwimmer debates. I played Gish's twofold
denial over the PA system, then showed slides of several _Acts & Facts_
accounts of these expeditions, culminating with an unequivocal affirmation
of sponsorship in the November 1986 issue. In his rebuttal, Gish seemed
a bit flustered and claimed he couldn't hear the tape I played, but
notwithstanding the slides I had just shown, he stood up and denied
sponsorship once again. Auburn is a university with a conspicuous
contingent of faculty creationists, but perhaps because of statements like
this, Gish seemed to enjoy little credibility or support that evening. I
was told several of his supporters got up and walked out during his
presentation, and with statements like this it was little wonder why.
Another element in my presentation was to reveal, more assiduously than
before, Gish's misquotations of the scientific literature. Knowing that
Gish rests much of his case on "plausible deniability," I came armed with
a veritable library of books and periodicals he commonly cites. Gish
cites Romer (_Vertebrate Paleontology_, p. 338) to the effect that bats
appear fully developed in the middle Eocene with no trace of ancestry.
I held up Romer's book and read from an earlier chapter (p. 212), where
he says that, while bats appear fully developed *by* the middle Eocene,
in the *early* Eocene and the Paleocene they are virtually impossible to
differentiate from their insectivore ancestors. I also attacked Gish's
misrepresentation of Gavin de Beer (_Homology: An Unsolved Problem_). I
had this paper with me in the original as well, and read passages
diametrically opposed from what Gish avows that de Beer wrote. My concluding
slide was the cover cartoon from _Creation/Evolution_ No. XI.
Gish gave his usual fossilized opening statement, but he and his
audience partisans struck me as surprisingly subdued compared to other
debates of his that I've attended. He discussed the Big Bang and Cosmic
Chicken, the hydrogen-to-humans scenario, thermodynamics, the Hoyle-
Wickramasinghe statistical argument, fossil transitions, human origins,
and the Oxnard-Zuckerman argument. There were only two new features of
his presentation: he dwelt at length on the supposed inexplicability of
metamorphosis in the monarch butterfly, and he gave a juvenile gloss on
Michael Denton's _Evolution: A Theory in Crisis_. Apaprently he never
read any further than the flap of the dust jacket, and he reminded me of
a fifth-grade student trying to fake a report on a book he'd never read.
In 1984, I worked frantically during the intermission to prepare my
first rebuttal. This year, I had prepared a rebuttal in advance from
Gish's 1984 statement, and a card file to cover anything new. Gish was
so true to form I had no need to prepare during the intermission, so
while he prepared his notes I went down and mingled with the audience,
distributed NCSE literature, and basked in audience adulation.
Rebuttals were quite straightforward, and I especially enjoyed taking
apart the Hoyle-Wickramasinghe argument. For this I used a substantive
critique of the fallacies in their statistical assumptions, as well as
a damaging overview of Hoyle and Wickramasinghe's *other* biological
beliefs: insects smarter than humans and not letting on, flu epidemics
from outer space, and Wickramasinghe's trial testimony that Gish's
views on evolution are "claptrap" and could not be supported by any
rational scientist.
In the question/answer period the audience was surprisingly hostile
toward Gish. Questions put to me were no more challenging than "Do you
think evolution can be harmonized with belief in God?" and "What if they
*did* find Noah's ark?" The only one for which I had no ready answer is
why organisms now use only the L-isomer of amino acids. Gish was piqued
when the first questioner, Georgia State University biologist Fred Parrish,
addressed him as *Reverend* Gish and questioned his integrity as a Christian.
Others attacked his statistic "proof" of the impossibility of things which
in fact do happen, his abuse of thermodynamics, and his reliance on
popularized rather than refereed scientific literature. In contrast to
the 1984 audience, who came in yellow buses and thumped bibles on their
knees, this audience impressed me as relatively savvy.
To anticipate and defuse the secular humanist attack, my closing
statement focused on anticreationist opinion of clerics ranging from
John Paul II to Baptist and Episcopal leaders in Georgia. I described
and displayed the compilation in which the Franciscan physician Ed
Friedlander has photocopied statements from Gish's literature alongside
photocopies of the sources cited by Gish to demonstrate Gish's habit
of distortion.
Gish had the last word and retorted, "Sure there's a lot of liberal
theologians on the side of evolution. Why wouldn't they be? All these
liberal theologians are for ordaining homosexual ministers, for legalized
abortion.... Of *course* they're for evolution!" The debate format did
not allow me an opportunity to come back and ask if he had meant to include
John Paul II among these "liberal theologians."
Following the debate I was surrounded by well-wishers and chagrined
creationist students. They were especially interested in comparing Gish's
writing with the Romer and de Beer literature, and seeing Ed Friedlander's
paper, which some people subsequently requested from me by mail. The
creationists at my table seemed as disappointed in Gish's performance as
Democrats reviewing the last Bush-Dukakis debate. The student organizer
seemed almost grudgingly to present me with the check for my expenses
and honorarium. He had written to me in advance, "We will do our best
to publicize to supporters of both sides. However, it must be realized
that Auburn is a small town in the Deep South [and will probably have] a
bias toward Dr. Gish's theory." As it turned out, I had no complaints
about this audience, but I think Gish and the organizers were a bit
chagrined by it.
The debate is recorded on a videotape of so-so quality, a pair of good
90-minute cassettes, and a verbatim transcript of 90+ pages. The
transcript includes post-debate annotations and research into Gish's
literature citations. I will send a four-page, detailed outline of the
debate (the table of contents of the transcript) free to anyone who
requests it, but I regrettably do not have the time to honor individual
requests for copies of the tapes or entire transcript. I expect to have
these available for distribution through the NCSE by January, and
presumably their availability and price will be announced in this
newsletter.
