Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2.fluke 9/24/84; site vax4.fluke.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!fluke!hopeful From: hopeful@fluke.UUCP (Rod B. Foist) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: FUNDAMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR CREATION Message-ID: <2219@vax4.fluke.UUCP> Date: Fri, 22-Mar-85 20:19:06 EST Article-I.D.: vax4.2219 Posted: Fri Mar 22 20:19:06 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 24-Mar-85 04:32:53 EST Distribution: net Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA Lines: 99 Greetings to me fellow readahs of net.oorigins. Moy name is Jake O'sHonesty and Oy wooed loik to mike a contribution to this 'ere discussion between the Evolutionknights and Creationknights. What Oy 'ave to sigh is this: when Oy look aroun' me in this 'ere world, it DOES NAWT *look* loik it's an awkcident. On the contr'ry, it LOOKS loik it 'as bean CREATED. This is me aown pers'nl intellectshool and scientific conclusion. Oy am compelled to sigh this as a result of me aown ability to mike awbservations, to think lawgic'ly, and to naotice cause and effect relationships. Now to keep this simple, Oy'll sigh it agane: things *look* as if they've bean created; particularly the creatures--the plonts, onimals, and people. Thus, Oy sigh this is Fundament'l evidence in favor of Creation. Oy speak as a cawmon mon--ain't gawt much education, 'aven't read much about oorigens, and Oy'll probably nevah understand many of the technical details that the PHDers deal with. 'owever, *ev'ry* body on earth (from Aboriginees to Einsteins) 'as this fundament'l evidence at 'is fingertips. Now if things 'ave nawt bean created, then what we 'ave 'ere is an awkcident lookin' out these eyeballs and typin' with these awkcidental fingahs, and 'avin' a discussion with other awkcidents (e.g., Lew the Mammel, Ray the Miller, Ethan the Vishniac) about whether we're all awkcidents or nawt. This just does nawt mike sense. It does nawt appear to fit the fundament'l evidence available to me five senses and me lawgic'l mind. Ladies and gent'lmen of the Evolutionknight camp, Oy 'onestly connawt accept it intellectshooly. As Oy,ve 'eard the Creationknights sigh--where there's a design, there's a designer; where there's a law, there's a lawgiver; where there's a progrom, there's a progrommer. And aroun' me Oy see such fontosstic'ly elaborate and clever designs and amazing laws and user-friendly progroms--within all the creatures that exist! 'ere's another way Oy look ot it. If Oy 'old in me 'and some pebbles from a stream and osk you, "Is this a result of notur'l process-eaze or intelligent creativity?", you will sigh to me, "Notur'l process-eaze, of course". If Oy then 'old in me 'and a ballpoint pean and repeat me question, you'll now onswer, "Intelligent creativity". If Oy continue with an 'and calculator, you'll again sigh, "Intelligent creativity". If Oy then point to an owtomobile, a pers'nl computer, and a spice shut'l, you'll continue to onswer, "Intelligent creativity" (and sao wooed Oy). Now comes the rub, me loaded question, and the point that powerfully compels me to reside in the Creationknight camp: if Oy point to the 'uman BRAIN and osk me question, 'ow shall you onswer? Ladies and gentlemen, me fellow 'knights and seekers of truth, Oy per'snally connawt be 'onest unless Oy onswer, "Intelligent creativity". For 'ere we 'ave the most marv'lous, sophisticated machine/computer in all the universe --the 'uman brain, with its 12 billion cells and 120 trillion connections, oorchestrating and controlling a BODY, which Oy suppose is second in awesomeness of design and wonder only to the brain itself. Now don't accuse me of some slick or emotional (or otherwise) debate toctic. Oy'm appealing aonly to the evidence -- and that we take it at face value. A Creationknight con look aroun' and sigh , "This (life on earth) looks awbviously to be a result of intelligent activity". But con an Evolutionknight look aroun' and sigh, "This looks awbviously to be a result of awkcidental notural process-ease". Pik-shah the sime scene stonding in front of one of the beautiful Spice Shutt'ls (e.g., Columbia). 'ow does the 'uman body compare to the Spice Shutt'le in complexity, design, etc. ? Now 'ere we 'ave an example of one of the greatest engineering/scientific feats of the 'uman race being compared with the 'uman body. (Ot this point, Oy suspect that Sir Bill Jefferys, head of the Department of Gastronomy at Whots A Motta U, may wish to cawment on the "stewpid cawmplexities" of the 'uman body versus the "stewpid cawmplexities" of a spice shutt'l -- sawry Bill but Oy just could'nt resist pokin' a litt'l fun at you on that one!). Migh Oy suggest that the second is orders of mognitude more sophisticated, marvelous, fontostic, intricate, efficient, etc. than the first. (To get me idea, just troy to get some engineering firm to mike you a functionally equivalent 'uman body in the sime soyze spice, or any soyze pockage for that matter). So what do you sigh, me Evolutionknight friends? If Oy stond you in front of a spice shutt'le, and sigh, "'ow does it LOOK loik it got 'ere, by notural process-eaze or intelligent creativity?", what will you sigh? And if Oy point to an 'uman body (or the 'ole world of creatures) and sigh, "'ow does it LOOK loik it got 'ere?", con you 'onestly sigh the first LOOKS loik it was created boy intelligence, but the second LOOKS loik it's an awkcident? And con you 'onestly revile a Creationknight who wooed sigh, "At least it LOOKS loik it's bean created"? In conclusion, 'ere Oy stond, me friends. With all respect toward those who are more intelligent, brilliant, learned than Oy (and who disagree with me), Oy must sigh that it seems so awbvious that life is a result of great intelligent creativity that Oy con hardly believe that it was ever questioned. Respectfully yours, Jake O'sHonesty P.S. Many thanks to Rod Foist (Integrated Circuit Test Engineer) for allowin' an 'umble window washah loik me to use 'is computer account to follow net.oorigins.