I wish to express my appreciation to Auburn University philosophy
professor Delos McKown, who was originally invited to confront Gish
and recommended me in his stead; and to my students who helped with
literature distribution and recording the debate. If I can extend
any wishes to Dr. Gish, they are for good health and a long life, so
my colleagues and I will have many more opportunities to publicly
reveal the mendacity of America's most capable exponent of "scientific"
creationism.
Here's an example of creationist misquoting, from Henry Morris' book,
_Science, Scripture, and the Young Earth_, p. 12:
The catfish range in length from 11 to 24 cm., with a mean of 18 cm.
Preservation is excellent. In some specimens, even the skin and other
soft parts, including the adipose fin, are well preserved ...
... strongly suggests that the catfish could have been transported
to their site of fossilization.(19)
Note 19 refers to an article in the journal _Geology_ by Buccheim and
Surdam, which says:
The abundant and widespread occurrence of skeletons of bottom
feeders, some with soft fleshy skin intact, strongly suggests that
the catfish were a resident population. It is highly improbable
that the catfish could have been transported to their site of
fossilization. Experiments and observations made on various
species of fish have shown that fish decompose and disarticulate
after only very short distances of transport (Shafer, 1972).
Karl Fezer discovered this, and wrote a critique, which he sent to Morris
for comment. This resulted in the following "correction" in _Acts &
Facts_ (vol. 12, no. 11, p. 6):
CORRECTION
Readers who may have purchased the booklet, _Science, Scripture,
and the Young Earth_, announced in the August issue of _Acts &
Facts_, should make the following correction: on page 12, delete lines 18
and 19. A section which was inadvertently omitted in this quotation (from
an article in _Geology_ by Buccheim and Surdam) inverts the authors'
intended meaning. However, the argument being advanced in this section
by the booklet's author, Dr. Henry Morris, is not affected by this
correction. ICR writers always try diligently to quote accurately
and in context, knowing that evolutionists are carefully watching
their writings to ferret out any examples of misquoting which may
occur, but this one got by. If the authors of the quoted paper
were embarrassed in any way by our lapse in this case, we apologize.
... Gish has been caught on numerous occasions
spouting lies, yet he never offers retractions and his own religion
tells him that he should be honest.
One example is Gish's "bullfrog proteins." In 1983, in a PBS show
on creationism, Gish claimed that while humans and chimpanzees have
many proteins which are identical or differ by only a few amino acids,
there are also human proteins which are more similar to a bullfrog or
a chicken than to chimpanzees. Gish was repeatedly pressed to produce
his evidence. Two years later, Philip Kitcher challenged Gish to
produce his evidence or retract his claim in a debate at the University
of Minnesota. Gish refused to respond. Kevin Wirth of Students for
Origins Research (a pro-creationist organization) begged Gish to
respond in the pages of _Origins Research_ regarding the claim. He
refused. (See Robert Schadewald, "Scientific Creationism and Error,"
Creation/Evolution XVII (vol. 6, no. 1, 1986).)
Another example involving numerous creationists is the claim that
Donald Johanson discovered "Lucy's" knee joint 2 km away from the rest
of the skeleton. This claim was first made in the _Bible-Science Newsletter_
by Tom Willis in 1987, and has since been repeated by Walter Brown, John
Morris, Paul Taylor, Russell Arndts, and Michael Girouard. But it's
false, apparently based on a misunderstanding at a Q&A session at the
University of Missouri attended by Willis. Johanson *did* find a knee
joint 2 km away from "Lucy," but he never claimed that this knee joint
was "Lucy"'s. I gave a copy of a letter from Johanson describing the
facts of the matter to Girouard in person at an ICR seminar, and he
claimed he would read it carefully and respond to any letters I wrote him.
I wrote him in December of 1989 and never received a reply. Brown was
also informed of the facts of the matter, in both the pages of
_Creation/Evolution_ and of _Origins Research_. In both cases he
responded with new claims about "Lucy" which had nothing to do with
the knee joint--he just ignored the issue at hand. (_Origins Research_
didn't print my followup.) My letter to Tom Willis received no
reply. My letter to the _Bible-Science Newsletter_ (in response to
Arndts' more recent repetition of the false claim) went unpublished
and I received no reply...
...
Recently there has been a claim (by Jim Loucks) that evolution writers
misquote creationists much more often than the reverse. Jim of course has so
far failed to substantiate that claim with any evidence, while in the mean time
there have been several articles posted documenting creationist misquoting of
evolutionary authors (for example the Eldredge and Gould case).
Below is yet another example of creationist misquoting due to not
checking sources. It seems that a common tactic is to scan "friendly" papers
for quotes from "hostile" authors which contain quotes that appear to support
your position ([sarcasm on] certainly another creationist would never
misrepresent another author right? [sarcasm off]).
The article in this case is titled _Some_Philosophical_Implications_of_the_
_Theory_of_Evolution_ from the Seventh-Day Adventist publication _Origins_
Vol. 3, 1976, page 39. The author is John D. Clark. Mr. Roy should take
notice of this one (I believe that John Clark is the son of an Adventist
biologist who has written several books on creationism that are used in
Adventist schools). This paper gives an excellent example of how creationists
love to quote each other in a round-robin fashion without ever checking their
sources. Let me quote from John Clark a section that includes a quote from
Charles Darwin's autobiography.
Charles Darwin in his autobiography understood evolution's serious
implications for man. This understanding took the form of the
"horrid doubt". He states:
"But then arises the doubt, can the mind of man, which has, as
I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that
possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such
grand conclusions? [The grand conclusion in this context is the
evolutionary hypothesis itself]."
At the basis of this evolutionary idea was the theory of natural
selection...
I would like to point out that the editorial comment in the square brackets
about the grand conclusion was put there by John Clark but in the same type and
density and inside the quote attributed to Darwin. Now I have read Darwin's
autobiography, and I didn't remember any references to "horrid doubts"
(which Clark refers to in quotes at least 4 times in his paper) or even
significant doubts about the "evolutionary hypothesis" as Clark calls it.
Since I have his autobiography, I decided to look up the quote, so I turned
to the reference provided by Clark to help me find it faster. Much to my
surprise, the footnote did not refer to Darwin's autobiography, rather the
quote was taken from the Frontispiece to David Lack, 1961
_Evolutionary_Theory_and_Christian_Belief:_the_unresolved_Conflict_. Since I
did not have this book it appeared that I would have to search my copy of
Darwin's autobiography to find the quote, which I did. Within about 1/2 hour
I was able to find it (there were no references for "doubts" or "horrid doubts"
in the index). The quote is contained in a chapter entitled "Religious Belief"
and had no mention of "horrid doubts" of any kind. Furthermore, this quote is
found at the end of a long discussion where he states his inability to believe
in the Bible or even the God of the Bible; however he did find reason to believe
in some sort of a diety. Let me quote with some real context:
When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having
an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of a man; and I
deserve to be called a Theist. This conclusion was strong in my mind
about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of
Species; and it is since that time that it has very gradually with
many fluctuations become weaker. But then arises the doubt--can the
mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind
as low as that possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws
such grand conclusions? May not these be the result of the connection
between cause and effect which strikes us as a necessary one, but
probably depends merely on inherited experience? Nor must we overlook
the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the
minds of children producing so strong and perhaps an inherited effect
on their brains not yet fully developed, that it would be as difficult
for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off
its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake.
Nowhere is there a reference to a "horrid doubt", but more importantly, the
doubt he is referring to is not about the evolutionary hypothesis, rather he
is affirming his belief in evolution while expressing doubt regarding the
reliability of humanity's tendency to believe in a god. His doubt is that our
tendency to believe in God is suspect, and even a vague belief in a deity may
be too much. On the next page he says "...and I for one must be content to
remain an Agnostic." (I don't want to start a thread on Agnosticism and
Atheism, that's not the point. The point is the use of Darwin's words in a
creationist paper.) If you want to look it up, be sure to get a recent edition (i.e. > 1960).
Cheers,
Dan Ford
==!
==* SCICRE_LIE CREDENTIALS ICR REFS BLISS
Article 27828 of talk.origins:
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Path: cse.uta.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!mips!darwin.sura.net!jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu!zuber_rg
From: zuber_rg@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Robert G Zuber)
Subject: ICR Faculty Credentials (continued)
Message-ID: <1992Jun23.234829.7777@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore
References: <1992Jun23.234651.7603@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1992 23:48:29 GMT
Lines: 70
Mark Kuehne writes:
>Bliss, Richard B.....................Professor of Science Education
> B.S., University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire, 1953
> M.S., University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1961
> Ed.D. (science education emphasis), University of Sarasota, 1978
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is from R. Day's old post about his encounter his Dr. Bliss:
(anyone still have it on computer?)
===================================
[deletions]...(In fact, in his [Bliss'] introduction earlier,
he said of his fellow fundamentalists at ICR, "all of us
have doctoral degrees from accredited institutions.")
.
.
"Bliss' seminar poster for that event, one of which could
be found in UMSU, advertised the good doctor as having
"received his Ed.D. in science education from the University
of Sarasota..." Interestingly, a quick check of Lovejoy's
College Catalog and College Blue Book turned up no
reference whatever to the University of Sarasota. There is
a good reason for this, the University of Sarasota is
little more than a diploma mill run out of a motel room
in Sarasota, Florida. The caption for the model photo
states that "The rest of the campus consists of an
office and a couple of classrooms in a building across
the street largely occupied by Allstate Insurance."
.
.
After having obviously stalled for time, Bliss finally
gets around to addressing my original accusation
regarding the U of S's questionable academic credentials.
He objects to my description of the university as a
"diploma mill" and states that the university has "all
the rights and privileges accorded to members of the
Southern Association of Colleges and Universities
(Southern Accrediting Association). Finally, I had
something I could investigate....
After having contacted the Commission on Colleges of the
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (not "Colleges
and Universities" as Bliss referred to it), I spoke with
Dr. John Sites. After supplying the correct name of his
group, Dr. Sites made it very clear that, while the
University of Sarasota is currently a CANDIDATE for
accreditation, and has been for a few years now, it
most definitely does NOT have official accreditation
of the governing body to which Bliss himself refers.
But there is more.
.
.
I then asked Dr. Sites whether the U of S had any
legitimacy whatsoever in terms of official recognition.
He explained that, in fact, the U of S is approved by
the State Department of Education of the state of
Florida for teacher certification, which I understood
to mean that degrees granted by the university could be
applied towards teaching certificates. While this is
something, it had nothing to do with the original
issue of accreditation..... Sites also explained that,
even if U of S were to become accredited.....Bliss
would still have no right to claim that his degree
came from an accredited institution since, according
to Sites, accreditation is not retroactive. It would
appear that Bliss' claims of academic legitimacy are
completely without foundation and are likely to remain
that way.
=====================
==!
==* SCICRE_FAQ HUMOR
Article 25356 of talk.origins:
From: rh@smds.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: A Creationist FAQ
Message-ID: <1182@smds.UUCP>
Date: 30 Apr 92 04:42:16 GMT
Organization: SMDS Inc., Concord, MA
Lines: 108
WARNING FOR THE HUMOR IMPAIRED -- THIS IS SATIRE
These are smilies :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
Use them liberally where indicated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
There has been a considerable call for a creationist FAQ, which
doesn't seem to be forthcoming in any great hurry. In the interests
of facilitating matters I have decided to jump the gun and provide
a provisional creationist FAQ. Regard this as a provisional effort;
I am not an expert in these matters and may have erred in a few small
details. Criticisms and suggestions for improvement are welcome.
Speculations on my private life will be met with dignified silence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: What is the principle evidence for Creationism.
A: The Holy Bible, of course. After all, is it likely that the author
of the Universe would be mistaken about its age?
Q: But isn't the Bible religion and not science.
A: Truth is truth. It's a poor sort of science that ignores truth.
Q: But isn't there a lot of evidence for evolution?
A: Not really, most of it is from university professors writing papers
for each other. If they didn't write papers they wouldn't have jobs.
Q: How big was Noah's ark?
A: Big enough.
Q: But what about radioactive dating?
A: Hey, everybody knows that stuff is bad for you. Stick with good
Christian girls.
Q: What about the fossil evidence?
A: The real fossils are university professors writing papers for each
other.
Q: Is there any other evidence for creationism besides the Bible?
A: Yes.
Q: Can you give us some?
A: Yes.
Q: Could you give us a specific example?
A: Yes.
Q: What be a specific example of evidence for Creationism?
A: I've already answered that question.
Q: What about the Antarctic ice core data?
A: Now I put it to you. Coop up a bunch of men in a Quonset hut in the
worst weather in the world, with nothing to do but gather data and
drink, and what do you expect?
Q: Did the dinosaurs coexist with man?
A: Look, the liberals were preaching coexistence with the Communists,
and you saw what happened to them.
Q: Should Creationism be taught along with Evolution in the schools.
A: Creationism should be taught instead of Evolution in the schools.
Q: Doesn't the Geologic Column prove that the Earth is very old?
A: The geologic column proves that some things are on top of other things
and some things are underneath other things. But we already knew that,
didn't we.
Q: Hasn't evolution been demonstrated in the Laboratory?
A: Students are demonstrating everywhere these days. To their shame,
many professors are demonstrating also.
Q: Aren't Hawiian wallabies an example of Evolution in action?
A: No.
Q: Why not?
A: Because they aren't.
Q: What is a kind?
A: A kind is cards of the same rank. Thus 4 aces and a king are four
of a kind, but four spades and a heart are not.
Q: Doesn't genetic variation indicate that life has been going on a long time?
A: Let's be up front about this. That's deviation, not variation, and yes,
there is a lot of deviancy out there. That just shows that there has been
a lot of Sin since the garden of Eden.
Q: What about Neanderthal Man?
A: Hey, you take one of those geezers and put him in tweeds and give him a
pipe and he could be a professor anywhere.
Q: Why do almost all of the scientists believe in Evolution?
A: The real scientists don't. As for the rest of them, that's a very good
question, isn't it?
Q: Are you talking about a Satanic conspiracy?
A: Did I say anything about a conspiracy? You might want to think about
the shape the world is in since the Evolutionists and the Liberal
Humanists captured academia and how Evolution is hand in hand with Godless
Communism and crime in the streets but I certainly wouldn't want to
say anything about a Satanic conspiracy. I just want you to think
about it with an open mind.
--
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc. Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742. Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
==!
==* TO_FAQ_SC_QUESTIONS SCICRE QUESTIONS
Article 25760 of talk.origins:
From: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle)
Subject: A few questions
Keywords: creationism
Message-ID: <1992May13.121711.8668@news.nd.edu>
Date: 13 May 92 12:17:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992May13.121711.8668
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame
Lines: 241
The following is a considerably revised version of an earlier
posting. I have benefited from comments mailed to me about this
(I especially thank Matt Brinkman for his constructive criticism,
with the usual remark that, of course, he is not responsible for
the blunders that I have made here). As I say at the end,
corrections are quite welcome -- may I say especially from the
"creationist" side. I have tried not to make this posting
contentious, and please let me know if I have failed in that
regard.
Questions
directed to scientific creationists, young-earth creationists
and others in opposition to conventional science
Introduction
This is a collection of questions which many people who support
conventional science wonder about when confronted with those who
oppose conventional science in the name of creationism. The
questions are grouped in these categories: what is creationism;
what is conventional science; how does creationism explain the
evidence for conventional science; theological questions. Within
each category there are numbered specific questions, surrounded by
introductory or other explanatory material. These questions are
repeated at the end of each category (sometimes paraphrased) for
emphasis.
We begin with the more important questions, and answers to them
are greatly desired in order to promote communication. Later
questions may be considered to be about details.
A few comments about some terminology.
The expression "conventional science" is used here as it is a
neutral expression, and many people object to misunderstandings
surrounding such expressions as "evolutionism" or "theory of
evolution".
The other side is referred to as "creationist" as that appears
to be the self-description of those opposed to conventional
science in the ways of interest here. It is not intended to
include all people who believe in creation.
What is creationism?
Many people find that the most important part of a theory is a
clear description of what the theory says and does not say.
(1) Give a comprehensive statement of creationism. (There are
questions below about conventional science, so please restrict
your discussion here to the positive aspects of creationism.)
This is the one question of over-reaching importance, so much so
that you might consider many of the following questions merely
asking for certain details of what makes up a comprehensive
statement of creationism. It should be noted that many people
prefer quantitative details where appropriate.
It is often a great help to communication if each party
understands what the other means by certain critical expressions.
(2) Define technical terms and other words or expressions that are
likely to be misunderstood.
(3) Include the evidence for creationism (please remember that
merely finding problems with conventional science does not count
as support for creationism, as there may be other theories which
differ from both conventional science and creationism). A good
example of evidence for creationism would be some observation
which was predicted by it. That is much better support than
merely giving an explanation for observations which were known
before it was formulated. Far less convincing is evidence which
has an alternative explanation.
In order to decide between conflicting theories, it is
important that not only must the conflicting theories be well
described, and that the evidence supporting the conflicting
theories be proposed, but also that there be established some
rules for deciding between the theories and evaluating the
evidence.
(4) Can you suggest principles for so deciding and evaluating?
There are many alternatives to creationism. Some of the
alternatives are: theistic evolution and old-earth creationism.
(5) Distinguish your theory of creationism from some of these
alternatives and give some reasons for it rather than the others.
Many people find a theory which is open to change in the face
of new evidence much more satisfying than one which is inflexible.
(6) Describe features of creationism which are subject to
modification. Another way of phrasing it is: is there any kind of
observation which, if it were seen, would change creationism? Is
it open to change, and if so, what criteria are there for
accepting change?
Exposition of creationism.
Definitions of terms.
Evidence for creationism.
Rules of evidence.
Distinguishing characteristics of creationism.
Evidence which modifies creationism.
How do creationists describe
conventional science?
It is helpful in any discussion that both sides understand what
the other is talking about. In answering the questions above, you
have helped us in understanding your theory. Often communication
is helped if each participant explains what he thinks the other
person is saying. It should also help those who support
conventional science to clarify their exposition. These
questions are in a sense parallel to the questions asked before
about creationism.
(7) Explain what you think some of the terms used in conventional
science mean. Here are some which seem to lead to
misunderstanding:
evolution
primitive
natural selection
theory
(8) It would also be helpful if you could give a brief description
of your understanding of conventional science. Please do not
state here what your objections are to conventional science --
that can be talked about later. Just say what conventional
science says.
(9) It might be helpful if you explain why you think that
conventional science came to its present position, and why people
hold to conventional science. (And once again, please restrict
this to a description, as debate can come later.)
Many people who support conventional science feel that
those who oppose it do so because of unwelcome consequences.
(10) What are the consequences of accepting conventional science?
What are the meanings of the terms used by conventional science?
What is does conventional science say?
What is the evidence for conventional science?
What are the consequences of accepting conventional science?
How does creationism explain the
evidence for conventional science?
In answering the earlier questions, you have described your
theory and given us evidence for it. Now we ask for your opinions
on the evidence for conventional science.
Many people hold to conventional science because they believe
that it has been developed over centuries, driven by discoveries.
They wonder how any person could explain the evidence any other
way. Here is a very brief list of questions about evidence which
many people find convincing.
(11) Why is there the coherence among many different dating
methods pointing to an old earth and life on earth for a long
time -- for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores,
corals, supernovas -- from astronomy, biology, physics, geology,
chemistry and archeology? These methods are based on quite
distinct fields of inquiry and are quite diverse, yet manage to
arrive at quite similar dates. (This is not answered by saying
that there is no proof of uniformity of radioactive decay. The
question is why all these different methods give the *same*
answers.)
(12) Explain the distribution, seemingly chronological, of plant
and animal fossils. For example, the limited distribution of
fossils of flowering plants (which are restricted to the higher
levels of the fossil record). Here we are considering the
distribution which conventional science explains as reflecting
differences in time -- the various levels of rock.
(13) In the contemporary world, different animals and plants live
in different places. Why is there the present distribution of
animals and plants in the world? For example, how is it that
marsupials are restricted to Australia and nearby islands and the
Americas, monotremes to Australia and nearby islands, and few
placental mammals are native to Australia? Or why are tomatoes
and potatoes native to the Americas only? (This is not a question
merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why
*only* there.)
(14) There is a large body of information about the different
species of animals and plants, systematically organized, which is
conventionally represented as reflecting genetic relationships
between different species. So, for example, lions are said to be
more closely related to tigers than they are to elephants. If
different kinds are not genetically related, what is the
explanation for the greater and less similarities between
different kinds of living things? That is to say, why would
special creation produce this complex pattern rather than just
resulting in all kinds being equally related to all others?
Coherence of many different dating methods.
Chronological distribution of fossils.
Spatial distribution of living things.
Relationships between living things.
Theological questions.
It is the impression of many people who support conventional
science that many people who are creationists are so because of
religious reasons. This is puzzling to people who consider
themselves to be religious, yet accept the findings of
conventional science.
For example, some people feel that it is necessary to give
naturalistic explanations for the wondrous events described in the
Bible. Other people are curious as to why there should be a
search for naturalistic explanations for these events, rather than
acceptance of these events as signs from God, outside of the
normal.
(15) If you feel that the events of the Bible must be explained as
the normal operation of natural phenomena, please explain why.
Some people who believe in God find it difficult to accept
that God would mislead people by giving evidence for conventional
science.
(16) Why is there all the evidence for an earth, and life on
earth, more than 100,000 years old, and for the relationships
between living things, and why were we given the intelligence to
reach those conclusions?
Why should the wondrous events described in sacred writings be
given naturalistic explanations?
Why does the plain reading of nature seem to support
conventional science?
Summary
These questions are intended to clarify the debate about
creationism versus conventional science. As mentioned above, many
of the questions are intended to explore what creationists think
about the issues in a way that allows each side to understand
better what is involved. I believe that they are fair questions
to ask in achieving that end, but if anyone has objections to the
content, tone or presuppositions, comments are certainly welcome.
1992 May 13
--
Tom Scharle |cm65n6@irishmvs(Bitnet)
Room G003 Computing Center |scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu(Internet)
University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA
==!
==* SECONQ_LAW THERMODYNAMICS ISOLATED_SYSTEM
Article 29091 of talk.origins:
From: henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley)
Subject: Thermodynamics FAQ
Message-ID:
Sender: James P. Henley Jr.
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 21:59:33 GMT
Lines: 363
o What is Thermodynamics?
o What are the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics?
o How are the Laws of Thermodynamics applied to various systems?
o Does Snowflake formation violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
o What is Thermodynamics?
"Thermodynamics is defined as the study of energy, its forms and
transformations, and the interactions of energy with matter." [1, p.5]
Energy can exist in a number of forms, electrical energy, chemical energy,
potential energy, kinetic energy, PV energy, mechanical energy, etc. In
order to apply the laws of thermodynamics mathematically, which is the
only way to "prove" anything, you must have a definition of energy that
is consistent with the laws of Thermo. The Laws of Thermo describe
the Laws by which transformations in energy must abide. They have never
been shown false, and they have been demonstrated so thoroughly, that
they are not considered theories, but laws. The field of engineering
is based largely on these laws, and in most fields of engineering*,
proposed processes must first be shown to satisfy these laws to merit
furthur consideration. In chemical engineering, they are necessary criteria
for chemical reaction equilibria.
* At Auburn University, all departments in the Engineering School except
Computer Science require their students to take EGR 201 - Introductory
Thermodynamics. Applications of the Laws of Thermodynamics can be
demonstrated in every field of engineering represented, including
Agricultural Engineering.
W : Work - Energy transfer due to a force acting against a resistance. In
most general sense, work can be described as change.
Q : Heat Transfer - one of three different types of energy transfer:
1) Conduction
2) Convection
3) Radiation
Enthalpy is a convenient property defined in terms of internal energy,
pressure, and volume:
H = U + PV
H : enthalpy
U : internal energy
P : pressure
V : volume
Gibbs energy is a measure of the amount of energy available to do work
(ie. to effect a change) in chemical processes. To determine Gibbs energy
we take the enthalpy, and subtract out the disordered energy, ie. the energy
that is not available to do work:
G = H - TS
G : Gibbs free energy
S : entropy
T : temperature
So, what is entropy?
Entropy is a measure of the disorder of the energy of a system. Ordered
energy is available to do work, disordered energy is not. So, mathematically
we see that entropy*temperature is the amount of disordered energy at that
temperature.
One criterion for chemical equilibruim in a closed system is that the total
Gibbs free enery must be at a minimum, which means that entropy must be at a
maximum.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
o What are the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics?
The first law is generally stated in terms of a closed system, also called
a control mass. So an auxiliary law is the conservation of mass:
THE LAW OF THE CONSERVATION OF MASS
"The mass of a control mass never changes." [1, p.120]
THE FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
For a Closed system (control mass)
"A change of the total energy (kinetic, potential, and internal) is equal
to the work done on the control mass plus the heat transfer to the control
mass." [1, p.121]
"Although energy assumes many forms, the total quantity of energy is
constant, and when energy dissapears in one form, it appears simultaneously
in other forms." [2, p.22]
E2 - E1 = 1Q2 + 1W2
E2 : energy of the system at state 1
E1 : energy of the system at state 2
1Q2: the net heat transfer into the system in going from state 1 to state 2
1W2: the net work done on the system in going from state 1 to state 2
[1, p.121]
"Equililibrium is a word denoting a static condition, the absence of change.
In thermodynamics it is taken to mean not only the absence of change, but
the absence of any tendency toward change on a macroscopic scale. Thus
a system at equilibrium is one which exists under such conditions that
there is no tendency for a change in state to occur." [2, p.37]
For an Open system: (control volume)
rate of change of energy = energy flow rate in - energy flow rate out
Control Volume : A system fixed in space which permits mass to cross the
system boundaries. [1, p.130]
. . . .
d~Ecv/d~t = Ein - Eout + Qcv + W
d~ : partial derivative
Ecv : Total energy of the control volume
. .
Ein, Eout : Energy flow rate in and out, across crossing boundaries (Energy
. flux at crossing boundaries)
Qcv : Net rate of heat transfer into system across inside boudaries. (heat
. flux)
W : Net rate of work done on system by surroundings (power)
[1, p.133]
Steady State: Implies that conditions at all points in the [system]* are
constant with time. For this to be the case, all rates must
be constant, and there must be no accumulation of material
or energy within the [system] over the period of time
considered. [2, 30]
* lit. apparatus. For a control volume analysis, each component of the
apparatus is considered an open system (control volume).
The apparatus as a whole is actually a closed system.
A point in the system would be represented by a
particular location in the apparatus.
For a cyclical process in a closed system, a point
in the system would be represented by a periodic time
in the cycle.
Pseudo steady state is a condition in which it is convenient to assume
steady state for portions of a non-steady state system.
THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS:
"The entropy S, an extensive* equilibrium property, must always increase
or remain constant for an isolated system**. [1, p.187]
dSi >= 0
dSi : change in entropy of an isolated system**
* The units of extensive entropy are energy divided by temperature. The units
of the intensive property would be energy divided by temperature and mass,
or divided by temperature and moles.
In SI units:
S (the extensive property) has units: J/K
s (the intensive property) has units: J/(kg K) or J/(kg mole K)
**An isolated system is one in which there is no mass or energy transfer
across system boundaries. (see How do the Laws...Apply to Various Systems)
In terms of a non-isolated system:
dSsys + dSsur >= 0 or alternately: dSu >= 0
dSsys : change in entropy of system
dSsur : change in entropy of surroundings
dSu : change in entropy of universe
Entropy generation within a system is due to friction. In the absence of any
friction, then the net entropy change is 0. Friction here includes things like
electical resistance, resistance to heat transfer, resistance to chemical
reactions (inverse of rate constant), mechanical friction, air resistance, etc.
For any real process, there is friction. Entropy is transferred with heat
transfer, and the direction of entropy transfer is the same as that of heat
transfer. So, any time heat is transferred into the system, the entropy of the
system increases. Any time heat is transferred out of the system,
the entropy of the system decreases. Heat transfer out is the only
means of decreasing system entropy of a closed system. For an open system,
entropy can be transferred out with energy transfer out, and with mass transfer
out.
So, any real process increases the entropy of the system + surroundings,
but whether the entropy of the system itself increases or decreases is
dependent on the heat transfer.
Since for an isolated system, there is no heat transfer, there is no
means of reducing the entropy of the system. Which means that for any
real process in an isolated system, the entropy of the system increases,
and the energy available to do work decreases.
Equilibrium, the state in which all properties stop changing, is defined
by the second law as is the state of maximum entropy, that is, there is no
more energy available to do work, and no capacity for change.
In terms of cyclic process:
"It is impossible by a cyclic process to convert the heat absorbed by a
system completely into work." [2, p.139]
"The word cyclic requires that the system be restored periodically
to its original state." [2, p.139]
In terms of a cyclic process, there are two implications here:
1) Some of the heat in the system is unavailable to do work in restoring
the system to its original state.
2) In order to achieve a steady state cycle, there must necessarily be
some energy lost, ie. not available to do work. This would mean
a continuous input and output of energy is necessary to drive a
continuous cycle.
Attempts have been made to invent devices called perpetual motion machines.
There are two classes of perpetual motion machines called PMM1 and PMM2.
PMM1 - "A perpetual motion machine of the first kind is a continuously
operating device that produces a continuous supply of energy without
receiving energy input." [1, p.159]
PMM2 - "An engine that, operating continously, will produce no effect other
than the extraction of heat from a single reservoir, and the
performance of an equivalent amount of work." [1, p.246]
A PMM1 violates the First Law because it has more energy output than input.
A PMM2 violates the Second Law, because it allows a complete conversion of
heat energy into work. In order to operate, an engine must have a heat
sink. In a steady state cycle, entropy generation must be offset by heat
transfer to the heat sink. This is why it is impossible to convert all
of the heat input into work - some of that heat must necessarily be lost
to the heat sink.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
o How are the Laws of Thermodynamics applied to various systems?
System - that part of the universe set apart for examination. [1, p.33]
Surroundings - that part of the universe which strongly interacts with the
system under study. [1, p.33]
Universe - the totality of matter that exists. [1, p.33]
This definition does not include energy that exists apart from matter. For
example, radiation in space. Pure energy, apart from matter, is not
measureable. This is somewhat like the uncertainty principle. In order to
measure energy, you must first allow it to interact with matter, and then you
measure the effect on the matter. But once you have done that, it is no
longer pure energy, so you can't be certain that what you are measuring is
accurate for pure energy. For example, the speed of light. We must depend
on the interaction of light with matter to measure the speed, but in so doing,
we are no longer measuring light *apart from* matter, but rather measuring the
effect of light *on* matter. By this definition of the universe, pure energy
exists in another dimension - outside of the space-time continuum that we call
the universe. It is only when energy interacts with matter that it enters the
universe. This gives us a clue about the nature of entropy - anytime energy
interacts with matter, some of that energy is transferred to the matter, and
some of that energy becomes disordered.
(note to RobD - Is matter the ten thousand things of which Lao Tzu spoke?
And is pure energy the Tao? )
System Boundary - the surface that separates the system from its surroundings.
[1, p.34]
Inside Boundary - the part of the boundary impervious to mass flow. [1, p.35]
Crossing Boundary - the part of the boundary at which mass enters and
leaves the system. [1, p.35]
Closed system, or Control Mass, which means that the mass of the system is
constant, and mass is not allowed to cross the system boundaries.
Open System - a system in which mass is allowed to cross the system boundaries.
In actuality, there are very few truly closed systems. Take a balloon - we
know that the air inside is slowly diffusing through the walls of the balloon,
and given sufficient time the balloon will deflate. What we have to do is
make an approximation. If we are studying effects of heat transfer on the
properties in the balloon, then the rate of mass transfer across the boundaries
is negligible, and we can use a closed system as a good approximation.
Take the earth - we know that gas molecules can occasionally escape into space,
meteors occasionally shower down into the atmosphere, and space missions leave
the earth. So in the strictest sense, the earth is an open system. But if
we study the rate of overall energy transfer, and compare that with the rate
of transfer due to matter entering and leaving, then for all practical
purposes the earth is currently a closed system, because the effect on the
overall energy balance is negligible. If we take the upper reaches of the
atmosphere as the system boundary, then we can also say that the system
has a fixed boundary. In effect, we are really saying that a balloon is a
model of the earth - for the purpose of thermodynamic analyses.
Two different forms of the Laws of Thermo are used for open and for closed
systems. One consideration in an open system is the fact that energy
can be transferred across the system boundaries due to intrinsic energy
of the mass that is transferred.
There are a number of different types of closed systems:
Diabatic - allowing heat transfer across sytem boundaries
Adiabatic - not allowing heat transfer across system boundaries. (insulated
thermally)
Insulated System (electrically) - a System in which electrical work cannot
cross the system boundaries
Rigid System - a System in which the boundaries are fixed, ie. not allowing
mechanical work to cross the system boundaries.
Isolated system - a closed system that allows neither mass nor energy
transfer across system boundaries.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
o Does Snowflake formation violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
A forming snowflake is an open system. There is mass transfer across the
boundary. If snowflake formation causes a reduction in the entropy
of the snowflake, then, by the second law, the entropy change of the
surroundings must increase.
What about the order of the snowflake? A snowflake indeed appears to have
a high degree of order, but remember, we are talking about ordered energy.
Ordered energy is energy that is available to do work. Once a snowflake
forms, it doesn't do any work, it just slowly drifts down to the ground and
then just sits there, melts, or sublimates. A snowflake has a pattern, but
that pattern is static, and is *not* ordered energy available to do work.
Snow has a remarkable ability to resist change. Unmelted snowflakes will
not readily bond to each other, snow has a very poor ballistic coefficient
which prevents snowflakes from accumulating any significant kinetic energy
when they fall. Snow does not readily absorb radiation or heat energy.
Snow is chemically inert compared to water in other states. At the
macroscopic level, since snowflakes are unique, we would have to say that
the pattern of snowflakes is highly disordered - otherwise we should see
large numbers of identical patterns.
[1] _Fundamentals_of_Engineering_Thermodynamics_, Howell and Buckius,
McGraw-Hill, 1987
[2] _Introduction_to_Chemical_Engineering_Thermodynamics_, _Fourth_Edition_,
Smith and van Ness, McGraw-Hill, 1987
[3] _Classical_Thermodynamics_of_Nonelectrolyte_Solutions_, van Ness and
Abbott, McGraw-Hill, 1982
James P. Henley Jr.
Chemical Engineering Dept.
Auburn University
Article 29097 of talk.origins:
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul J. Schinder)
Subject: Re: Thermodynamics FAQ
Message-ID:
Sender: usenet@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov (Usenet)
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
References:
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 01:44:50 GMT
Lines: 89
In henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley) writes:
>o What is Thermodynamics?
>o What are the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics?
>o How are the Laws of Thermodynamics applied to various systems?
>o Does Snowflake formation violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
[lots of unnecessary verbiage but basically OK although obsolete; you
should learn some statistical mechanics, which helps generalize a lot
of the work of the 19th century engineers]
>This definition does not include energy that exists apart from matter. For
>example, radiation in space. Pure energy, apart from matter, is not
>measureable. This is somewhat like the uncertainty principle. In order to
Foolish mysticism, completely unlike "the uncertainty principle".
Energy is definitely measurable. (*Define* the term "pure energy").
High energy experimentalists spend their lives measuring it. There's
no real distinction between matter and energy; one can be converted
into the other.
>measure energy, you must first allow it to interact with matter, and then you
>measure the effect on the matter. But once you have done that, it is no
>longer pure energy, so you can't be certain that what you are measuring is
>accurate for pure energy. For example, the speed of light. We must depend
>on the interaction of light with matter to measure the speed, but in so doing,
>we are no longer measuring light *apart from* matter, but rather measuring the
>effect of light *on* matter. By this definition of the universe, pure energy
>exists in another dimension - outside of the space-time continuum that we call
>the universe. It is only when energy interacts with matter that it enters the
>universe. This gives us a clue about the nature of entropy - anytime energy
>interacts with matter, some of that energy is transferred to the matter, and
>some of that energy becomes disordered.
Gack. This dreck is actually in an engineering textbook, or is it
something you just made up to for your own (gee, I wonder what)
reasons?
>Take the earth - we know that gas molecules can occasionally escape into space,
>meteors occasionally shower down into the atmosphere, and space missions leave
>the earth. So in the strictest sense, the earth is an open system. But if
>we study the rate of overall energy transfer, and compare that with the rate
>of transfer due to matter entering and leaving, then for all practical
>purposes the earth is currently a closed system, because the effect on the
>overall energy balance is negligible. If we take the upper reaches of the
>atmosphere as the system boundary, then we can also say that the system
>has a fixed boundary. In effect, we are really saying that a balloon is a
>model of the earth - for the purpose of thermodynamic analyses.
However, you're neglecting the incoming vs. outgoing radiation. In
this respect, the earth is *not* (and can't be so long as the sun
shines and the earth radiates) a closed system. In any sense. No
doubt (for obvious reasons) you want to try to ignore this "energy",
but that's too bad. Thermodyanics has no problems with it.
>Two different forms of the Laws of Thermo are used for open and for closed
>systems. One consideration in an open system is the fact that energy
>can be transferred across the system boundaries due to intrinsic energy
>of the mass that is transferred.
Energy can be transfered in other ways than mass flow.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>o Does Snowflake formation violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
>A forming snowflake is an open system. There is mass transfer across the
>boundary. If snowflake formation causes a reduction in the entropy
>of the snowflake, then, by the second law, the entropy change of the
>surroundings must increase.
There's also the latent heat released to the environment as the ice
crystalizes (energy released as the molecules bond).
>What about the order of the snowflake? A snowflake indeed appears to have
>a high degree of order, but remember, we are talking about ordered energy.
We're talking about ordered water molecules. Not energy.
>James P. Henley Jr.
>Chemical Engineering Dept.
>Auburn University
--
--------
Paul J. Schinder
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov
