God, Order and Evolution
Joe Galenko
The name of your website (and the website itself) makes no sense. If you
have faith, then reason is irrelevant. If you use reason, then faith is
irrelevant. Faith and reason are two mutually exclusive ways of arriving
at a conclusion.
What some people do, and what it seems you're doing on your website, is
trying to use reason to support what you already believe by faith. A
problem with that though is that it can be easy to misuse and misapply
reason under such circumstances because you're beginning the reasoning
process with a conclusion that you want to reach.
Or, if you claim that you're not beginning the reason process with a
conclusion that you want to reach but that you're ending up reaching that
conclusion anyway, then what is the point of mentioning faith anywhere in
the entire process? It's irrelevant.
But really, I suspect it's the first one...you have faith in something
that you desparately want to be true and therefore you're using reasoning
to try to support it. But if you really believed that reasoning were the
best tool to use, you'd have used it in the first place and never had
faith to begin with.
I'm basically saying the same thing over and over...just as I said in the
first paragraph, faith and reason are mutually exclusive.
On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, John D. Callahan wrote:
> God created the universe with laws (gravity, time, etc.) by which it
> operates; we are able to understand these laws and make discoveries
> about past and future events and phenomena, including evolution.
> Evolution is simply a scientific understanding of our origins. It does
> not make God unnecessary. However, it may mean we need to reevaluate
> Him and our place in the universe. Evolution may imply that the
> universe is bigger and more complex than we at first imagined.
>
> Many Christians, unfortunately, are reluctant to accept modern
> science. Creationists, rather than accepting the ever increasing
> mountain of evidence validating evolution, have developed a new
> tactic: in addition to their religious and creation "science" premise,
> they now spin complex and sophisticated scientific arguments debunking
> evolution ("Intelligent Design Theory"). The Kansas Board of
> Education's 1999 decision removing evolution from their curriculum was
> a short-lived victory for such a strategy.
>
> But is it possible to be a Christian and fully accept modern science
> (including biological evolution and the Big Bang), and a valuable, yet
> non-perfect Bible? A Web site which addresses these issues -- and has
> a pretty good links page to related sites -- is
>
> http://www.faithreason.org (Faith & Reason Ministries)
>
>
BigKookSam
Callahan) writes:
What created god?
Craig Desjardins
"Joe Galenko" <jgal...@bios.unc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.21.010410...@amber.bios.unc.edu...
Alex
> But is it possible to be a Christian and fully accept modern science
> (including biological evolution and the Big Bang),
How one can accept "survival of the fittest" and "Love thy neighbour like
thyself" at the same time?
Alex.
Ray and Mary
That one is easy. "Survival of the fittest" is what happens in nature. We
see it all the time. We see the weak animals falling to predators, hunger,
and the weather. We see animals competing for food. We see primates
raping, abusing, and stealing - just like humans who reject God's word,
"Love your neighbor as yourself" is God's commandment to his children. We
reject the self-centered actions of animals in favor of God's way. We don't
do a perfect job of it - which is why Jesus died on the cross for us.
Ray Drouillard.
Alex
> That one is easy. "Survival of the fittest" is what happens in nature. We
> see it all the time. We see the weak animals falling to predators, hunger,
> and the weather. We see animals competing for food. We see primates
> raping, abusing, and stealing - just like humans who reject God's word,
We see strong animals falling to predators and animals hunting in packs and
defending each other in a herd just as well, When I was a child I had a cat who
presented me mice she catched in the night, but who really care about nature? It
is a peculiar feature of western civilization to justify its own actions by
"naturality" As great American anthropologist Salkhnis observed "We are the only
civilization that believes that it emerged from wilderness. All other people
believe thy are descendants of Gods."
Teaching evolution at schools is mere indoctrination with the "survcival of the
fittest" ideology. Any way, nobody cares when long multiplication or division of
fractions are dropped from school curriculums, but should one dare to drop
evolution there is a huge scandal.
> "Love your neighbor as yourself" is God's commandment to his children. We
> reject the self-centered actions of animals in favor of God's way. We don't
> do a perfect job of it - which is why Jesus died on the cross for us.
At least we try. But there are quite powerful guys who want to stop us from
trying. They want free competition. So we see weaker person fallyng prey to
stronger. Weaker company falling to stronger, weaker peoples and nations falling
to stronger. The evolution hype is but one of the PR methods necessary to
justify al this cruelty and injustice.
Alex.
fm
"Alex" <as69...@bcm.tmc.edu> wrote in message
news:3AD4A3C3...@bcm.tmc.edu...
These are not necessarly mutually exclusive, but it misses the point. The
problem is that science itself has been unable to locate and identify even
ONE "missing link" which demonstrates the "evolution" of one species into
another. All "science" has as "proof" of this "theory" [and the word
"theory" here by no means fits the scientific criteria to be a "theory"] is
childish speculation by IDIOTS (who aren't "scientists" at all) that the
bones of one species look similar to the bones of another species, so one
must have evolved from the other.
That is not a "theory". That is childish speculation, at best. But even
worse, to teach that this is "science", in the face of the fact that not a
single bone of the millions of bones which have been found supports that
"theory".
John Knight
fm
news:20010410202616...@nso-fw.aol.com...
The problem is not that Christians don't accept science, but that the
"theory of evolution" was not developed by a "scientist", that Darwin was a
known kook even in his own time, and that this "theory" meets none of the
criteria necessary to be established as "science".
Other than that, why not teach it? Because even after a century and a half
of "scientists" trying to make the fossil evidence fit their "theory", not a
single bone does that? Yes, that's a very good reason for Christians to
object to their children being taught that the "theory of evolution" is
"science".
This discredits real science so seriously that it's no wonder that we scored
so low in the world in science tests. Intelligent children sense the
disconnect and don't trust their science teachers any longer.
This could never, ever have happened if we had had qualified teachers in the
first place. They would have never accepted such "theories" as real
science.
John Knight
fm
No. Faith and reason work together to arrive at truth.
If you reject either of these components, you will forever believe LIES.
Faith is based on confidence in the intellect of our ancestors who were
created and instructed by God. Ignoring that part would require we as a
culture to start from ground zero--and you can bet your fortune that
children who graduate from American public schools are utterly incapable of
that.
John Knight
"Craig Desjardins" <cra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9b1pqg$bdq$1...@saturn.services.brown.edu...
Joni J Rathbun
On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, fm wrote:
> This discredits real science so seriously that it's no wonder that we scored
> so low in the world in science tests. Intelligent children sense the
> disconnect and don't trust their science teachers any longer.
This certainly doesn't explain why US school districts came in first,
third, fourth and fifth in the TIMSS science test. Hint: none of these
school districts were in Kansas.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
fm <j.w.k...@usa.net> wrote:
>The problem is not that Christians don't accept science, but that the
>"theory of evolution" was not developed by a "scientist", that Darwin was a
>known kook even in his own time, and that this "theory" meets none of the
>criteria necessary to be established as "science".
Now this is a real gem. Coal, I would say, or perhaps graphite.
J.W., you are aware that one of the best teaching examples for
the use of the scientific method is the discovery of the issues and
facts, and the formulation of the theory of evolution.
The theory is testable, and has been tested. It is verifiable,
and has been verified, it is falsifiable, and has not been
falsified. The experiments and examination of the basic ideas
have been repeated over and over.
It fullfulls the tenets of the scientific method like few
other things on the world.
It's a fact. If you reject evolution, you then reject, absolutely
and without qualification, the entire scientific method, and
all that implies IN TOTALITY!
Your anti-science propaganda is noted, btw.
--
Copyright j...@research.att.com 2001, all rights reserved, except transmission
by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any
use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this
article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
Alan Lichtenstein
>
> The problem is not that Christians don't accept science, but that the
> "theory of evolution" was not developed by a "scientist", that Darwin was a
> known kook even in his own time, and that this "theory" meets none of the
> criteria necessary to be established as "science".
Far from being a 'Kook' in his own time, Darwin has been numbered among
the most intelligent of those who might have ever walked on Earth. Some
of the most prominent scientists of his time deferred to him, and he had
great defenders, Huxley among them. All these items have been
summarized over the years in articles by many, most notably, Steven J.
Gould, and many have appeared in Natural History.
Your characterization above is not borne out by any evidence, save your
prejudices, which so not qualify.
> Other than that, why not teach it? Because even after a century and a half
> of "scientists" trying to make the fossil evidence fit their "theory", not a
> single bone does that?
Your ignorance and refusal to be confused by the facts is noted. Most
scientists consider the fossil record among the strongest evidences for
Darwin's theory.
Yes, that's a very good reason for Christians to
> object to their children being taught that the "theory of evolution" is
> "science".
Only those who do not understand what science is object. And in
America, the desire to remain forever ignorant is indeed a right.
> This discredits real science so seriously that it's no wonder that we scored
> so low in the world in science tests. Intelligent children sense the
> disconnect and don't trust their science teachers any longer.
You of course have documentary evidence to support your amazing
conjectures above, of course?
Your misguided opinions do not qualify, unfortunately for you.
> This could never, ever have happened if we had had qualified teachers in the
> first place. They would have never accepted such "theories" as real
> science.
Teachers of science are skeptics by nature and critically evaluate
assertions through evaluation of the evidence. They, unlike you, do not
refuse to evaluate the facts as they exist. You, OTOH, refuse to be
confused by those very facts which lead to your unsubstantiated rants
above.
Alan
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Joni J Rathbun <jrat...@orednet.org> wrote:
>This certainly doesn't explain why US school districts came in first,
>third, fourth and fifth in the TIMSS science test. Hint: none of these
>school districts were in Kansas.
The reason that we're slipping so rapidly into scientific oblivion
is that we even HAVE these idiotic discussions about evolution yet.
Evolution is the best demonstration of the triumph of the scientific
method around.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to attack it from inside the scientific method.
It is, of course, possible to create change, which is what the method
is all about, but there is simply NO refutation to be had of the
basic idea at this point.
Anyone claiming otherwise simply needs to study the issue in a
clear fashion, one unbridled by "experts" who agree to hide
contrary evidence, etc.
fm
"Ray and Mary" <Droui...@home.com> wrote in message
news:K40B6.167690$W05.31...@news1.rdc1.mi.home.com...
Excellent insight, Ray.
If we want to live like animals, it's easy to do. It's easier for
individual men to do that than it is for them to recognize what's important
to the success of a Christian culture like ours as a whole. There isn't a
more important difference between animals and homo sapiens than this, is
there?
"Survival of the fittest" (with "survival" meaning economic success) is what
created our successful free enterprise system, but winning the economic
battle doesn't require anyone to stop loving their neighbor.
Sometimes the one we love the most is the economic competitor who made the
big mistake which enabled you to be the survivor );
John Knight
fm
"Alan Lichtenstein" <alichtens...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3AD4B7...@erols.com...
> ( previous post snipped-follow thread )
> >
> > The problem is not that Christians don't accept science, but that the
> > "theory of evolution" was not developed by a "scientist", that Darwin
was a
> > known kook even in his own time, and that this "theory" meets none of
the
> > criteria necessary to be established as "science".
>
> Far from being a 'Kook' in his own time, Darwin has been numbered among
> the most intelligent of those who might have ever walked on Earth. Some
> of the most prominent scientists of his time deferred to him, and he had
> great defenders, Huxley among them. All these items have been
> summarized over the years in articles by many, most notably, Steven J.
> Gould, and many have appeared in Natural History.
>
> Your characterization above is not borne out by any evidence, save your
> prejudices, which so not qualify.
>
My "prejudice" upon learning who Darwin was consisted of the public school
position that Darwin was a "scientist". The fact is that he had no
scientific training whatsoever, flunked out of medical school in Edinburgh
University and, even though he was classified as a "naturalist" when he
accompanied Capt. Fitzroy on the "Beagle", had no formal education in that
field whatsoever.
His observation that a bird in the Galapagos Island must have "evolved" from
a similar looking bird in South America was not science--it was child's
play. Just because so many people accepted this as a "fact" is no reason
whatsoever for American scientists to accept that notion. There is no
scientific method to this obserevation at all. It would be equivalent to a
"naturalist" 10,000 years from now finding a train axle in Italy and
concluding that it "evolved" from a Cadillac axle found in Chicago.
There is no doubt that the designs are similar. But this is no proof
whatsoever of "evolution", is it?
> > Other than that, why not teach it? Because even after a century and a
half
> > of "scientists" trying to make the fossil evidence fit their "theory",
not a
> > single bone does that?
>
> Your ignorance and refusal to be confused by the facts is noted. Most
> scientists consider the fossil record among the strongest evidences for
> Darwin's theory.
Agreed. It is the strongest evidence of his "theory". This is why his
"theory" isn't a theory. It's complete speculation. Not one single fossile
comes anywhere close to being the "missing link" between two different
species. Some things look the same--but so do train axles and Cadillac
axles.
>
> Yes, that's a very good reason for Christians to
> > object to their children being taught that the "theory of evolution" is
> > "science".
>
> Only those who do not understand what science is object. And in
> America, the desire to remain forever ignorant is indeed a right.
>
Again, agreed. Until you look into the "evidence" that Charles Darwin based
his "theory" on, you will remain forever ignorant of the facts.
http://fathersmanifesto.com/darwin.htm
> > This discredits real science so seriously that it's no wonder that we
scored
> > so low in the world in science tests. Intelligent children sense the
> > disconnect and don't trust their science teachers any longer.
>
> You of course have documentary evidence to support your amazing
> conjectures above, of course?
Most countries don't accept Darwin's "theory of evolution". Instead, they
teach Christianity. There are few nations in the world which do a worse job
of teaching science than we do. We ranked 17th out of the countries which
took TIMSS Science, but countries like Korea, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic,
the Netherlands, Slovenia, Austria, Hungary, England, Belgium, Australia,
the Slovak Republic, Ireland, and Russia, who all teach creation as defined
in the Holy Bible, scored higher than we did:
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/ce/c9720d02.html
>
> Your misguided opinions do not qualify, unfortunately for you.
>
> > This could never, ever have happened if we had had qualified teachers in
the
> > first place. They would have never accepted such "theories" as real
> > science.
>
> Teachers of science are skeptics by nature and critically evaluate
> assertions through evaluation of the evidence. They, unlike you, do not
> refuse to evaluate the facts as they exist. You, OTOH, refuse to be
> confused by those very facts which lead to your unsubstantiated rants
> above.
>
> Alan
Most American children aren't presented with all of the facts regarding
Darwin. If they were presented with all of them, they too would reject his
ranting and raving as "science" or as a "theory". You most likely will
reject it too if you took as much time to look into the history of Darwin as
you've taken to defend our failed education system.
If you were to set out to intentionally subvert the American education
process, rejecting the Holy Bible, the wisdom of our Forefathers, the
written record, and supplanting it with cockeyed "theories" like this would
be an excellent way to reach your objective quickly.
John Knight
fm
"jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist" <j...@research.att.com> wrote in
message news:GBn82...@research.att.com...
> In article <hb2B6.7589$J8.56...@news1.rsm1.occa.home.com>,
> fm <j.w.k...@usa.net> wrote:
> >The problem is not that Christians don't accept science, but that the
> >"theory of evolution" was not developed by a "scientist", that Darwin was
a
> >known kook even in his own time, and that this "theory" meets none of the
> >criteria necessary to be established as "science".
>
> Now this is a real gem. Coal, I would say, or perhaps graphite.
>
> J.W., you are aware that one of the best teaching examples for
> the use of the scientific method is the discovery of the issues and
> facts, and the formulation of the theory of evolution.
>
> The theory is testable, and has been tested. It is verifiable,
> and has been verified, it is falsifiable, and has not been
> falsified. The experiments and examination of the basic ideas
> have been repeated over and over.
>
> It fullfulls the tenets of the scientific method like few
> other things on the world.
>
> It's a fact. If you reject evolution, you then reject, absolutely
> and without qualification, the entire scientific method, and
> all that implies IN TOTALITY!
>
> Your anti-science propaganda is noted, btw.
Most scientists disagree with you, jj.
The following facts, which are presented in the name of science, are some
additions you should include in your arsenal:
John Knight
The case against Darwin
by James Perloff
Š 2001 WorldNetDaily.com
Mainstream Americans have been losing the values battle for many years.
Presidential candidates who run on resolutely moral platforms earn only
single digits in polls, and often the best we can hope for are
"establishment Republicans," whose commitment to values rarely seems to go
much beyond their speeches.
Like other Americans, I watched as one scandal after another broke about
Bill Clinton over the past eight years. Each time, I said to myself, "This
one will be his downfall." But the fall never came -- even though any one of
those scandals would have ruined a president 40 years ago. Although the
major media were sympathetic to Clinton and did their best to downplay the
stories, it was evident that American culture has changed.
Clearly, before we can get the right kind of candidates elected, there must
be a transformation in the hearts of the electorate.
Roots of decline A glance at the rates of divorce, drug use and teen suicide
tell us that America is in a serious moral decline. What happened at
Columbine High School would have been unthinkable in the '50s, when no one
dreamed that school entrances would ever require weapons detectors.
The question is: What is at the root of the decline? Many would say, "Well,
we've lost our respect for traditional moral values." OK, where do
"traditional moral values" come from? They come mostly from the Bible,
which, at least until recently, had been Western culture's central guiding
document.
So why have we lost our respect for the Bible? I believe it is no
exaggeration to say that it was the widespread acceptance and teaching of
Charles Darwin's theory of evolution as "fact."
Darwinism teaches that man came not from the hand of God, but from ape-like
ancestors through chance mutations, and that life itself is not from God,
but resulted from the chance concurrence of chemicals in an ancient ocean.
When this is taught as fact in public schools, God and the Bible become
irrelevant in the minds of many children -- and there begins the fall of
morality. As a former atheist, I can certainly say it did for me!
Evolution was not heavily underscored in American public schools before the
1960s. But in 1959, the National Science Foundation, a federal agency,
granted $7 million to the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, which began
producing high school biology textbooks with a strong evolutionary slant. I
wasn't raised religiously myself, but once sold on the "fact" of evolution,
faith stood no chance with me. And there was a reason why my generation, the
baby boomers, bought evolution so easily. Teen-agers usually aren't too hot
about biblical morality to begin with. But here was teacher saying the Bible
was an old myth. Well, to us that meant the Ten Commandments were a myth. We
could make up our own rules! For rebellious teens, that message wasn't too
hard to take.
"As were many persons from Alabama, I was a born-again Christian," wrote
Harvard professor E.O. Wilson in a 1982 article for The Humanist. "When I
was fifteen, I entered the Southern Baptist Church with great fervor and
interest in the fundamentalist religion; I left at seventeen when I got to
the University of Alabama and heard about evolutionary theory." That's a
pretty good summary of what happened to the baby boom generation.
Historically, Darwinism has had some deadly effects, especially beyond our
shores. Karl Marx said: "Darwin's book is very important and serves me as a
basis in natural science for the class struggle in history." Soviet dictator
Josef Stalin murdered millions. In 1940, a book was published in Moscow
entitled "Landmarks in the Life of Stalin." In it we read:
At a very early age, while still a pupil in the ecclesiastical school,
Comrade Stalin developed a critical mind and revolutionary sentiments. He
began to read Darwin and became an atheist.
G. Glurdjidze, a boyhood friend of Stalin's, relates:
"I began to speak of God. Joseph heard me out, and after a moment's silence,
said:
"'You know, they are fooling us, there is no God. ...'
"I was astonished at these words. I had never heard anything like it before.
"'How can you say such things, Soso?' I exclaimed.
"'I'll lend you a book to read; it will show you that the world and all
living things are quite different from what you imagine, and all this talk
about God is sheer nonsense,' Joseph said.
"'What book is that?' I enquired.
"'Darwin. You must read it,' Joseph impressed on me."
While Marx and Stalin saw the "struggle for existence" as between classes,
Hitler saw it as between races, and sought to evolve a "master race." As
German philosopher Erich Fromm observed, "If Hitler believed in anything at
all, then it was in the laws of evolution which justified and sanctified his
actions and especially his cruelties." Sir Arthur Keith, president of the
British Association for the Advancement of Science, wrote in the 1940s: "The
German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has
consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of
evolution." In his demented way, Hitler was fulfilling this prediction
Darwin made in his book, "The Descent of Man":
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the
civilized races will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage
races throughout the world. ... The break between man and his nearest allies
will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized
state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a
baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian [Aborigine] and
the gorilla.
This is not in any way to imply that today's evolutionists are racists; and
certainly, Hitler's atrocities would have revolted Charles Darwin. But there
is no denying that the Darwinist worldview -- which sees man as an animal
and God as an irrelevancy -- has had a profoundly negative social impact.
Will Durant, author of "The Story of Civilization," was one of the
preeminent historians of our time. "By offering evolution in place of God as
a cause of history," he opined shortly before his death, "Darwin removed the
theological basis of the moral code of Christendom. And the moral code that
has no fear of God is very shaky. That's the condition we are in."
Survival of the evidence: Genetics WorldNetDaily.com received some criticism
when it started carrying my book, "Tornado in a Junkyard: The Relentless
Myth of Darwinism." Some even considered it embarrassing for a top
independent news website to "ally itself" with creation science. Shouldn't
WorldNetDaily be busying itself with more important things, like exposing
the latest Clinton scandal? And after all, isn't evolution a proven fact?
People who make such comments are unaware of two things: 1) that the current
moral climate, which tolerated Bill Clinton, is largely rooted in
Darwinism's denial of moral absolutes; and 2) that overwhelming evidence has
arisen in recent years discrediting Darwin's theory.
"Overwhelming evidence"? Like what?
We'll start with genetics. Darwin's theory says fish evolved, through many
intermediate steps, into human beings. The question thus arises: How did
fish acquire the genes to become human beings? A creature cannot be anything
physically its genes won't allow it to be.
Genetics was not developed as a science in Darwin's day, and he assumed that
animals essentially had an unlimited capacity to adapt to environments --
unaware that no change could ever take place without the right genes being
there.
To resolve this dilemma, modern evolutionists asserted that the fish's genes
must have mutated into human genes over eons. Mutations, of course, are
abrupt alterations in genes.
However, this hypothesis is no longer tenable. Dr. Lee Spetner, who taught
information theory for a decade at Johns Hopkins University and the Weizman
Institute, spent years studying mutations on a molecular level. He has
written an important new book, "Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory
of Evolution" In it, he writes, "In all the reading I've done in the
life-sciences literature, I've never found a mutation that added
information. . All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular
level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it."
Why is this a problem for evolution? Because if Darwin's thesis is correct,
and all life began as a single organism, then chance mutations must have
produced nearly every feature of life on Earth, from the remarkable sonar
system of the dolphin to the ingenious pacemaker and valves of the human
heart. Yet mutations always delete -- never add -- information to the
genetic code. And what are mutations actually observed to cause in human
beings? Hemophilia. Sickle cell anemia. Cystic fibrosis. Down's Syndrome.
Sterility. Death. The genetic code is designed for the perfect running of an
organism -- mutations delete information from the code, causing defects.
To advance their view, evolutionists have long pointed out that mutations
sometimes make bacteria resistant to antibiotics -- and so, the argument
goes, "If mutations can make bacteria stronger, they must be able to do the
same for other creatures." Dr. Spetner points out that this is based on a
misunderstanding of antibiotic resistance. To destroy a bacterium,
antibiotics like streptomycin attach to a constituent of the bacterial cell
called ribosomes. Mutations sometimes cause a structural deformity in
ribosomes. Since the antibiotic cannot connect with the misshapen ribosome,
the bacterium is resistant. But even though this mutation turns out to be
beneficial, it still constitutes a loss of genetic information, not a gain.
No "evolution" has taken place; the bacteria are not "stronger." In fact,
under normal conditions, with no antibiotic present, they are weaker than
their nonmutated cousins.
Let's take an analogy. Suppose a country's dictator ordered dissidents to be
rounded up and handcuffed. So the police were busy handcuffing dissidents.
But one day, they ran into a man born deformed -- with no arms. One could
conceivably say that, in this case, the man had an advantage over others,
since he couldn't be handcuffed. But it certainly wouldn't represent an
evolutionary advance.
Ernst Chain, who shared a Nobel Prize for his work in developing penicillin,
obviously knew much about bacteria and antibiotics. "To postulate that the
development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance
mutations, or even that nature carries out experiments by trial and error
through mutations in order to create living systems better fitted to
survive," he wrote, "seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and
irreconcilable with the facts."
Survival of the evidence: Biochemistry Biochemistry is also giving Darwin
problems. Michael Behe, biochemist at Lehigh University, has written a book
entitled "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution." In
this book, Behe describes how certain biochemical systems are so complex
that they cannot have evolved step-by-step; he calls this "irreducible
complexity."
For example, blood clotting swings into action when we get a cut. The
formation of a blood clot is a complex, multi-step process that utilizes
numerous proteins, many with no other function besides clotting. Each
protein depends on an enzyme to activate it. So to paraphrase Behe very
simply: What evolved first -- the protein or enzyme? Not the protein; it
cannot function without the enzyme to switch it on. But why would nature
evolve the activating enzyme first? Without the protein, it serves no
purpose. Furthermore, if blood clotting had evolved step-by-step over eons,
creatures would have bled to death before it was ever perfected. The system
is irreducibly complex.
Behe demonstrates that other human biochemical systems, such as the immune
system and vision, are also irreducibly complex -- they cannot have evolved
step-by-step -- and give clear evidence that they resulted from intelligent
design.
Even larger difficulties arise with the Darwinian idea of life's origin.
Charles Darwin and his contemporaries thought cells were rather simple, and
that it would thus be feasible for chemicals in a "primordial soup" to come
together and form one. However, through advances in microbiology, we now
know that even a simple cell contains enough information to fill a hundred
million pages of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
Cells consist essentially of proteins; one cell has thousands of proteins,
and proteins are in turn made of smaller building blocks called amino acids.
Normally, it takes chains of hundreds of amino acids to make up a protein,
and these amino acids must be in precise sequence.
According to the evolutionary scenario, then, how did the first cell happen?
Supposedly, amino acids formed in a primordial soup, and since millions of
years were involved, eventually they came, by chance, into the correct
sequences, and the first proteins were formed and hence the first cell.
But Sir Frances Crick, who shared the Nobel Prize for co-discovering the
structure of DNA, has pointed out that that would be impossible. He notes in
his 1981 book, "Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature," that the probability of
getting just one protein by chance would be one in 10 to the power of 260 --
that's a one with 260 zeroes after it. To put this in perspective,
mathematicians usually consider anything with odds worse than one in 10 to
the power of 50 to be, for practical purposes, impossible. Thus we see that
chance couldn't produce even one protein -- let alone the thousands of
proteins a cell requires.
Furthermore, suppose there really were some basic organic compounds formed
from the "primordial soup." If there was any free oxygen in the atmosphere,
it would oxidize those compounds -- in other words, it would destroy them.
To resolve this dilemma, evolutionists have long hypothesized that there was
no free oxygen in the Earth's ancient atmosphere.
However, geologists have now examined the Earth's oldest rocks and have
concluded that the early Earth was probably rich in oxygen. Still, let's say
the evolutionists are right -- there was no free oxygen in the early Earth.
Without oxygen, there would be no ozone layer, and without the ozone layer,
we would receive a lethal dose of the sun's radiation in just 0.3 seconds.
How could the fragile beginnings of life have survived in such an
environment?
And cells need more than proteins -- they require the genetic code. The
genetic code of a bacterium is far more complex than the codes for Window
98. Does anyone think the program for Windows 98 could have arisen by
chance?
But wait! Cells need more than the genetic code. L
fm
"Joni J Rathbun" <jrat...@orednet.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.SUN.3.96.101041...@compass.oregonvos.net...
It's not clear what your reference is to Kansas. As a reminder, it has
already been posted that Kansas scores 6th in the US in SAT math, so if the
suggestion is that Kansas is a low scoring state, that reference is wrong.
Kansas scored 548, which is 88 points higher than Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania scored 460, which was higher than only 3 other states. New
York scores only 11 points higher than Pennsylvania.
The US as a whole ranked 17th place in TIMSS Science in 1995, and in 1999.
It's meaningless to compare our top schools to the average schools of other
countries. You need to compare our top schools to their top schools, and
the distribution of the TIMSS scores shows that this would reduce us further
down the list.
Our science education strategy is already bad enough. Please don't further
discredit it by continuing to refute these simple, verifiable facts.
John Knight
Whats Right
<alichtens...@erols.com> wrote:
> Teachers of science are skeptics by nature and critically evaluate
> assertions through evaluation of the evidence. They, unlike you, do not
> refuse to evaluate the facts as they exist. You, OTOH, refuse to be
> confused by those very facts which lead to your unsubstantiated rants
> above.
>
> Alan
Alan, you are NOT a Teacher of Science! You are a teacher of "Scientism"
which is a belief system and not based on facts...
Gerhard
--
Recte Faciendo Neminem Timeas
Is it opinion? Is it fact? Is it truth?
Whats Right
curmudgeon and tiring philalethist) wrote:
>
> The theory is testable, and has been tested. It is verifiable,
> and has been verified, it is falsifiable, and has not been
> falsified. The experiments and examination of the basic ideas
> have been repeated over and over.
Boy, is this crap! When was the last time you saw a fish turn into a
lizard and then into a monkey? Or even a amino acid turn into a protein
and that into DNA?
fm
Well said.
The fact that weaker species may have been supplanted by stronger species
should be reason enough that human beings don't go to war with their
neighbors to kill them (except for "wars" which consist of economic
competition where the objective is to produce a better product).
John Knight
greggi
Evolution is a fine theory but the maths does not add up. Conservative
estimates put the chance of life being created by natural means in the
universe at 1/ 10 to the power of 28
(1/10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000). Statistically we can only
accept probability of 1/20 or 5%. The process of evolution is equally
statistically unsound. I agree that we should enthusiastically embrace
science but remain wary of biased (atheist) interpretations. God created
out of nothing (Creatio ex-nihilo) and God continues to create (Creatio
Continua). Design is a very compelling argument.
Yours truthfully,
Gregg Parkinson.
John D. Callahan wrote in message <3ad381dc...@news.lafn.org>...
>God created the universe with laws (gravity, time, etc.)
>
>Many Christians, unfortunately, are reluctant to accept modern
>science.
>But is it possible to be a Christian and fully accept modern science
Raymond E. Griffith
j.w.k...@usa.net wrote on 4/11/2001 3:17 PM:
>
> "Alex" <as69...@bcm.tmc.edu> wrote in message
> news:3AD4A3C3...@bcm.tmc.edu...
>> "John D. Callahan" wrote:
>>
>>> But is it possible to be a Christian and fully accept modern science
>>> (including biological evolution and the Big Bang),
>>
>> How one can accept "survival of the fittest" and "Love thy neighbour like
>> thyself" at the same time?
>>
>> Alex.
>>
>
> These are not necessarly mutually exclusive, but it misses the point. The
> problem is that science itself has been unable to locate and identify even
> ONE "missing link" which demonstrates the "evolution" of one species into
> another. All "science" has as "proof" of this "theory" [and the word
> "theory" here by no means fits the scientific criteria to be a "theory"] is
> childish speculation by IDIOTS (who aren't "scientists" at all) that the
> bones of one species look similar to the bones of another species, so one
> must have evolved from the other.
>
Uhh, you really want to be careful here. Now I am a Christian, and I trust
the scriptures -- but I don't believe in over-simplification either.
You not only have not adequately defined evolution here, you have completely
misstated its methodologies.
Many Christians like to claim that the evolutionary biologists are
unreasonable, but very often we Christians are more unreasonable of the lot.
When you say that they aren't scientists, you employ an invective that not
only is abusive to your adversary, but also ruins your own credibility.
> That is not a "theory". That is childish speculation, at best. But even
> worse, to teach that this is "science", in the face of the fact that not a
> single bone of the millions of bones which have been found supports that
> "theory".
>
Again, you really want to be careful here. Abuse given invites abuse!
But what is worse than an unbelieving evolutionist? A "believing"
creationist who employs bad science deliberately so as to make his point. I
have investigated many of the claims of the so-called "creation science"
movement, and many of them are not only erroneous, but outright deceitful.
This distresses me.
I have seen proposed as "creation science" the wildest speculation and
fabrications imaginable without any attempt for proof -- all trying to make
a point, and wrapped up in high-sounding words which the lay person cannot
understand. This deceit is unworthy of being labeled "Christian" in any
sense! And we have the gall to accuse the evolutionists of speculation when
they attempt to understand the world of the past by the way things work
today.
I have also seen Christians presented with credible evidence for processes
that they have declared impossible, who resorted to name calling and
ridicule. This also is unChristian.
If you are going to make your point, do it without the invectives. Be
willing to examine the opponents claims in depth, and be ready to offer
reasonable alternate models. If you can't explain something, admit it. But
don't simply dismiss as worthless the speculations or investigations of the
scientific community -- even if you believe that they are! You may not agree
with them, but you need to be willing to understand why they think the way
they do. If their "theories" are worthless, you should be able to present a
much more reasonable and workable hypothesis, don't you think? After all, it
is God's world. Christians should be willing to understand science to know
how God's world works.
BTW, I know several people who are devout Christians, but who also believe
in evolution. You might find this strange, but it would be a mistake to lump
everyone who believes in evolution into the unsaved camp.
The subject is incredibly complex. There are a huge number of factors to be
considered in how the world works. God created the world and the way it
works. I suppose then, that it is not unreasonable to think that he meant
for us to understand those processes?
I also suppose that is is not unreasonable to follow the scriptural
directives as to how we speak and act?
> John Knight
>
>
Raymond E. Griffith
Raymond E. Griffith
gre...@ntlworld.com wrote on 4/11/2001 5:24 PM:
> Dear John,
>
> Evolution is a fine theory but the maths does not add up. Conservative
> estimates put the chance of life being created by natural means in the
> universe at 1/ 10 to the power of 28
> (1/10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000). Statistically we can only
> accept probability of 1/20 or 5%. The process of evolution is equally
> statistically unsound. I agree that we should enthusiastically embrace
> science but remain wary of biased (atheist) interpretations. God created
> out of nothing (Creatio ex-nihilo) and God continues to create (Creatio
> Continua). Design is a very compelling argument.
>
> Yours truthfully,
>
> Gregg Parkinson.
>
>
I am not defending Mr. Callahan's viewpoints, as I do not believe in
fallable Scriptures. But I would like to ask where you got your figures
from? Quote your sources. Investigate as to how they got their numbers.
Most of these numbers games are exercises in pure imagination. I am a
statistician, and your numbers mean nothing to me, nor would they to anyone
educated enough to understand their significance.
Stating that we can only accept a probability of 5% is also meaningless.
Winning the lottery has a much smaller probability than that, yet someone
does.
Oh yes, your arguments sound fine, but they mean nothing! You talk about
biased interpretations, and attach the term "bias" to the "atheist" camp
(wrongly assuming that all people who believe that evolution exists makes
them atheists!). But "bias" is just as much a property of the "creationist"
camp as well. As long as we don't recognize our own biases, we make
ourselves to be perfect fools.
You speak of design. But design is as much about perspective as anything. I
dare say that I can see design and pattern where you would only see
randomness. Then again, anyone who knows some mathematics also knows that
random effects very often result in what we consider to be recognizable
design. Ever hear of fractals?
Our world is too complex to bear an overly simplistic explanations. We
Christians need to be *very* careful not to speak about what we do not know
-- and be willing to admit when we are wrong.
We damage the cause of Christ otherwise!
Raymond E. Griffith
fm
"Whats Right" <heat...@kalama.com> wrote in message
news:heatscan-110...@pm3-33.kalama.com...
> In article <3AD4B7...@erols.com>, Alan Lichtenstein
> <alichtens...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Teachers of science are skeptics by nature and critically evaluate
> > assertions through evaluation of the evidence. They, unlike you, do not
> > refuse to evaluate the facts as they exist. You, OTOH, refuse to be
> > confused by those very facts which lead to your unsubstantiated rants
> > above.
> >
> > Alan
>
> Alan, you are NOT a Teacher of Science! You are a teacher of "Scientism"
> which is a belief system and not based on facts...
>
> Gerhard
>
Well said, Gerhard,
The emotional reactions of those who support "scientism" is proof enough
that this is a religion to them.
John Knight
fm
> curmudgeon and tiring philalethist) wrote:
>
> >
> > The theory is testable, and has been tested. It is verifiable,
> > and has been verified, it is falsifiable, and has not been
> > falsified. The experiments and examination of the basic ideas
> > have been repeated over and over.
>
>
> Boy, is this crap! When was the last time you saw a fish turn into a
> lizard and then into a monkey? Or even a amino acid turn into a protein
> and that into DNA?
>
> Gerhard
>
Exactly.
If this "theory of evolution" was at all accurate, then the mule, which is a
cross between the horse and the donkey, could itself procreate. But it
can't, can it? It dies out in one generation, which is exactly what would
happen to any other possible cross-breed between species.
By Darwin's "theory", sharks would have had enough time to mutate into
monkeys, then humans, to Wall Street lawyers, and all the way back to
sharks. Where are these "missing links"? For a century and a half now,
"scientists" have been trying to make the facts fit the "theory of
evolution", and then DNA proved, once and for all, that Neanderthal and Cro
Magnon and homo sapiens are three different species which aren't genetically
related at all.
In other words, legitimate science has already proven that creation is the
only valid "theory" in town.
John Knight
R. Tang
fm <j.w.k...@usa.net> wrote:
>These are not necessarly mutually exclusive, but it misses the point. The
>problem is that science itself has been unable to locate and identify even
>ONE "missing link" which demonstrates the "evolution" of one species into
>another.
This is dead wrong, and shows your own lack of knowledge of both
the evidence and scientific methodology.
> All "science" has as "proof" of this "theory" [and the word
>"theory" here by no means fits the scientific criteria to be a "theory"] is
>childish speculation by IDIOTS (who aren't "scientists" at all) that the
>bones of one species look similar to the bones of another species, so one
>must have evolved from the other.
>
>That is not a "theory". That is childish speculation, at best. But even
>worse, to teach that this is "science", in the face of the fact that not a
>single bone of the millions of bones which have been found supports that
>"theory".
Incorrect. Avail yourself of the evidence and correct your
misconceptions. The lines of evidence go way beyond vague similarities;
there are specific reasons that go to the roots of both genetics and
paleontology.
--
-Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL]
- http://www.abcflash.com/a&e/r_tang/AATR.html
-Declared 4-F in the War Between the Sexes
Alan Lichtenstein
>
> "Alan Lichtenstein" <alichtens...@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:3AD4B7...@erols.com...
> > ( previous post snipped-follow thread )
> > >
> > > The problem is not that Christians don't accept science, but that the
> > > "theory of evolution" was not developed by a "scientist", that Darwin
> was a
> > > known kook even in his own time, and that this "theory" meets none of
> the
> > > criteria necessary to be established as "science".
> >
> > Far from being a 'Kook' in his own time, Darwin has been numbered among
> > the most intelligent of those who might have ever walked on Earth. Some
> > of the most prominent scientists of his time deferred to him, and he had
> > great defenders, Huxley among them. All these items have been
> > summarized over the years in articles by many, most notably, Steven J.
> > Gould, and many have appeared in Natural History.
> >
> > Your characterization above is not borne out by any evidence, save your
> > prejudices, which so not qualify.
> >
>
> My "prejudice" upon learning who Darwin was consisted of the public school
> position that Darwin was a "scientist". The fact is that he had no
> scientific training whatsoever, flunked out of medical school in Edinburgh
> University and, even though he was classified as a "naturalist" when he
> accompanied Capt. Fitzroy on the "Beagle", had no formal education in that
> field whatsoever.
A scientist is one who employs a particular methodology in solving
problems with respect to natural phenomena. In that respect, Darwin
eminently qualifies. You confuse knowledge of content with the
methodology. While Darwin may have had no formal training in what we
consider the science of Biology, per se, he did indeed have training in
the content at the level of complexity that it was understood at the
time. Your assumptions, above, are quite misguided.
> His observation that a bird in the Galapagos Island must have "evolved" from
> a similar looking bird in South America was not science--it was child's
> play.
Most important discoveres are. But it takes that genius to see the
simplicity in that. 20-20 hindsight is a poor judge of what had
previously been unknown.
Just because so many people accepted this as a "fact" is no reason
> whatsoever for American scientists to accept that notion. There is no
> scientific method to this obserevation at all. It would be equivalent to a
> "naturalist" 10,000 years from now finding a train axle in Italy and
> concluding that it "evolved" from a Cadillac axle found in Chicago.
You indicate your gross ignorance with how science works. For the most
part, science works on the concept of "theory" which, put most simply,
is model formation. Scientific theories are really models which profess
to explain natural phenomena. The theory which best explains the
phenomena and is most useful in predicting futhre behavior is the one
which science generally accepts. Of course, a theory must have one very
important item-EVIDENCE which supports its tenets. And the theory of
evolution has that in abundance: The fossil record, comparative
morphology, comparative anatomy, comparative biochemistry, distribution
of contemporary species, just to name the broader categories. Darwin's
theory has quite plausable explanations and provides a model which
explains more of these pieces of "evidence" than any other explanation.
And we uncover more examples each day, so much so, that the
preponderence of evidence makes evolution less of a theory and more of a
fact.
> There is no doubt that the designs are similar. But this is no proof
> whatsoever of "evolution", is it?
It is only one item of evidence. When all the pieces of evidence, many
of which I mentioned above are considered, evolution is the ONLY
explanation that provides a plausable mechanism for the evidence we
have.
> > > Other than that, why not teach it? Because even after a century and a
> half
> > > of "scientists" trying to make the fossil evidence fit their "theory",
> not a
> > > single bone does that?
> >
> > Your ignorance and refusal to be confused by the facts is noted. Most
> > scientists consider the fossil record among the strongest evidences for
> > Darwin's theory.
>
> Agreed. It is the strongest evidence of his "theory". This is why his
> "theory" isn't a theory.
wrong. It is a valid theory because it does what theory is required to
do: Provide a model which explains the facts.
It's complete speculation.
Most theories are to a degree. But as their "speculation" is limited to
explaining the facts, they can be evaluated on their ability to do just
that. And Darwin's theory does that splendidly.
Not one single fossile
> comes anywhere close to being the "missing link" between two different
> species. Some things look the same--but so do train axles and Cadillac
> axles.
Your ignorance of the discoveries particularly in the field of human
anthropology is telling. Once genetics was understood and mutation was
identified as the mechanism of evolution, we understand that those
mutations aresmall. It is very unlikely that there will be a single
"missing link" which provides what you are looking for. Most mutations
are small, providing small changes over time. We can find fossils of
hominids that have characteristics of both modern primates and members
of the genus homo, but much is unknown about how they lived to state
definitively that this was the exact point of divergence between tho two
genus.
You must educate yourself more completely on recent discoveries before
you continue to make those assertions above, which do not serve as a
refutation of evolution. They are ar cry of the dogmatic and
unknowledgeable, but they hold no water.
Now, if you cited Haldane's Dilema, perhaps we could have a discussion,
but you lack the sophistication to understand the complexities of that.
> > Yes, that's a very good reason for Christians to
> > > object to their children being taught that the "theory of evolution" is
> > > "science".
> >
> > Only those who do not understand what science is object. And in
> > America, the desire to remain forever ignorant is indeed a right.
> >
>
> Again, agreed. Until you look into the "evidence" that Charles Darwin based
> his "theory" on, you will remain forever ignorant of the facts.
> http://fathersmanifesto.com/darwin.htm
Darwin basedhis theory on evidence which he observed with his eyes and
wrote down in his notes. Others observed the same thing. Darwin only
invented a model which served to explain the process by which he
accounted for those observations. We call that model the theory of
evolution.
> > > This discredits real science so seriously that it's no wonder that we
> scored
> > > so low in the world in science tests. Intelligent children sense the
> > > disconnect and don't trust their science teachers any longer.
> >
> > You of course have documentary evidence to support your amazing
> > conjectures above, of course?
>
> Most countries don't accept Darwin's "theory of evolution". Instead, they
> teach Christianity.
I am ill equiped to reply to the above obviously incorrect statement.
Perhaps the poster can provide specific documentation for his irrational
comment above?
There are few nations in the world which do a worse job
> of teaching science than we do. We ranked 17th out of the countries which
> took TIMSS Science, but countries like Korea, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic,
> the Netherlands, Slovenia, Austria, Hungary, England, Belgium, Australia,
> the Slovak Republic, Ireland, and Russia, who all teach creation as defined
> in the Holy Bible, scored higher than we did:
Yes, indeed we did poorly. But as you are well aware, the sampling
techniques and access to education had something to do with that. Had
we elected only our top students( as did many of those countries which
scored more highly ) we wouldn't have come out so bad.
As far as your irrational assertions above, you are incorrect. Perhaps
you can provide documentation for your glib assertions?
> > Your misguided opinions do not qualify, unfortunately for you.
> >
> > > This could never, ever have happened if we had had qualified teachers in
> the
> > > first place. They would have never accepted such "theories" as real
> > > science.
> >
> > Teachers of science are skeptics by nature and critically evaluate
> > assertions through evaluation of the evidence. They, unlike you, do not
> > refuse to evaluate the facts as they exist. You, OTOH, refuse to be
> > confused by those very facts which lead to your unsubstantiated rants
> > above.
> >
> > Alan
>
> Most American children aren't presented with all of the facts regarding
> Darwin.
Incorrect. Darwin's theory is presented quite correctly on the high
school level in each state with which I am familiar. Things which you
claim as "facts" are in reality unsubstantiated religious beliefs.
If they were presented with all of them, they too would reject his
> ranting and raving as "science" or as a "theory". You most likely will
> reject it too if you took as much time to look into the history of Darwin as
> you've taken to defend our failed education system.
I have read Darwin in the original, read his detractors( at the time )
as well as his supporters. Additionally, I have familiarized myself
quite thoroughly with all the related evidence and I find NO, absolutely
NO reason to doubt the validity of his theory. Furthermore, recent
writers support him, and while there have been variations to his
theories( punctuated equilibrium, for one ), the basic concept of
evolution is accepted.
Perhaps you can post some of the things you feel are "facts" so I can
explain to you the fallacy of your reasoning?
As to your comment about my support of our failed educational system, I
understand that inanimate systems don't fail, students do. Once we
understand the distinction, we can correctly address shortcomings.
Again, that level of abstraction also apparently eludes you, hence, your
suspicious beliefs above.
> If you were to set out to intentionally subvert the American education
> process, rejecting the Holy Bible, the wisdom of our Forefathers, the
> written record, and supplanting it with cockeyed "theories" like this would
> be an excellent way to reach your objective quickly.
Whose Bible? The Christian Bible? The Jewish? The Hindu or Budhist
writings? The Koran?
Are you starting to see how your prejudices are intruding into common
sense?
Alan
BigKookSam
What made god?
Alan Lichtenstein
>
> In article <3AD4B7...@erols.com>, Alan Lichtenstein
> <alichtens...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> > Teachers of science are skeptics by nature and critically evaluate
> > assertions through evaluation of the evidence. They, unlike you, do not
> > refuse to evaluate the facts as they exist. You, OTOH, refuse to be
> > confused by those very facts which lead to your unsubstantiated rants
> > above.
> >
> > Alan
>
> Alan, you are NOT a Teacher of Science! You are a teacher of "Scientism"
> which is a belief system and not based on facts...
>
those based on facts and evidence. Furthermore, I teach the systematic
examination of that evidence by a particular method. I teach how those
conjectures may be tested, again according to a particular methology and
then to make conclusions based on outcomes.
No, Gerhard, I form my beliefs based on evidence, not on faith.
Based on your support of fm, it is a pity I cannot say the same of you.
Alan
Alex
> Well said.
>
> The fact that weaker species may have been supplanted by stronger species
> should be reason enough that human beings don't go to war with their
> neighbors to kill them (except for "wars" which consist of economic
> competition where the objective is to produce a better product).
Thy shalt not kill, even for the sake of producing a better product.
Alex.
greggi
Raymond E. Griffith wrote in message ...
>in article k74B6.4725$Ow3.1...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com, greggi at
>gre...@ntlworld.com wrote on 4/11/2001 5:24 PM:
>
>> Dear John,
>>
>> Evolution is a fine theory but the maths does not add up. Conservative
>> estimates put the chance of life being created by natural means in the
>> universe at 1/ 10 to the power of 28
>> (1/10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000).
I found this figure in a 'Creationist' book. It may be simple and biased
but it seems reasonable. The chance of the right chemicals binding in a
link 100 parts long (NASA looks for life with links 400 long) in a period of
15 billion years is as above. I am unable to locate the book at the moment
so I am afraid I can say little more. I belive amino acids are the most
basic form of life but the may be more than 400 links long.
>>Statistically The process of evolution is equally statistically unsound.
I agree that we >>should enthusiastically embrace science but remain wary of
biased (atheist) >>interpretations.
I agree we may all be biased and should all be ready to humble ourselves and
learn.
>I am not defending Mr. Callahan's viewpoints, as I do not believe in
>fallable Scriptures.
Scriptures are written by fallible men. We must 'Study them to show
ourselves approved unto God, workmen rightly dividing the word of Truth.
Ref 1 Sam 16:14.
>But I would like to ask where you got your figures
>from? Quote your sources. Investigate as to how they got their numbers.
Good principle. I regret misplacing the source at this moment.
>Most of these numbers games are exercises in pure imagination. I am a
>statistician, and your numbers mean nothing to me, nor would they to anyone
>educated enough to understand their significance.
>
>Stating that we can only accept a probability of 5% is also meaningless.
>Winning the lottery has a much smaller probability than that, yet someone
>does.
I would not get in a vehicle or ascribe to a theory if it only had a 5%
chance of saftey!
>
>Oh yes, your arguments sound fine, but they mean nothing! You talk about
>biased interpretations, and attach the term "bias" to the "atheist" camp
>(wrongly assuming that all people who believe that evolution exists makes
>them atheists!). But "bias" is just as much a property of the "creationist"
>camp as well. As long as we don't recognize our own biases, we make
>ourselves to be perfect fools.
I agree.
>
>You speak of design. But design is as much about perspective as anything. I
>dare say that I can see design and pattern where you would only see
>randomness. Then again, anyone who knows some mathematics also knows that
>random effects very often result in what we consider to be recognizable
>design. Ever hear of fractals?
>
Good point.
>Our world is too complex to bear an overly simplistic explanations. We
>Christians need to be *very* careful not to speak about what we do not know
>-- and be willing to admit when we are wrong.
>
>We damage the cause of Christ otherwise!
>
>Raymond E. Griffith
Thank you for obliterating my unworthy contributions. I humbly accept that
you are right. I seem to wasting your time but your comments are valuable
to me. Do you have any contributions? I expect they should not so flimsy.
Yours in the Love of Christ,
Gregg.
Ray and Mary
from
> trying. They want free competition. So we see weaker person fallyng prey
to
> stronger. Weaker company falling to stronger, weaker peoples and nations
falling
> to stronger. The evolution hype is but one of the PR methods necessary to
> justify al this cruelty and injustice.
Evolution is treated by our brothers and sisters the same way that the
heliocentric theory was treated in Galileo's day. The religious leaders of
the day had very big theological problems with the idea that the Earth
rotates around the Sun, rather than the other way around.
When the evolutionary theory was first formed, the atheistic intellegencia
of the day seized it as proof that God isn't necessary for the formation of
life. They then tried to conclude that God doesn't exist because evolution
renders him unnecessary.
That is, of course, a silly conclusion. It is logically incorrect to
include that something doesn't exist just because it isn't needed for a
specific process. These are supposed to be intellegent people, but they
obviously made quite a large boneheaded error. (was it intentional or
accidental? Were they knowingly using incorrect logic to press their point,
or were they simply decieved?)
Many of our brothers and sisters came up with equally silly arguements
against evolution (I haven't seen a single one that is effective, and I have
seen a lot). They are, quite simply, attacking the wrong thing. They
should be exposing the folly of the arguement that God doesn't exist because
evolution makes him unnecessary. Instead, they are attacking the theory
itself.
By the way, a whole lot of modern theologians accept what the call
"microevolution" (adaptations of an animal without changing from one species
to another), but reject what they call "macroevolution" (a slow change from
one species to another).
So, the concept of "survival of the fittest" is accepted by such
conservatives as J. Vernon McGee.
There are times when this survival is based on group action by the animals
(herds, for instance). There are times when the strong fall. There are
lots of times where an advantage turns into a disadvantage. This is all
accounted for in the theory.
There is a moth in Europe that is generally a light color. That way, it can
hide better on the trunks of trees and avoid being eaten by birds. During
the industrial revolution, a whole lot more dark moths began to appear
because the soot from the coal that fueled the revolution darkened the tree
trunks. After a while, nearly all of the moths were dark. Once coal was
abandoned in favor of oil and gas, the trees lost their coating of soot and
white moths started to appear again. This is an example of
"microevolution", and it was observed, and it was documented.
Ray Drouillard
BigKookSam
Ray and Mary
> Excellent insight, Ray.
Thank you :)
>
> If we want to live like animals, it's easy to do. It's easier for
> individual men to do that than it is for them to recognize what's
important
> to the success of a Christian culture like ours as a whole. There isn't a
> more important difference between animals and homo sapiens than this, is
> there?
It happens in some countries more than others.
The simple truth is that a moral people needs little government, while an
immoral people require someone to watch over them and make sure that they
don't mistreat and kill each other. Unfortunately, the government ends up
being as immoral as the people. We see examples in today's societies,
history, and in the Bible.
>
> "Survival of the fittest" (with "survival" meaning economic success) is
what
> created our successful free enterprise system, but winning the economic
> battle doesn't require anyone to stop loving their neighbor.
You can compete without being ruthless. If you compete by trying to produce
a better product, you help yourself and your customer.
>
> Sometimes the one we love the most is the economic competitor who made the
> big mistake which enabled you to be the survivor );
My former boss ran his company without integrity. The company is now
failing rapidly (I saw it coming and bailed). It's a case of zero to two
million to zero in fourteen years. They had their day in the sun, but it
has cought up with them.
>
> John Knight
Ray Drouillard
BigKookSam
<gre...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>Evolution is a fine theory but the maths does not add up. Conservative
>estimates put the chance of life being created by natural means in the
>universe at 1/ 10 to the power of 28
>(1/10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000). Statistically we can only
>accept probability of 1/20 or 5%. The process of evolution is equally
>statistically unsound. I agree that we should enthusiastically embrace
>science but remain wary of biased (atheist) interpretations. God created
>out of nothing (Creatio ex-nihilo) and God continues to create (Creatio
>Continua). Design is a very compelling argument.
If this is true, then god is a major screw up!
68 planets found outside our solar system and counting....
Ray and Mary
> problem is that science itself has been unable to locate and identify even
> ONE "missing link" which demonstrates the "evolution" of one species into
> "theory" here by no means fits the scientific criteria to be a "theory"]
is
> childish speculation by IDIOTS (who aren't "scientists" at all) that the
> bones of one species look similar to the bones of another species, so one
> must have evolved from the other.
>
> That is not a "theory". That is childish speculation, at best. But even
> worse, to teach that this is "science", in the face of the fact that not a
> single bone of the millions of bones which have been found supports that
> "theory".
If you actually take the time to learn about it, the theory is rather well
fleshed out, internally consistent, and makes lots of sense.
The real silliness is the fact that some of the "enlightened" ones try to
use the theory as proof that God isn't necessary, and therefore doesn't
exist.
We Christians, unfortunately, are spending our time attacking the
evolutionary theory, rather than attacking the foolish corrilary.
The evolutionary theory contains NOTHING that denies the existance of God.
We need to leave it alone, just like we no longer are bothered by the theory
that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
Ray Drouillard
Ray and Mary
Where did you arrive at the 10^-28 figure? I am really curious about the
details.
Your entire arguement is based on that figure, and I have no notion of how
anyone can derive such a figure.
Besides, God doesn't worry about the odds. If he wanted to start the
process of evolution in motion, he can do it - no matter what the odds.
Ray Drouillard
"greggi" <gre...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:k74B6.4725$Ow3.1...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Ray and Mary
> >fallable Scriptures.
>
> Scriptures are written by fallible men. We must 'Study them to show
> ourselves approved unto God, workmen rightly dividing the word of Truth.
> Ref 1 Sam 16:14.
Do you doubt that God can use fallible men to create infallible scriptures?
The scriptures are (to borrow an expression) Gospel truth :)
In the earliest Bible classes that I took, I learned that the actual writers
are actually the "pen". When I put pen to paper, I don't say that the pen
wrote what I put down on the paper.
Certainly, the personality of the writers shows up in the scriptures. They
are INSPIRED by God, and are therefore infallible.
The translations are NOT infallible, but they are pretty good. I use
several translations so that I don't end up depending on the translation of
any one group of men.
Another good point about the Bible is that any important message is repeated
several times in several different voices. No matter how bad the
translation (within reason), you can rightly divide the truth.
Ray
Samuel Lubell
noticed that on Wed, 11 Apr 2001 12:33:04 -0700, Joni J Rathbun
<jrat...@orednet.org> sent via passenger pigeon:
>
>On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, fm wrote:
>
>
>> This discredits real science so seriously that it's no wonder that we scored
>> so low in the world in science tests. Intelligent children sense the
>> disconnect and don't trust their science teachers any longer.
>
>This certainly doesn't explain why US school districts came in first,
>third, fourth and fifth in the TIMSS science test. Hint: none of these
>school districts were in Kansas.
Huh??? The study you are referring to from last week (the TIMSS-R
Benchmarking study) only included U.S. school districts and compared
them to the TIMSS-R averages of other nations. See
http://www.timss.org/timss1999benchmark.html. That's like being
surprised that a North American team always wins the baseball World
Series.
And even so, all but one of these best districts failed to outscore
the *average* for Taipai and Singapore.
However, fm is wrong about everything else. Evolution isn't
questioned in Japan and Europe, even in the countries that score much
higher in science than does the U.S.
some o
Philip Nicholls
Right) wrote:
>In article <3AD4B7...@erols.com>, Alan Lichtenstein
><alichtens...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Teachers of science are skeptics by nature and critically evaluate
>> assertions through evaluation of the evidence. They, unlike you, do not
>> refuse to evaluate the facts as they exist. You, OTOH, refuse to be
>> confused by those very facts which lead to your unsubstantiated rants
>> above.
>>
>> Alan
>
>Alan, you are NOT a Teacher of Science! You are a teacher of "Scientism"
>which is a belief system and not based on facts...
>
>Gerhard
I am a teacher of science and in my opinion Alan is right on the
money.
med...@bearfabrique.org
>These are not necessarly mutually exclusive, but it misses the point. The
>problem is that science itself has been unable to locate and identify even
>ONE "missing link" which demonstrates the "evolution" of one species into
>another. All "science" has as "proof" of this "theory" [and the word
>"theory" here by no means fits the scientific criteria to be a "theory"] is
>childish speculation by IDIOTS (who aren't "scientists" at all) that the
>bones of one species look similar to the bones of another species, so one
>must have evolved from the other.
>
>That is not a "theory". That is childish speculation, at best. But even
>worse, to teach that this is "science", in the face of the fact that not a
>single bone of the millions of bones which have been found supports that
>"theory".
>
>John Knight
You sure do have that one right. Glad to see more and more people
figuring this business out.
Evolution has been so thoroughly discredited at this point that you
assume nobody is defending it because they believe in it
anymore, and that they are defending it because they do not like the
prospects of having to defend or explain some axpect of their
lifestyles to God, St. Peter, Muhammed et. al.
To these people I say, you've still got a problem. The problem is that
evolution, as a doctrine, is so overwhelmingly STUPID that,
faced with a choice of wearing a sweatshirt with a scarlet letter F
(for fornicator), D (Democrat), O (Other loser of some sort or
other) or I (for IDIOT), you'd actually be better off sticking with
one of the former choices because, as Clint Eastwood noted in
The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly:
God hates IDIOTS, too!
The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves
trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new
basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between
both old and new organs.
Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to
become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized
systems, including wings, flight feathers, a specialized light bone
structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs,
specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.
For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until
the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the
chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling
evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an
infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.
In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things
happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says
that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is
ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth
or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe
isn't long enough for that to happen once.
All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than
that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for
hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to
evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori.
In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk
around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march
towards a future requirement which evolution requires.
And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism
dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were
to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become
a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations
rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first,
having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have
DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.
Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of
complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for
life had ever evolved ONCE.
Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has
happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite
number of absolutely zero probability events.
And, if you were starting to think that nothing could possibly be any
stupider than believing in evolution despite all of the above (i.e.
that the basic stupidity of evolutionism starting from 1980 or
thereabouts could not possibly be improved upon), think again.
Because there is zero evidence in the fossil record (despite the BS
claims of talk.origins "crew" and others of their ilk) to support
any sort of a theory involving macroevolution, and because the
original conceptions of evolution are flatly refuted by developments
in population genetics since the 1950's, the latest incarnation of
this theory, Steve Gould and Niles Eldredge's "Punctuated
Equilibrium or punc-eek" attempts to claim that these wholesale
violations of probabilistic laws all occurred so suddenly as to never
leave evidence in the fossil record, and that they all occurred
amongst tiny groups of animals living in "peripheral" areas. That says
that some velocirapter who wanted to be a bird got together with fifty
of his friends and said:
Guys, we need flight feathers, and wings, and specialized
bones, hearts, lungs, and tails, and we need em NOW; not
two years from now. Everybody ready, all together now:
OOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....
You could devise a new religion by taking the single stupidest
doctrine from each of the existing religions, and it would not be as
stupid as THAT.
But it gets even stupider.
Again, the original Darwinian vision of gradualistic evolution is
flatly refuted by the fossil record (Darwinian evolution demanded that
the vast bulk of ALL fossils be intermediates) and by the findings of
population genetics, particularly the Haldane dilemma and the
impossible time requirements for spreading genetic changes through any
sizeable herd of animals.
Consider what Gould and other punk-eekers are saying. Punc-eek amounts
to a claim that all meaningful evolutionary change takes
place in peripheral areas, amongst tiny groups of animals which
develop some genetic advantage, and then move out and
overwhelm, outcompete, and replace the larger herds. They are claiming
that this eliminates the need to spread genetic change
through any sizeable herd of animals and, at the same time, is why we
never find intermediate fossils (since there are never enough
of these CHANGELINGS to leave fossil evidence).
Obvious problems with punctuated equilibria include, minimally:
1. It is a pure pseudoscience seeking to explain and actually be
proved by a lack of evidence rather than by evidence
(all the missing intermediate fossils). Similarly, Cotton Mather
claimed that the fact that nobody had ever seen or heard
a witch was proof they were there (if you could see or hear them, they
wouldn't be witches...) The best example of that sort of logic in
fact that there ever was was Michael O'Donahue's parody of the
Connecticut Yankee (New York Yankee in King Arthur's Court) which
showed Reggie looking for a low outside fastball and then getting
beaned cold by a high inside one, the people feeling Reggie's wrist
for pulse, and Reggie back in Camelot, where they had him bound hand
and foot. Some guy was shouting "Damned if e ain't black from ead to
foot, if that ain't witchcraft I never saw it!!!", everybody was
yelling "Witchcraft Trial!, Witchcraft Trial!!", and they were
building a scaffold. Reggie looks at King Arthur and says "Hey man,
isn't that just a tad premature, I mean we haven't even had the TRIAL
yet!", and Arthur replies "You don't seem to understand, son, the
hanging IS the trial; if you survive that, that means you're a witch
and we gotta burn ya!!!" Again, that's precisely the sort of logic
which goes into Gould's variant of evolutionism, Punk-eek.
2. PE amounts to a claim that inbreeding is the most major source
of genetic advancement in the world. Apparently Steve Gould never saw
Deliverance...
3. PE requires these tiny peripheral groups to conquer vastly
larger groups of animals millions if not billions of times, which is
like requiring Custer to win at the little Big Horn every day, for
millions of years.
4. PE requires an eternal victory of animals specifically adapted
to localized and parochial conditions over animals which are globally
adapted, which never happens in real life.
5. For any number of reasons, you need a minimal population of
any animal to be viable. This is before the tiny group even gets
started in overwhelming the vast herds. A number of American species
such as the heath hen became non-viable when their numbers were
reduced to a few thousand; at that point, any stroke of bad luck at
all, a hard winter, a skewed sex ratio in one generation, a disease of
some sort, and it's all over. The heath hen was fine as long as it was
spread out over the East coast of the U.S. The point at which it got
penned into one of these "peripheral" areas which Gould and Eldredge
see as the salvation for evolutionism, it was all over.
The sort of things noted in items 3 and 5 are generally referred to as
the "gambler's problem", in this case, the problem facing the
tiny group of "peripheral" animals being similar to that facing a
gambler trying to beat the house in blackjack or roulette; the house
could lose many hands of cards or rolls of the dice without flinching,
and the globally-adapted species spread out over a continent
could withstand just about anything short of a continental-scale
catastrophe without going extinct, while two or three bad rolls of the
dice will bankrupt the gambler, and any combination of two or three
strokes of bad luck will wipe out the "peripheral" species.
Gould's basic method of handling this problem is to ignore it.
And there's one other thing which should be obvious to anybody
attempting to read through Gould and Eldridge's BS:
They don't even bother to try to provide a mechanism or
technical explaination of any sort for this "punk-eek"
They are claiming that at certain times, amongst tiny groups of
animals living in peripheral areas, a "speciation event(TM)" happens,
and THEN the rest of it takes place. In other words, they are saying:
ASSUMING that Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happens, then the rest
of the business proceeds as we have described in our
scholarly discourse above!
Again, Gould and Eldridge require that the Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM)
happen not just once, but countless billions of times, i.e. at
least once for every kind of complex creature which has ever walked
the Earth. They do not specify whether this amounts to the
same Abracadabra-Shazaam each time, or a different kind of
Abracadabra-Shazaam for each creature.
I ask you: How could anything be stupider or worse than that? What
could possibly be worse than professing to believe in such a
thing?
Ted Holden
www.bearfabrique.org
Raymond E. Griffith
gre...@ntlworld.com wrote on 4/11/2001 7:33 PM:
>
> Raymond E. Griffith wrote in message ...
>> in article k74B6.4725$Ow3.1...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com, greggi at
>> gre...@ntlworld.com wrote on 4/11/2001 5:24 PM:
>>
>>> Dear John,
>>>
>>> Evolution is a fine theory but the maths does not add up. Conservative
>>> estimates put the chance of life being created by natural means in the
>>> universe at 1/ 10 to the power of 28
>>> (1/10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000).
>
> I found this figure in a 'Creationist' book. It may be simple and biased
> but it seems reasonable. The chance of the right chemicals binding in a
> link 100 parts long (NASA looks for life with links 400 long) in a period of
> 15 billion years is as above. I am unable to locate the book at the moment
> so I am afraid I can say little more. I belive amino acids are the most
> basic form of life but the may be more than 400 links long.
>
Actually, the way they cook the numbers is unreasonable -- an attempt at
statistics that doesn't wash. I hate to say it, but there is a lot of bad
math in Creationist literature. I wish it wasn't the case.
They make up certain assumptions (if you press them on it, they say they are
being "generous"), and then proceed on those assumptions as if they were
facts. Others quote the numbers from another source as if they were gospel,
etc.
As I said, I am a statistician. Statistics can be a very common sense
subject. But it can also be made confusing quite easily, and most people are
so afraid of math that they will gladly accept the word of someone else who
says that they "know".
>>> Statistically The process of evolution is equally statistically unsound.
Maybe, but again, this is really a misuse of statistics.
> I agree that we >>should enthusiastically embrace science but remain wary of
> biased (atheist) >>interpretations.
>
> I agree we may all be biased and should all be ready to humble ourselves and
> learn.
>
Good! Then you are beginning to learn a lesson that I had to learn the hard
way. I thought I knew it all, until I met someone wiser than myself who knew
that he did not. A good education helped me gain perspective.
>> I am not defending Mr. Callahan's viewpoints, as I do not believe in
>> fallable Scriptures.
>
> Scriptures are written by fallible men. We must 'Study them to show
> ourselves approved unto God, workmen rightly dividing the word of Truth.
> Ref 1 Sam 16:14.
>
Written by fallible men, but men indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God to
produce a work without error and utterly trustworthy.
But my inability to reconcile Scripture with science does not make either
one untrue or unsound. Rather it points to my limited intellect.
>> But I would like to ask where you got your figures
>> from? Quote your sources. Investigate as to how they got their numbers.
>
> Good principle. I regret misplacing the source at this moment.
>
It is a good principle. But I am afraid that even when you quote sources
within the creationist literature, you may still have troubles. I recently
read a document detailing that an article claiming to refute evolution had
quoted several sources that did not exist. The person writing the article
claimed to be on the boards of three publications. And while he was on the
board of one, the other two simply are nowhere to be found. I hate
intellectual dishonesty. It also happens to be spiritual dishonesty!
>> Most of these numbers games are exercises in pure imagination. I am a
>> statistician, and your numbers mean nothing to me, nor would they to anyone
>> educated enough to understand their significance.
>>
>> Stating that we can only accept a probability of 5% is also meaningless.
>> Winning the lottery has a much smaller probability than that, yet someone
>> does.
>
> I would not get in a vehicle or ascribe to a theory if it only had a 5%
> chance of saftey!
Uhhh, sounds good again. But it is again a misuse of statistics.
There are in statistical theory several ways to make decisions about
hypotheses. These always involve statistical tests on the data. "The testing
of a statistical hypothesis is the application of an explicit set of rules
for deciding whether to accept the null hypothesis of to reject it in favor
of the alternative hypothesis." (From a stats book in my library). The 5%
rule in here comes as a favorite value for the probability of committing a
Type I error (rejecting the null hypothesis when it is true).
Unfortunately, people misuse mathematics and say all sorts of atrocious
things without realizing what they are doing. To a math teacher it is
painfully humorous to see it.
These Let me give you an illustration. While I don't know for certain the
probability of unprotected, um, "marital relations" resulting in pregnancy,
suppose that the probability of it were, say, 1% each time. If you and your
wife wanted a baby, would you let that low figure keep you from trying?
Supposing that these figures were true, in 70 tries the probability that you
would not be a father by that time would be less than 50%.
Do you have automobile insurance? I bet you do. But try this. Calculate the
number of accidents/incidents you have had since you started driving.
Calculate the number of times you have been behind the wheel of a car. Why
the probability of an accident at any particular time you are behind the
wheel is terribly small! Why do you carry insurance? Not just because it is
required by law. If you haven't needed it yet, you reasonably conclude that
sometime you might, and you know people who have needed it!
You do a lot of things based upon anticipation or avoidance of certain items
with probabilities of far less than 5%. Tell me, have you *ever* entered the
Reader's Digest Sweepstakes?
>>
>> Oh yes, your arguments sound fine, but they mean nothing! You talk about
>> biased interpretations, and attach the term "bias" to the "atheist" camp
>> (wrongly assuming that all people who believe that evolution exists makes
>> them atheists!). But "bias" is just as much a property of the "creationist"
>> camp as well. As long as we don't recognize our own biases, we make
>> ourselves to be perfect fools.
>
> I agree.
>>
>> You speak of design. But design is as much about perspective as anything. I
>> dare say that I can see design and pattern where you would only see
>> randomness. Then again, anyone who knows some mathematics also knows that
>> random effects very often result in what we consider to be recognizable
>> design. Ever hear of fractals?
>>
> Good point.
>
>> Our world is too complex to bear an overly simplistic explanations. We
>> Christians need to be *very* careful not to speak about what we do not know
>> -- and be willing to admit when we are wrong.
>>
>> We damage the cause of Christ otherwise!
>>
>> Raymond E. Griffith
>
> Thank you for obliterating my unworthy contributions. I humbly accept that
> you are right.
Uh, I really did not come into this with the intent of obliterating anything
or anyone. If you felt so, I apologize.
What I *do* want is for you to be willing to investigate things very
closely. Ask questions -- even the ones you don't want to ask!
Above all, be careful to keep a teachable spirit. Don't use invectives
against others. It hardens them in their error if they are wrong, and it
prevents them from acknowledging the truth you possess even if they wanted
to. It is the goodness of God that brings men to repentance.
> I seem to wasting your time but your comments are valuable
> to me. Do you have any contributions? I expect they should not so flimsy.
>
No, you are not wasting my time. I am still a learner myself. There is much
I do not know. But I am working on learning. Still, there is more to learn
than could be absorbed in several lifetimes.
Here is what I try to remember. God created His World, and He wants us to
get to know it and how it works. God gave us His Word. Ditto.
If in my studies of His Word and His World, I run into contradictions, I do
not assume that one or the other is necessarily wrong. However, my
understanding is imperfect and limited by (among other things), my lack of
intellect. So I give my lack of understanding to God. I ask Him to guide me
as I try to know Him, His Word, and His World. He does not lie in His Word
or His World. So I will try to understand. And until I do, I will reserve
judgment on those things that I don't understand.
If I locate something that can be proven false, I will put that into the
rejected file, with appropriate notes as to why. Things that can be proven
true, I will also file appropriately.
And I expect to understand everything better when in His Presence.
> Yours in the Love of Christ,
>
> Gregg.
>
Yours as we grow in Him,
Raymond
>
BigKookSam
Any religious person out there who knows this?
Raymond E. Griffith
med...@bearfabrique.org wrote on 4/11/2001 11:45 PM:
> In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things
> happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says
> that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is
> ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth
> or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe
> isn't long enough for that to happen once.
Well, a bit imprecise (to say the least!).
Question, please. How much probability theory have you taken? What courses?
Will you please elaborate on whether or not this is the whole scope of
probability theory's influence on the subject?
Just curious.
Raymond
Ray and Mary
> assume nobody is defending it because they believe in it
> anymore, and that they are defending it because they do not like the
> prospects of having to defend or explain some axpect of their
> lifestyles to God, St. Peter, Muhammed et. al.
Is it really? Where did you get that information? Do you have any
documentation?
The only people who call it "discredited" are those who have some kind of a
compelling reason to believe that it isn't true - sort of like the case
where a certain scientist was given a guided tour of the dungeon of the
inquisition in order to induce him to retract the "herecy" that the Earth
revolves around the Sun.
Some fools long ago tried to use the evolutionary theory to prove that God
doesn't exist. Their logic was badly flawed. It is not difficult at all to
prove their logic to be flawed. Why waste our time attacking evolution?
If someone comes up with a chain of logic that says that God doesn't exist
because the sky is blue, are we going to stomp our feet and try to prove
that the sky isn't blue?
>
> God hates IDIOTS, too!
No, God loves idiots. He loves all of us. Even our best wisdom is
foolishness to him, anyway :-)
God doesn't judge us by our mind. He judges us by our heart. He loves us
enough to die for us - even the idiots ;=)
>
> The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves
> trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new
> basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between
> both old and new organs.
<snipped a whole bunch of weak logic>
If you take the time to gain a basic understanding of the theory, you'll
find it to be logical and internally consistent. It doesn't answer every
question, but few theories do. Newton's laws of motion are not considered
useless and invalid just because they don't answer the question of what
happens when you get near the speed of light. Einstein's theories of
relativity come into play at that point.
Ray Drouillard
Ray and Mary
> If in my studies of His Word and His World, I run into contradictions, I
do
> not assume that one or the other is necessarily wrong. However, my
> understanding is imperfect and limited by (among other things), my lack of
> intellect. So I give my lack of understanding to God. I ask Him to guide
me
> as I try to know Him, His Word, and His World. He does not lie in His Word
> or His World. So I will try to understand. And until I do, I will reserve
> judgment on those things that I don't understand.
Very well said!
The only thing that I can add is that we should search for those appearent
contradictions. In studying them, we very often find a deeper truth. When
we study them and ask God for help, we work towards getting a bigger picture
that contains the contradiction and answers it.
I hope that wasn't too flakey and philosophical :)
Ray Drouillard
claude gagne
just as flawed since based on the biblical rendering.
Said book has been tempered with so often in history as to be made very
suspicious...
ever bothered to read the first few pages. pages upon pages of version of
versions...
you assume the stand that since no fossil of certain type
have not been found therefore they do not exist.
Very convenient since you cannot prove god exist or
ever existed...
yet you would like everyone to beleive???
Seems to me that both theory are wrong. And remember that everything remains
a theory until proven...
So stop feeling so almighty superior espousing a so called truth which as no
established factuality...
And when you and people of your ilk have taken over
and established your tyranical religious agenda we will find the earth flat
again and the pyre will resound of the sereams of the modern equivalent of
witches.
But that's ok with me, I wont be here then i will have emigrated to a
country where tolerence and intellect will still mean something.
By the way this is my last post.
this use to be an interesting groups before the religious bigot took it over
instead of posting on religious groups.
and imposing their views on everbody...
Alberto Moreira
>
> What made god?
>
> Any religious person out there who knows this?
God is. Period.
Alberto.
Michael S. Morris
Thursday, the 12th of April, 2001
Alex wrote:
It is a peculiar feature of western civilization
to justify its own actions by "naturality" [...]
Excuse me, but you were just told that "survival
of the fittest" is *not* a justification of
anything. It is not an ethical proposition.
(It is not even a remotely valid summary of
evolutionary biology.) The fact that it has
been advanced as an ethical proposition from
time to time by some human beings is absolutely
irrelevant to everything you say, since no one
around here has so advanced it.
Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)
Michael S. Morris
Thursday, the 12th of April, 2001
Someone said (sorry, the attributions were unclear):
Evolution is a fine theory but the maths
does not add up. Conservative estimates put
the chance of life being created by natural
means in the universe at 1/ 10 to the power of 28
(1/10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000).
Such numbers as estimates of the chance of life supposedly
arising randomly are of course absurd ignorances.
They assume randomness where almost certainly
certain sequences and links in molecular chains
are energetically preferred to others.
It doesn't have to be biology for us to play exactly the
same game: Simple high-school physics will do.
I hold a pen in my hand out from my chair approximately
one meter off of the floor. I let it go. It drops to the
floor. Now, I imagine a sphere of one meter radius
centered at my hand---its surface area will be about
12.6 square meters (=4*pi*r^2). Divide that up into
ten patches, each of area 1.26 square meters. Each patch
defines a rough direction that my pen could a priori go.
But, when I let my pen go, it falls into the 1.26 square
meter patch directly under my hand. What are its chances
of doing that? Clearly 1 in 10. It could have gone in
any other direction---flown sideways out the window, hit
the ceiling above, and didn't. Now I repeat my experiment.
The pen falls into the same patch again. What are the
odds it would do that? Clearly 1/10 to the 2nd power,
or 1 in 100. In fact, I repeat the experiment 28 times,
and every time the pen drops into the same 1.26 square meter
patch on the floor. It's a miracle! The a priori odds of my pen
going in that same direction 28 times out of 28 are
clearly 1/10 to the 28th power, or 1/10,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000.
The moral of this story: Physics is a fine theory but the
maths do not add up.
Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)
Alberto Moreira
If one mangles the math to fit one's intended meaning, sure, the
math may end up not matching. But then, don't blame the math,
because math is abstract and content-free. The problems start
when we ascribe meaning to the math.
You see, the very first thing about odds is, the experiment must
be repeatable. Second, you ust repeat a whole lot of it. Third,
probability is a *measure* on a *space*.
You don't have "odds" that the pen will fall here or there. You
have a *measure* on a large set of experiments: if you repeat
that experiment *often enough*, some proportion p<=1 of those
experiments will behave like this or like that. That measure
cannot, by any means, be taken as being the "odds" of one
specific experiment happening this or that way.
So, there are no "a priori" odds in the sense you're using it.
Again, probability is a measure in a space, and there's a reason
why people call these things a "measure". Philosophically if
anything else, it talks about "a posteriori" observation, with
hindsight. And it embeds the assumption that no, things won't
change now relative to the mass of experiments we did in the
past: because if they do, the experiment is no longer quite
repeatable, and who knows whether the statistics we developed
for that situation will still apply. The math will still make
sense, but nothing else can be guaranteed.
But the maths in physics do add up pretty well, or we wouldn't
be using our computers and our internets. In fact, the math in
physics adds very well thank you, a lot better than most other
science we know - to such an extent that some people, myself
included don't put much belief in any science that doesn't come
at least close to the level of mathematical match we find in
physics.
Alberto.
Herman Rubin
>On Wed, 11 Apr 2001 19:17:30 GMT, "fm" <j.w.k...@usa.net> wrote:
...............
> God hates IDIOTS, too!
Well, you are showing yourself to be one.
>The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves
>trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new
>basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between
>both old and new organs.
>Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to
>become one.
No evolutionist has claimed that such an approach was taken.
You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized
>systems, including wings, flight feathers, a specialized light bone
>structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs,
>specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.
If you have more than 50 million years for these to evolve,
is it that difficult.
>For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until
>the day on which the whole thing came together,
WRONG.
Feathers are the most efficient means of maintaining heat
known for any species on this planet, more efficient than
fur, and much more efficient than scales. They have more
similarity to scales than one would think possible. The
earliest stages in the development were not likely to have
made the full transition; it goes by small stages.
There are many jumping and gliding animals of many types.
There are gradual stages in the development of wings.
Human children are often born with webbed fingers. The
early stages in the development of birds were probably
fairly small (this was the case with many others) and
the same type of mutation could produce webbed arms.
As for tails, there are lots of deviations; the fully
specialized tail is not necessary, but helps efficiency.
Many birds do not have this efficiency. The heart and
lung development can also arise gradually.
so that the
>chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling
>evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an
>infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.
With trillions of individuals involved in the evolutionary
process, the necessary mutations could easily have happened.
They do not have to happen at once. The rate of significant
mutations seems to be on the order of 1 in 10^5, or higher.
>In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things
>happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together.
Not if you want to pass my course; this is one of the
stupid errors made by students and far too many
philosophers.
There is more of the same misuse of probability and
misunderstanding of natural selection.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Whats Right
Mary" <Droui...@home.com> wrote:
> > Evolution has been so thoroughly discredited at this point that you
> > assume nobody is defending it because they believe in it
> > anymore, and that they are defending it because they do not like the
> > prospects of having to defend or explain some axpect of their
> > lifestyles to God, St. Peter, Muhammed et. al.
>
>
> If you take the time to gain a basic understanding of the theory, you'll
> find it to be logical and internally consistent. It doesn't answer every
> question, but few theories do. Newton's laws of motion are not considered
> useless and invalid just because they don't answer the question of what
> happens when you get near the speed of light. Einstein's theories of
> relativity come into play at that point.
>
>
>
> Ray Drouillard
The question about origins is not one of science but of morality. Those
who cling to the hopeless theory of evolution do not want to be
accountable to the Creator. They will subscribe to all sorts of feeble
ideas, without scientific evidence, as long as God is left out. They
develop their opinions in the face of truth(which is absolute) so anything
goes they hope.
One scientific evidence that flies in the face of random accidentalism
(evolution) is the formation of information. Al living things have codes
of organized information that lead to function and purpose. Not only is
this true in individual creatures and plants but it is further expanded
into complete functioning ecosystems. Just to arrieve at the lowest stage
of the evolved entity a whole supporting ecosystem must be in place first.
So we are not trying to explain a single living thing, we must look, and
find, evidence of coincident
supporting living things(and this has never been done).
We worship and follow that which we wish. Don't try and couch this in science.
Gerhard
--
Recte Faciendo Neminem Timeas
Is it opinion? Is it fact? Is it truth?
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
fm <j.w.k...@usa.net> wrote:
>Most scientists disagree with you, jj.
I work in a building full of some of the top scientists in the country,
and they do NOT disagree with me.
>The case against Darwin
>by James Perloff
>© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com
This book is a JOKE.
Not only a joke, but a bad one.
--
Copyright j...@research.att.com 2001, all rights reserved, except transmission
by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any
use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this
article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
greggi <gre...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Dear John,
>Evolution is a fine theory but the maths does not add up.
Another Myth.
>Conservative
>estimates put the chance of life being created by natural means in the
>universe at 1/ 10 to the power of 28
>(1/10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000).
PER WHAT UNIT OF TIME?
Your statement of this "estimate" is not even correctly stated.
>Statistically we can only
>accept probability of 1/20 or 5%.
Why don't you find out what "acceptance" means before you
make this mistake?
The fact is, for each second, hour, or day, the start of life
by natural means is very small. When you look at the chance of
it NOT happening in 5 billion years, it then becomes a
near certainty that it DOES happen.
That's what the statistics say.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Whats Right <heat...@kalama.com> wrote:
>In article <GBn82...@research.att.com>, j...@research.att.com (jj,
>curmudgeon and tiring philalethist) wrote:
>Boy, is this crap!
I will expect a full and unqualified retraction of your
asssertion immediately.
>When was the last time you saw a fish turn into a
>lizard and then into a monkey?
This is clear from the fossil record, despite some of the
dishonest summaries I've seen.
>Or even a amino acid turn into a protein
>and that into DNA?
It happens inside you every second. If it didn't,
you'd be dead.
Ray and Mary
> > find it to be logical and internally consistent. It doesn't answer
every
> > question, but few theories do. Newton's laws of motion are not
considered
> > useless and invalid just because they don't answer the question of what
> > happens when you get near the speed of light. Einstein's theories of
> > relativity come into play at that point.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ray Drouillard
>
> The question about origins is not one of science but of morality.
Really? What does "Where did I come from" have to do with morality?
> Those
> who cling to the hopeless theory of evolution do not want to be
> accountable to the Creator.
You speak for them? Amazing!
You certainly don't speak for me! I depend very deeply on God. That does
not, however, keep me from studying science. I don't "cling to" the
evolutionary theory, any more than I cling to Newton's laws of motion or
Ohm's law. They are simply bodies of scientific knowledge that are useful.
> They will subscribe to all sorts of feeble
> ideas, without scientific evidence, as long as God is left out.
Some atheists do that. I mentioned the sheer folly of trying to prove that
God doesn't exist by trying to prove that he isn't necessary. If you want
to attack that flawed line of reasoning, go for it. Trying to attack a
well-established and internally consistent body of knowledge like that
generated by the theory of evolution is doomed to failure. Nobody who
understnads the science and looks at it with an open mind is going to be
convinced by the logically flawed arguements against it.
Unfortunately, lots of new Christians are told that they have to reject this
theory in order to have faith. They tend to not voice thier concerns and
just remain silent when they are bullied into believing some doctorine that
is not even mentioned in the Bible.
It's too bad that some are told that they can't be Christians if they
believe evolution to be a viable scientific body of knowledge.
> They
> develop their opinions in the face of truth(which is absolute) so anything
> goes they hope.
Actually, that statement is an accurate description of the "creation
science" camp.
>
> One scientific evidence that flies in the face of random accidentalism
> (evolution) is the formation of information. Al living things have codes
> of organized information that lead to function and purpose. Not only is
> this true in individual creatures and plants but it is further expanded
> into complete functioning ecosystems. Just to arrieve at the lowest stage
> of the evolved entity a whole supporting ecosystem must be in place first.
> So we are not trying to explain a single living thing, we must look, and
> find, evidence of coincident
> supporting living things(and this has never been done).
The above displays that you know little about the theory itself.
The concept of choosing the best fit out of random variations is very
powerful.
Imagine you have a big tub full of letters (alphabet noodles or whatever you
want). That tub contains no data. You can, however, choose the letters
that you want and write a letter or a novel. This is an oversimplification
of what "natural selection" is all about. It takes lots of time for the
random variations to do much, but it is a very slow process.
>
> We worship and follow that which we wish. Don't try and couch this in
science.
I worship God. I follow God. I study science because I like to do so. God
made me with an inquisitive mind.
Can you study the great composer Johan Sebastion Bach without studying his
music? Perhaps, but there will be something missing if you remain ignorant
of such a great part of his life. In the same way, I honor God and get to
know him better by studying the work of his hands.
>
> Gerhard
Ray Drouillard
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Raymond E. Griffith <rgri...@vnet.net> wrote:
>But what is worse than an unbelieving evolutionist?
Exactly what IS wrong with an unbelieving individual who
realizes that evolution is the only supportable theory around?
>A "believing"
>creationist who employs bad science deliberately so as to make his point. I
>have investigated many of the claims of the so-called "creation science"
>movement, and many of them are not only erroneous, but outright deceitful.
>This distresses me.
That echos my own experience, which raised the same questions.
>I have seen proposed as "creation science" the wildest speculation and
>fabrications imaginable without any attempt for proof -- all trying to make
>a point, and wrapped up in high-sounding words which the lay person cannot
>understand. This deceit is unworthy of being labeled "Christian" in any
>sense! And we have the gall to accuse the evolutionists of speculation when
>they attempt to understand the world of the past by the way things work
>today.
Ditto.
Btw, "evolutionist" is a hate-word, and I would appreciate your not
using it.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
fm <j.w.k...@usa.net> wrote:
>If this "theory of evolution" was at all accurate, then the mule, which is a
>cross between the horse and the donkey, could itself procreate.
Now THAT is exactly opposite what the idea of speciation says.
Your object is absurd, completely absurd, and in fact flat-out
wrong.
>But it
>can't, can it? It dies out in one generation, which is exactly what would
>happen to any other possible cross-breed between species.
And that's what the idea of speciation suggests will happen
AT BEST.
>Where are these "missing links"?
Practically speaking, there ARE no "missing links". Your choice of
shark to human, btw, is NOT what anyone suggests happened.
Before you start making ridiculous, offensive assertions,
you should learn what they theory DOES SAY.
>For a century and a half now,
>"scientists" have been trying to make the facts fit the "theory of
>evolution", and then DNA proved, once and for all, that Neanderthal and Cro
>Magnon and homo sapiens are three different species which aren't genetically
>related at all.
No, that is NOT what the DNA showed. DNA shows that humans are
nearly identical to a chimpanzee, and even closer to
Neandertal.
>In other words, legitimate science has already proven that creation is the
>only valid "theory" in town.
Your statement is either a mistaken, born of you being misled by
people who know better, or intentionally misleading in and of itself.
Since I don't see what you think, I don't know which.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
>Where did you arrive at the 10^-28 figure? I am really curious about the
>details.
Well, it lacks some information, such as per what unit of
time, as well as an understanding of what happens when very small
chances of an event are repeated in trials over a similar
number of events.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
greggi <gre...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>> Evolution is a fine theory but the maths does not add up. Conservative
>>> estimates put the chance of life being created by natural means in the
>>> universe at 1/ 10 to the power of 28
>>> (1/10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000).
>I found this figure in a 'Creationist' book. It may be simple and biased
>but it seems reasonable.
If the next sentence is true, it's not.
>The chance of the right chemicals binding in a
>link 100 parts long (NASA looks for life with links 400 long) in a period of
>15 billion years is as above.
Except that it's already shown that it didn't happen all at once.
Look at archeobacteria.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
>med...@bearfabrique.org wrote on 4/11/2001 11:45 PM:
>> In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things
>> happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says
>> that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is
>> ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth
>> or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe
>> isn't long enough for that to happen once.
>Well, a bit imprecise (to say the least!).
Especially where it leaves out the effects of repeaated trials.
At 6.02*10^23 molecules per mole, there can be a LOT of trials,
eh?
>Question, please. How much probability theory have you taken? What courses?
Me, or him? I've taken a few, and learned more from the likes of
the likes of the Bell Labs statistics dep't.
>Will you please elaborate on whether or not this is the whole scope of
>probability theory's influence on the subject?
I KNOW you weren't talking to me, but the answer is "no, not QUITE"...
Yes, you may argue I've understated things a wee bit. :)
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist <j...@research.att.com> wrote:
>In article <heatscan-110...@pm3-33.kalama.com>,
>Whats Right <heat...@kalama.com> wrote:
>>Or even a amino acid turn into a protein
>>and that into DNA?
>It happens inside you every second. If it didn't,
>you'd be dead.
Um, let me rephrase that, amino acids turn into both DNA
and protein. The fact that you want to turn a protein
into DNA suggests that you haven't studied much biology.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
BigKookSam <elqu...@aol.commover> wrote:
>In article <hb2B6.7589$J8.56...@news1.rsm1.occa.home.com>, "fm"
><j.w.k...@usa.net> writes:
>What made god?
Nothing.
Alex
The question is not about the theory per se, but about absession with
the theory. Namely huge publicity given to the issue of teaching
evolution at schools. That is clearly a matter of ideology, not science,
as much more important concepts, such as long multiplication and
division of fractions disappear from school curricula without a trace
and anybody noticing anything. School teaches nothing, but the slogan
"survival of the fittest". Christians and Muslims object to this
indoctrination, resisting enormous pressure.
The slogan "survival of the fittest", which schools teach, has only
ideological value, and is important exclsively as ethical proposition,
irrespectively of what anybody in this news groups believes. Nobody
attacks evolution theory, it is the cannibalist indoctrination at
schools, what people object to.
Alex.
Raymond E. Griffith
"Whats Right" <heat...@kalama.com> wrote in message
news:heatscan-120...@pm6-21.kalama.com...
>
> The question about origins is not one of science but of morality. Those
> who cling to the hopeless theory of evolution do not want to be
> accountable to the Creator.
I can tell you that your statement is false. I know of several godly men and
women who use the theory of evolution as a scientific tool. Yet they believe
in a Creator, and they trust in the Lord Jesus Christ as their savior.
I can also tell you that you have a false definition of "evolution". Your
definition is so skewed as to be completely worthless. The ideas you attack
have been so removed from context that even those who believe in evolution
without God would likely be unable to recognize what you are railing
against.
When you take things out of context, you essentially produce a lie. You
could take something in my life out of context and then attack me about
it -- but your whole premise would be false. You would have built a "straw
man".
It distresses me to see how arrogant we often are, to speak with authority
about an area in which we know so little!
> They will subscribe to all sorts of feeble
> ideas, without scientific evidence, as long as God is left out. They
> develop their opinions in the face of truth(which is absolute) so anything
> goes they hope.
>
Uhh, do you know anything about peer review? No reputatable scientist,
atheist or believer, would *dare* to subscribe to feeble ideas without
evidence. One of the key notions in the scientific world is replicability.
Another is observability. Those who put forward theories without substantial
evidence are laughed out of the community.
And the goal of science is to understand *how* things work, and *why*. There
is certainly none of the "anything goes" attitude that you ascribe to them.
> One scientific evidence that flies in the face of random accidentalism
> (evolution) is the formation of information. Al living things have codes
> of organized information that lead to function and purpose. Not only is
> this true in individual creatures and plants but it is further expanded
> into complete functioning ecosystems. Just to arrieve at the lowest stage
> of the evolved entity a whole supporting ecosystem must be in place first.
Well, this is not quite true, either. Perhaps you are not up to speed on the
fact that life has been found in places where no one thought life could
exist, under conditions in which life as we know it was thought to be
impossible. Anaerobes, for example (if you care to look them up).
> So we are not trying to explain a single living thing, we must look, and
> find, evidence of coincident
> supporting living things(and this has never been done).
>
> We worship and follow that which we wish. Don't try and couch this in
science.
>
You are correct in saying that we worship and follow tha which we wish. I
worship God. I follow Him. And I trust His Word. Do you? If so, why are you
so frightened by those who wish to understand the processes God put into
place in this world He created?
The less I knew, the more confident I was that I knew it all. Now, having
learned a great deal more, I understand that I know very little indeed. I
will keep learning, but I will never know it all.
Raymond
> Gerhard
>
> --
> Recte Faciendo Neminem Timeas
>
> Is it opinion? Is it fact? Is it truth?
Ahhh, and how do *you* distinguish these?
Raymond E. Griffith
"Alex" <as69...@bcm.tmc.edu> wrote in message
news:3AD5F5F8...@bcm.tmc.edu...
> "Michael S. Morris" wrote:
>
> > Thursday, the 12th of April, 2001
> >
> > Alex wrote:
> > It is a peculiar feature of western civilization
> > to justify its own actions by "naturality" [...]
> >
> > Excuse me, but you were just told that "survival
> > of the fittest" is *not* a justification of
> > anything. It is not an ethical proposition.
> > (It is not even a remotely valid summary of
> > evolutionary biology.) The fact that it has
> > been advanced as an ethical proposition from
> > time to time by some human beings is absolutely
> > irrelevant to everything you say, since no one
> > around here has so advanced it.
>
> The question is not about the theory per se, but about absession with
> the theory. Namely huge publicity given to the issue of teaching
> evolution at schools.
Which I believe the Creationist camp genders, correct?
> That is clearly a matter of ideology, not science,
> as much more important concepts, such as long multiplication and
> division of fractions disappear from school curricula without a trace
> and anybody noticing anything.
No indeed. If such things disappear, not only are they noticed, but a large
number of us protest and try to correct. However, you don't notice that, do
you? Are you only concerned with your own pet peeve?
> School teaches nothing, but the slogan
> "survival of the fittest".
Such oversimplifications and lies do nothing to help your argument. And what
you said here is both.
> Christians and Muslims object to this
> indoctrination, resisting enormous pressure.
>
> The slogan "survival of the fittest", which schools teach, has only
> ideological value, and is important exclsively as ethical proposition,
> irrespectively of what anybody in this news groups believes.
Ahh, so your belief alone is what is valid? I am not up on my psychology,
but will someone help me out. Is that melagomania?
> Nobody
> attacks evolution theory,
I guess you don't read much Creationist literature, do you? This too, is a
lie, and a sad one.
>it is the cannibalist indoctrination at
> schools, what people object to.
>
How would you indoctrinate? Would you cannibalize evolutionists?
Raymond
> Alex.
>
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
>Namely huge publicity given to the issue of teaching
>evolution at schools.
>That is clearly a matter of ideology, not science,
Indeed, and the subject is raised by the opponents of the
theory of evolution.
And that, like the misguided (at best) statements we see here
are unquestionably the work of ideology.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Raymond E. Griffith <rgri...@vnet.net> wrote:
>"Whats Right" <heat...@kalama.com> wrote in message
>news:heatscan-120...@pm6-21.kalama.com...
>> The question about origins is not one of science but of morality. Those
>> who cling to the hopeless theory of evolution do not want to be
>> accountable to the Creator.
I missed this one.
>I can tell you that your statement is false. I know of several godly men and
>women who use the theory of evolution as a scientific tool. Yet they believe
>in a Creator, and they trust in the Lord Jesus Christ as their savior.
The theory of evolution has no reading on the existance of God, a god,
or any gods.
There is no way to argue that the statement "God created evolution" is
either incorrect OR in any way disputing mainstream
Christian religion.
Craig Desjardins
learned people than those of thousands of years ago who lived in little
huts, if they had homes at all, who had some visions and wrote it down in a
book of mythology riddled with fallacies.
Faith is pratically defined as the absence of reason. To believe something
on faith is to believe it without questioning. To reason is to question.
Furthermore, you argue that your faith is based on people being instructed
by God. But the fact that they were instructed by God is part of your
faith, so your faith is merely dependent on yourself, and as anyone knows
who has ever tried to hold themselves up in the air with nothing but their
own arms, arguments like that just don't work.
Lastly, abandoning faith does not mean we start over as a culture.
Religions have changed and morphed and taken over civilizations for millenia
all over the globe, and we haven't returned to cavemen yet. I'm not
surprised, but you seem to be using more faith than reason in your
arguments.
Craig Desjardins
"fm" <j.w.k...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:Qe2B6.7594$J8.56...@news1.rsm1.occa.home.com...
>
>
> No. Faith and reason work together to arrive at truth.
>
> If you reject either of these components, you will forever believe LIES.
>
> Faith is based on confidence in the intellect of our ancestors who were
> created and instructed by God. Ignoring that part would require we as a
> culture to start from ground zero--and you can bet your fortune that
> children who graduate from American public schools are utterly incapable
of
> that.
>
> John Knight
>
>
> "Craig Desjardins" <cra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9b1pqg$bdq$1...@saturn.services.brown.edu...
> > so true. so true.
> >
> >
> > "Joe Galenko" <jgal...@bios.unc.edu> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.GSO.4.21.010410...@amber.bios.unc.edu...
> > >
> > >
> > > The name of your website (and the website itself) makes no sense. If
> you
> > > have faith, then reason is irrelevant. If you use reason, then faith
is
> > > irrelevant. Faith and reason are two mutually exclusive ways of
> arriving
> > > at a conclusion.
> > >
> > > What some people do, and what it seems you're doing on your website,
is
> > > trying to use reason to support what you already believe by faith. A
> > > problem with that though is that it can be easy to misuse and misapply
> > > reason under such circumstances because you're beginning the reasoning
> > > process with a conclusion that you want to reach.
> > >
> > > Or, if you claim that you're not beginning the reason process with a
> > > conclusion that you want to reach but that you're ending up reaching
> that
> > > conclusion anyway, then what is the point of mentioning faith anywhere
> in
> > > the entire process? It's irrelevant.
> > >
> > > But really, I suspect it's the first one...you have faith in something
> > > that you desparately want to be true and therefore you're using
> reasoning
> > > to try to support it. But if you really believed that reasoning were
> the
> > > best tool to use, you'd have used it in the first place and never had
> > > faith to begin with.
> > >
> > > I'm basically saying the same thing over and over...just as I said in
> the
> > > first paragraph, faith and reason are mutually exclusive.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, John D. Callahan wrote:
> > >
> > > > God created the universe with laws (gravity, time, etc.) by which it
> > > > operates; we are able to understand these laws and make discoveries
> > > > about past and future events and phenomena, including evolution.
> > > > Evolution is simply a scientific understanding of our origins. It
does
> > > > not make God unnecessary. However, it may mean we need to reevaluate
> > > > Him and our place in the universe. Evolution may imply that the
> > > > universe is bigger and more complex than we at first imagined.
> > > >
> > > > Many Christians, unfortunately, are reluctant to accept modern
> > > > science. Creationists, rather than accepting the ever increasing
> > > > mountain of evidence validating evolution, have developed a new
> > > > tactic: in addition to their religious and creation "science"
premise,
> > > > they now spin complex and sophisticated scientific arguments
debunking
> > > > evolution ("Intelligent Design Theory"). The Kansas Board of
> > > > Education's 1999 decision removing evolution from their curriculum
was
> > > > a short-lived victory for such a strategy.
> > > >
> > > > But is it possible to be a Christian and fully accept modern science
> > > > (including biological evolution and the Big Bang), and a valuable,
yet
> > > > non-perfect Bible? A Web site which addresses these issues -- and
has
> > > > a pretty good links page to related sites -- is
> > > >
> > > > http://www.faithreason.org (Faith & Reason Ministries)
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
BigKookSam
all atoms will react with all other atoms in the same way. This is not true.
Atoms react (or not react) with other atoms following set laws, not by random.
Hydrogen and oxygen cannot chemically react to make steel. Any model that
includes such a possiblity is dead on its face.
BigKookSam
<junk...@moreira.mv.com> writes:
Then why not save a step and say, "The universe is. Period."
Something can't come from nothing, so something had to create the something,
which is used to say there is a God for whom the logic of creation does not
apply. It is a massive internal contradiction.
BigKookSam
and tiring philalethist) writes:
>In article <20010411191456...@nso-ce.aol.com>,
>BigKookSam <elqu...@aol.commover> wrote:
>>In article <hb2B6.7589$J8.56...@news1.rsm1.occa.home.com>, "fm"
>><j.w.k...@usa.net> writes:
>
>>What made god?
>
>Nothing.
Then that can be used to say the same thing about the universe and all that is
in it.
Alex
> In article <3AD5F5F8...@bcm.tmc.edu>, Alex <as69...@bcm.tmc.edu> wrote:
> >Namely huge publicity given to the issue of teaching
> >evolution at schools.
> Yes, and that by its opponents.
How many America newspapers and TV channels are controlled by the opponents of
teaching evolution? I've not seen a single article or TV show, against teaching
evolution. The mass media is virtually usurped by the advocates of the "survival of
the fittest".
> >That is clearly a matter of ideology, not science,
> Indeed, and the subject is raised by the opponents of the
> theory of evolution.
The subject is raised by the ideologists, who push for the "survival of the
fittest".
Which is not surprising, after all it is the fittest, who control the media.
> And that, like the misguided (at best) statements we see here
> are unquestionably the work of ideology.
The statements we see here are product of the freedom of speech, not of the
corporate dictatorship of the mass media.
Alex.
Ray and Mary
> Personally I would rather rest my "faith" on the intellect of modern more
> learned people than those of thousands of years ago who lived in little
> huts, if they had homes at all, who had some visions and wrote it down in
a
> book of mythology riddled with fallacies.
> Faith is pratically defined as the absence of reason. To believe
something
> on faith is to believe it without questioning. To reason is to question.
> Furthermore, you argue that your faith is based on people being instructed
> by God. But the fact that they were instructed by God is part of your
> faith, so your faith is merely dependent on yourself, and as anyone knows
> who has ever tried to hold themselves up in the air with nothing but their
> own arms, arguments like that just don't work.
> Lastly, abandoning faith does not mean we start over as a culture.
> Religions have changed and morphed and taken over civilizations for
millenia
> all over the globe, and we haven't returned to cavemen yet. I'm not
> surprised, but you seem to be using more faith than reason in your
> arguments.
>
> Craig Desjardins
I understand how you feel because I used to be an atheist, too. I'll pray
that you receive enlightenment like I did :)
Ray Drouillard
The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God."
Psalms 14:1 and Psalms 53:1
Alex
> "Alex" <as69...@bcm.tmc.edu> wrote in message
> news:3AD5F5F8...@bcm.tmc.edu...
> > That is clearly a matter of ideology, not science,
> > as much more important concepts, such as long multiplication and
> > division of fractions disappear from school curricula without a trace
> > and anybody noticing anything.
>
> No indeed. If such things disappear, not only are they noticed, but a large
> number of us protest and try to correct. However, you don't notice that, do
> you? Are you only concerned with your own pet peeve?
There are lots of Op Ed for teaching evolution, lots of articles for which
authors get paid. In contrast, when 200 of the nation's best matematicians and
phisicists desperately tried to attract public's attention to droppind division
of fractions from school curriculum they had to pay 70 000$ to have their word
heared.
And "lots of you" are much more likely to do what you are told to do by the
media than to do something on yourself.
> > Nobody
> > attacks evolution theory,
>
> I guess you don't read much Creationist literature, do you? This too, is a
> lie, and a sad one.
This is free country, don't you know this? Just don't use this literature.
> >it is the cannibalist indoctrination at
> > schools, what people object to.
>
> How would you indoctrinate? Would you cannibalize evolutionists?
I am against indoctrination.
No, I am against cannibalism.
Alex.
Joe Galenko
I think reason and observation are connected. I mean, you can lock
yourself in your room and just use reasoning to figure things out, but
nobody does this. Or even those few who do use reasoning as applied to
their observations before they locked themselves up in their room.
So when people talk about using faith or reason, I think it is implied
that observation is a part of the reasoning process...you take certain
things to be true, with varying degrees of certainty depending on what the
thing is, and then you use observation and reason to constantly update
those views.
Or maybe you could say that science is the combination of reason and
observation and by that definition reason isn't enough because it doesn't
include observation. But really, it seems hard to imagine any kind of
reason that is completely separated from observation. Even if you say
you're going to lock yourself in your room and just use reason to figure
things out, you've still undergone a lifetime of observation before that
time and you can't ignore it even if you try.
Maybe I'm getting into semantics here. But when people talk about using
faith or reason to come to a believe, I take it to mean either use
a) faith, which is to hold a belief regardless of the evidence, or
b) reason, which means to hold a belief based on applying the reasoning
process to the available evidence.
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Richard A. Beldin wrote:
> Neither faith nor reason is sufficient by itself. Both are trumped by
> observation. If you observe something that contradicts your faith, you
> can choose to admit failure of your faith or you can disbelieve what
> your eyes tell you. Any scientific theory, reasoned from "first
> principles" should be rejected when confronted with contradictory
> observations.
>
> Now if all you want is a more genteel weapon than a knife or gun, either
> faith or reason will do. Each has been used to support "truth" used in
> combat.
>
> "The truth is the myth we agree to tell our children."
>
Craig Desjardins
"Ray and Mary" <Droui...@home.com> wrote in message
news:sinB6.171592$W05.32...@news1.rdc1.mi.home.com...
Raymond E. Griffith
> "Raymond E. Griffith" wrote:
>
> > "Alex" <as69...@bcm.tmc.edu> wrote in message
> > news:3AD5F5F8...@bcm.tmc.edu...
> > > That is clearly a matter of ideology, not science,
> > > as much more important concepts, such as long multiplication and
> > > division of fractions disappear from school curricula without a trace
> > > and anybody noticing anything.
> >
> > No indeed. If such things disappear, not only are they noticed, but a
large
> > number of us protest and try to correct. However, you don't notice that,
do
> > you? Are you only concerned with your own pet peeve?
>
> There are lots of Op Ed for teaching evolution, lots of articles for which
> authors get paid. In contrast, when 200 of the nation's best matematicians
and
> phisicists desperately tried to attract public's attention to droppind
division
> of fractions from school curriculum they had to pay 70 000$ to have their
word
> heared.
>
Well, there are several venues available which have been used. Not all of
them cost $$ to use. And BTW, these topics are still taught in many places
where it has been "officially" dropped by teachers who are going to give
their students what they need.
> And "lots of you" are much more likely to do what you are told to do by
the
> media than to do something on yourself.
>
Oh please! Most math teachers are rather an independent lot. As for others,
well....
> > > Nobody
> > > attacks evolution theory,
> >
> > I guess you don't read much Creationist literature, do you? This too, is
a
> > lie, and a sad one.
>
> This is free country, don't you know this? Just don't use this literature.
>
If you had, you would have realized that many people do attack evolution
theory. Maybe they are not the mainstream media, but that does not mean that
they are nobodies. So .... yes, there are those who attack evolution theory.
And they attract a good deal of attention. Much of that attention is
negative, unfortunately, because many of the attacks are quite shallow,
emotional, and based on a poor understanding of basic scientific principles.
> > >it is the cannibalist indoctrination at
> > > schools, what people object to.
> >
> > How would you indoctrinate? Would you cannibalize evolutionists?
>
> I am against indoctrination.
Are you agant teaching? "Indoctination", for all of its bad connotations, is
not a bad word nor a bad activity. It's primary definition is "to instruct
especially in fundamentals or rudiments." I indoctrinate my students in the
fundamentals and rudiments of mathematics.
So, with this definition, how would you indoctrinate people? You are
obviously against evolution. How would have people instructed in science,
and how would you do it?
> No, I am against cannibalism.
>
Good. Then along with what you would teach, you would graciously allow
evolutionary views to be given?
> Alex.
>
Raymond
Joe Galenko
>
> There are lots of Op Ed for teaching evolution, lots of articles for which
> authors get paid. In contrast, when 200 of the nation's best matematicians and
Compared to how well evolution is scientifically, there aren't many Op Ed
pieces for teaching evolution. There are many places in this country
where evolution is not taught and considering that evoluation just about
as solid a "fact" as anything science can give us, there'd have to be
constant Op Ed pieces all over the place to compensate. I mean, if
schools decided not to teach that the Earth revolves around the Sun,
you'd see quite a few more Op Ed pieces in opposition to that than you do
now in opposition to not teaching evolution.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
BigKookSam <elqu...@aol.commover> wrote:
>Something can't come from nothing, so something had to create the something,
Something can and does come from nothing.
Look up quantum vacuum flux sometime.
>which is used to say there is a God for whom the logic of creation does not
>apply. It is a massive internal contradiction.
I don't think science can read on the existance of God.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
BigKookSam <elqu...@aol.commover> wrote:
>In article <GBorF...@research.att.com>, j...@research.att.com (jj, curmudgeon
>and tiring philalethist) writes:
>>In article <20010411191456...@nso-ce.aol.com>,
>>BigKookSam <elqu...@aol.commover> wrote:
>>>In article <hb2B6.7589$J8.56...@news1.rsm1.occa.home.com>, "fm"
>>><j.w.k...@usa.net> writes:
>>>What made god?
>>Nothing.
>Then that can be used to say the same thing about the universe and all that is
>in it.
Sounds good to me.
med...@bearfabrique.org
wrote:
> [ ...lame attempt to put a better light on evolutionism:
>> God hates IDIOTS, too!
>
>No, God loves idiots....
How is anybody supposed to deal with people afflicted with such a
thing? I mean, we clearly are not dealing with anything
RATIONAL here, but rather with some sort of a psychic addiction. Quite
obviously, LOGIC is not the answer; logic bounces off
evolutionists like water off a duck's back. What I have come to
believe is needed here is the same sort of approach which you use
to try to reach drug addicts.
Consider the rapper Ice-T, and his efforts to substitute rap for the
crack, smack, PCP, LSD etc. etc. which he sees on the streets
of L.A. Ice obviously noticed Richard Wagner's use of music as a
vehicle of REDEMPTION, and is trying to adapt the idea to
his own settings. It is not engaging in racism or any thing like that
to note there is something of a general step downwards in
sophistication going from Richard Wagner's audience to that of Ice-T
and, other than for that trivial detail, the basic idea is much the
same:
Clown: Yo, what's up man, I need to get high, man,
I need to get hold of some big-time dope, man,
you know where I can get a ki?
Ice-T: I know where you can get a LP...
Clown: LP, man? Have you went crazy man, I'm talkin about some
dope man, I need to get high right now man, why'nt you hook me
up wit a five-oh...
Ice-T: I can hook you up with a twelve-inch...
Clown: Twelve-inch, man you done went crazy, you don't even know what
time it is, out here on the streets an don't know what time it,
man, you's a FOOL....
Ice-T Yo, home-boy, YOU a fool, YOU don't know what time it is out
here messin-up your mind, you know what I'm sayin; THIS is
Ice-T talkin to you BOOOY... I'ma tell you what TIIIIIME it
is...
Yo it's time for me to pump up the volume,
no problem the record's revolvin
Evil's the mixer, I'm the rap trace the
pack-o rats is on the bum-rush the pictures's
ice, Julio, coldah than evah
punk executioner, he pull the levah...
rotate the wax, then cut an axe the tracks
push up the levels towards the red-light max
dont try to size up; you better wise up
to the rap criminal, we're on the rise up
we're sellin dope till we succed it
dope beats the lyrics no beepers needed
for this drug deal i'm the big wheel
the dope we're sellin you don't smoke you feel
out on the dance floor, an on the world tour
I'm sellin dope in each an every record store
i'm the king pin when the wax spins
crack or smack will take you to a show-in
you don't need it, jus throw that stuff away
you wanna get high, let the record play...
Clown: Aw man, I like this dope here man, it's feelin allright
boooy, what'd you say yo name was, man...
See what I mean? Stupid as it sounds, the clown has actually been
REDEEMED.
Which brings me to the question of evolutionism.
The question arises naturally: if some cracked-out idiot like the
clown above can be redeemed by Ice-T's rap, then what about the
evolutionist, his mind obliterated by years of ideology abuse, his
sense of logic and proportion vitiated by the scholatstical
contortions required to maintain any defense of evolutionism, a
pathetic, hollow shell of a once-humanoid creature? Is there
anything which can redeem this cosmic ungeziefer?
I believe that there is, but the first thing you have to realize is
that, however much of a step downwards was involved in going from
Richard Wagner's audience to Ice's, there is a much BIGGER and more
precipitous drop-off in going from Ice-T's audience to the
evolutionists.
Something in the nature of a three-stage process is required; I will
attempt to get the miserable wretches in this category up to the
general level of sophistication of Ice-T's audience, Ice-T can take
over from there and, presumably, for those interested, Richard
Wagner can handle the final leg of the journey to something resembling
modern man.
Clown: Yo, I need to get high, man, I'm lookin for some big-time
ideology, man, you know where I can get a PHD?
Ice-Bear: I know where you can get a LP...
Clown: LP, man? Have you went crazy man, I need to get high right
now, man, why'nt you hook me up wit a peer-reviewed
journal?
Ice-Bear: I can hook you up with a feral chicken...
Clown: You done went crazy, man, you don't even know what time it
is, man, out here in academia an don't know what time it
is, man, you's a FOOL!!!
Ice-Bear: YO, home boy, YOU a fool, out here messin up your mind,
know what I'm sayin?
This is the ICE-BEAR talkin to you BOOOOooy, an
I'ma tell you what TIIIIIIIME it is...
Yo, it's time for you clowns to see
the light, an stop fightin gainst reality
so come on an step to me, an learn to deal
with the diffrence tween fiction, an what's real
c'mon develop some judgement, an the ability
to deal with mathematics, an probability
an infinity of zero-probability events
can nevah happen, you see, that's just common sense...
At any rate, you get the idea. THAT, I suspect, is the right way to
deal with evolutionists. Perhaps Ice-T and I will arrange some
sort of a combined revival and try to salvage the crack-heads and the
ideology freaks (evolutionists) together at the same time.
Ted Holden
www.bearfabrique.org
| . . , ,
| ____)/ \(____
| _,--''''',-'/( )\`-.`````--._
| ,-' ,' | \ _ _ / | `-. `-.
| ,' / | `._ /\\ //\ _,' | \ `.
| | | `. `-( ,\\_// )-' .' | |
| ,' _,----._ |_,----._\ ____`\o'_`o/'____ /_.----._ |_,----._ `.
| |/' \' `\( \(_)/ )/' `/ `\|
| ` ` V V ' '
Splifford the bat says: Always remember:
A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on an evolutionist.
Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological
doctrines.
Alan Lichtenstein
> The question about origins is not one of science but of morality. Those
> who cling to the hopeless theory of evolution do not want to be
> ideas, without scientific evidence, as long as God is left out. They
> develop their opinions in the face of truth(which is absolute) so anything
> goes they hope.
Your above assertion demonstrated that YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND Darwin's
theory of evolution. Darwin, as well as his successors DID NOT theorize
or speculate on the ORIGIN of life. Darwin's theory of evolution, as
well as in its contemporary form only deals with the method by which
living things which are already in existence, change over time.
Darwin said NOTHING about how life was created in the first place. If
that is the basis for your attack, then it is baseless.
> One scientific evidence that flies in the face of random accidentalism
> (evolution) is the formation of information. Al living things have codes
> of organized information that lead to function and purpose. Not only is
> this true in individual creatures and plants but it is further expanded
> into complete functioning ecosystems. Just to arrieve at the lowest stage
> of the evolved entity a whole supporting ecosystem must be in place first.
> So we are not trying to explain a single living thing, we must look, and
> find, evidence of coincident
> supporting living things(and this has never been done).
Biologists have documented that mutations, which are random occurences
take place with some regularity. Why these mutations are not all
evident is explained quite well by evolutionary theory: Those mutations
cause the organism to be at a competitive disadvantage, and therefore,
such organisms rarely live to reproduce, thus not passing on their genes
to successive generations. However, the mutations which are
effective....well that's evolution.
Had you been as knowledgeable as you think, you would have understood
that mutations are the mechanism of evolution. Something which Darwin
never postulated, because he did not know of genetics at the time he did
his research. Making his conclusions even more insightful as a
consequence.
That mechanism is seen in present day science through the appearance of
antibiotic resistent bacteria an the AIDS virus appearance.
As to your final comment that we have found no evidence of coincident
living things, I refer you to the plethora of studies of comparative
anatomy, morphology and biochemistry, all of which you likely are
ignorant of which provide you with that evidence.
> We worship and follow that which we wish. Don't try and couch this in science.
You worship beliefs which you hold to be true based on FAITH. Science
concludes what its beliefs are to be based on EVIDENCE. Quite a
different matter. I trust you understand this difference.
Alan
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
>"jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist" wrote:
>> In article <3AD5F5F8...@bcm.tmc.edu>, Alex <as69...@bcm.tmc.edu> wrote:
>> >Namely huge publicity given to the issue of teaching
>> >evolution at schools.
>> Yes, and that by its opponents.
>How many America newspapers and TV channels are controlled by the opponents of
>teaching evolution?
The question is irrelevant to your previous point. It is anti-evolution
people who bring the subject up all the time in the media. If there
is dogmatism, it is on their part.
>I've not seen a single article or TV show, against teaching evolution.
I can find one any night of the week on my cable TV set of channels.
>The mass media is virtually usurped by the advocates of the "survival of
>the fittest".
Just because you say it doesn't make it so.
>The statements we see here are product of the freedom of speech, not of the
>corporate dictatorship of the mass media.
Anti-evolutionists have no credibility at all in either the scientific
or logical camps. It's places like here, where their absolutely
ridiculous maunderings MIGHT get a hearing, that they can have
any effect outside of their attempts to ban the teaching of science,
and make no mistake about it, banning evolution is banning science.
fm
"Raymond E. Griffith" <rgri...@vnet.net> wrote in message
news:Y4lB6.16904$g_5....@ralph.vnet.net...
>
> "Whats Right" <heat...@kalama.com> wrote in message
> news:heatscan-120...@pm6-21.kalama.com...
> >
> > The question about origins is not one of science but of morality. Those
> > who cling to the hopeless theory of evolution do not want to be
> > accountable to the Creator.
>
> I can tell you that your statement is false. I know of several godly men
and
> women who use the theory of evolution as a scientific tool. Yet they
believe
> in a Creator, and they trust in the Lord Jesus Christ as their savior.
>
> I can also tell you that you have a false definition of "evolution". Your
> definition is so skewed as to be completely worthless. The ideas you
attack
> have been so removed from context that even those who believe in evolution
> without God would likely be unable to recognize what you are railing
> against.
>
> When you take things out of context, you essentially produce a lie. You
> could take something in my life out of context and then attack me about
> it -- but your whole premise would be false. You would have built a "straw
> man".
>
> It distresses me to see how arrogant we often are, to speak with authority
> about an area in which we know so little!
Gee, you "speak with authority about an area in which [you] know so little",
and then complain that it distresses you? You can't claim that What's Right
is doing that, because he is 100% in synch with the teachings of the Holy
Bible. No wonder you're distressed--you expect us to place your "opinion"
above the fundamental teachings of Christianity.
>
> > They will subscribe to all sorts of feeble
> > ideas, without scientific evidence, as long as God is left out. They
> > develop their opinions in the face of truth(which is absolute) so
anything
> > goes they hope.
> >
> Uhh, do you know anything about peer review? No reputatable scientist,
> atheist or believer, would *dare* to subscribe to feeble ideas without
> evidence. One of the key notions in the scientific world is replicability.
> Another is observability. Those who put forward theories without
substantial
> evidence are laughed out of the community.
We are laughing them out of the community. Darwin should have been laughed
out of the community the day he got back from the Galapagos Islands.
American scientists should never have put their label on him. He didn't
know science, he wasn't educated, his work wasn't peer reviewed, there is
nothing at all observable about the notion that monkeys mutated into homo
sapiens, and all of the available DNA evidence refutes the bone robbers and
their century and a half attempt to make Darwin's "theory" fit the facts.
That's not to say that uneducated people aren't capable of making very valid
observations. But the more you read about the nutty observations he made,
the more you realize that even our *scientists* were hoodwinked by complete
nonsense.
>
> And the goal of science is to understand *how* things work, and *why*.
There
> is certainly none of the "anything goes" attitude that you ascribe to
them.
>
> > One scientific evidence that flies in the face of random accidentalism
> > (evolution) is the formation of information. Al living things have
codes
> > of organized information that lead to function and purpose. Not only is
> > this true in individual creatures and plants but it is further expanded
> > into complete functioning ecosystems. Just to arrieve at the lowest
stage
> > of the evolved entity a whole supporting ecosystem must be in place
first.
>
> Well, this is not quite true, either. Perhaps you are not up to speed on
the
> fact that life has been found in places where no one thought life could
> exist, under conditions in which life as we know it was thought to be
> impossible. Anaerobes, for example (if you care to look them up).
>
The report that was posted addressed single cell life and noted that their
DNA is not that much less complex than the DNA of homo sapiens. iow,
genetically, it doesn't require much of an improvement in DNA to go from
single cell life forms to homo sapiens. The difficult part of DNA is
creating life in the first place. Once that's done, the rest is a piece of
cake.
It is statistically impossible for this to happen by coincidence, no matter
how much time is involved. The natural tendency is to disorganize, not
organize.
> > So we are not trying to explain a single living thing, we must look, and
> > find, evidence of coincident
> > supporting living things(and this has never been done).
> >
> > We worship and follow that which we wish. Don't try and couch this in
> science.
> >
>
> You are correct in saying that we worship and follow tha which we wish. I
> worship God. I follow Him. And I trust His Word. Do you? If so, why are
you
> so frightened by those who wish to understand the processes God put into
> place in this world He created?
>
> The less I knew, the more confident I was that I knew it all. Now, having
> learned a great deal more, I understand that I know very little indeed. I
> will keep learning, but I will never know it all.
>
> Raymond
>
Raymond, wadr, you aren't even close. You are correct that science and God
coexist, but you are seriously in error to refuse to consider the awful
ramifications of accepting as "science" the childish ramblings of a
non-scientist like Darwin. If the "theory of evolution" was even close,
species have been on the planet long enough that there would now be only ONE
species--a conglomeration of every other species that ever existed.
DNA structure alone is proof that this can't happen. iow, there is only one
game in town--creation. Precisely the one described in the Holy Bible.
John Knight
fm
> Mary" <Droui...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > > Evolution has been so thoroughly discredited at this point that you
> > > assume nobody is defending it because they believe in it
> > > anymore, and that they are defending it because they do not like the
> > > prospects of having to defend or explain some axpect of their
> > > lifestyles to God, St. Peter, Muhammed et. al.
>
> >
> >
> > If you take the time to gain a basic understanding of the theory, you'll
> > find it to be logical and internally consistent. It doesn't answer
every
> > question, but few theories do. Newton's laws of motion are not
considered
> > useless and invalid just because they don't answer the question of what
> > happens when you get near the speed of light. Einstein's theories of
> > relativity come into play at that point.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ray Drouillard
>
> The question about origins is not one of science but of morality. Those
> who cling to the hopeless theory of evolution do not want to be
> ideas, without scientific evidence, as long as God is left out. They
> develop their opinions in the face of truth(which is absolute) so anything
> goes they hope.
>
> (evolution) is the formation of information. Al living things have codes
> of organized information that lead to function and purpose. Not only is
> this true in individual creatures and plants but it is further expanded
> into complete functioning ecosystems. Just to arrieve at the lowest stage
> of the evolved entity a whole supporting ecosystem must be in place first.
> find, evidence of coincident
> supporting living things(and this has never been done).
>
> We worship and follow that which we wish. Don't try and couch this in
science.
>
>
Hear, hear, Gerhard.
That is an excellent summary of what DNA has now proven to us. It seems
that this false notion that there is a scientific tendency towards order
began with the promotion of the theory that "enough monkeys with enough
typewriters and enough time will eventually produce a novel".
The fact is: the more these monkeys type, the less likely their chances are
that they could even type a single coherent sentence. It's complete
mythology that an intelligent work could be created this way, without divine
intervention.
In order for this to happen, an intelligent being would have to assemble the
parts that accidentally conformed to some language into a single document.
Monkeys can't do that. Every single "novel" they produced would be
gibberish, no matter how long that process went on.
The notion that multiple ecosystems could spontaneously evolve at exactly
the same time is like claiming that multiple universes of such monkeys with
typewriters would suddenly all write a million successful novels, and would
finish all at one time.
John Knight
David Brauning
think of negative ones...retardation,sickle anemia, etc.
Dave
Human children are often born with webbed fingers. The
> early stages in the development of birds were probably
> fairly small (this was the case with many others) and
> the same type of mutation could produce webbed arms.
>
> As for tails, there are lots of deviations; the fully
> specialized tail is not necessary, but helps efficiency.
> Many birds do not have this efficiency. The heart and
> lung development can also arise gradually.
>
> so that the
> >chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling
> >evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an
> >infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.
>
> With trillions of individuals involved in the evolutionary
> process, the necessary mutations could easily have happened.
> They do not have to happen at once. The rate of significant
> mutations seems to be on the order of 1 in 10^5, or higher.
fm
"Ray and Mary" <Droui...@home.com> wrote in message
news:gZaB6.169952$W05.32...@news1.rdc1.mi.home.com...
> > Evolution has been so thoroughly discredited at this point that you
> > assume nobody is defending it because they believe in it
> > anymore, and that they are defending it because they do not like the
> > prospects of having to defend or explain some axpect of their
> > lifestyles to God, St. Peter, Muhammed et. al.
>
> documentation?
>
> The only people who call it "discredited" are those who have some kind of
a
> compelling reason to believe that it isn't true - sort of like the case
> where a certain scientist was given a guided tour of the dungeon of the
> inquisition in order to induce him to retract the "herecy" that the Earth
> revolves around the Sun.
>
> Ray Drouillard
>
>
>
One of those "compelling reason[s] to believe that it isn't true" might be
that they just never accepted the giant leaps of faith that putative
"scientists" made in order to make the "theory" fit the facts. You may be
implying that this "compelling reason" is a religious belief, but there are
so many other questions raised by the "theory of evolution" that you could
reject it without relying at all on what your religion says about it.
Independent of the fact that it is a direct attack on the Holy Bible, it is
a truly childish and outlandish claim. Children without much knowledge of
either are naturally incredulous about the notion that homo sapiens
"evolved" from monkeys. You just have to admit that it plain flat does not
make sense to some people, no matter what their religious orientation.
John Knight
fm
> in article e52B6.7579$J8.56...@news1.rsm1.occa.home.com, fm at> > news:3AD4A3C3...@bcm.tmc.edu...
> >> "John D. Callahan" wrote:
> >>
> >>> But is it possible to be a Christian and fully accept modern science
> >>> (including biological evolution and the Big Bang),
> >>
like
> >> thyself" at the same time?
> >>
> >> Alex.
> >>
> >
> > These are not necessarly mutually exclusive, but it misses the point.
The
> > problem is that science itself has been unable to locate and identify
even
> > ONE "missing link" which demonstrates the "evolution" of one species
into
> > another. All "science" has as "proof" of this "theory" [and the word
> > "theory" here by no means fits the scientific criteria to be a "theory"]
is
> > childish speculation by IDIOTS (who aren't "scientists" at all) that the
> > bones of one species look similar to the bones of another species, so
one
> > must have evolved from the other.
> >
>
> Uhh, you really want to be careful here. Now I am a Christian, and I trust
> the scriptures -- but I don't believe in over-simplification either.
>
> You not only have not adequately defined evolution here, you have
completely
> misstated its methodologies.
>
> Many Christians like to claim that the evolutionary biologists are
> unreasonable, but very often we Christians are more unreasonable of the
lot.
> When you say that they aren't scientists, you employ an invective that not
> only is abusive to your adversary, but also ruins your own credibility.
>
> > That is not a "theory". That is childish speculation, at best. But
even
> > worse, to teach that this is "science", in the face of the fact that not
a
> > single bone of the millions of bones which have been found supports that
> > "theory".
> >
>
> Again, you really want to be careful here. Abuse given invites abuse!
>
> But what is worse than an unbelieving evolutionist? A "believing"
> creationist who employs bad science deliberately so as to make his point.
I
> have investigated many of the claims of the so-called "creation science"
> movement, and many of them are not only erroneous, but outright deceitful.
> This distresses me.
>
> I have seen proposed as "creation science" the wildest speculation and
> fabrications imaginable without any attempt for proof -- all trying to
make
> a point, and wrapped up in high-sounding words which the lay person cannot
> understand. This deceit is unworthy of being labeled "Christian" in any
> sense! And we have the gall to accuse the evolutionists of speculation
when
> they attempt to understand the world of the past by the way things work
> today.
>
> I have also seen Christians presented with credible evidence for processes
> that they have declared impossible, who resorted to name calling and
> ridicule. This also is unChristian.
>
> If you are going to make your point, do it without the invectives. Be
> willing to examine the opponents claims in depth, and be ready to offer
> reasonable alternate models. If you can't explain something, admit it. But
> don't simply dismiss as worthless the speculations or investigations of
the
> scientific community -- even if you believe that they are! You may not
agree
> with them, but you need to be willing to understand why they think the way
> they do. If their "theories" are worthless, you should be able to present
a
> much more reasonable and workable hypothesis, don't you think? After all,
it
> is God's world. Christians should be willing to understand science to know
> how God's world works.
>
> BTW, I know several people who are devout Christians, but who also believe
> in evolution. You might find this strange, but it would be a mistake to
lump
> everyone who believes in evolution into the unsaved camp.
>
> The subject is incredibly complex. There are a huge number of factors to
be
> considered in how the world works. God created the world and the way it
> works. I suppose then, that it is not unreasonable to think that he meant
> for us to understand those processes?
>
> I also suppose that is is not unreasonable to follow the scriptural
> directives as to how we speak and act?
>
> > John Knight
> >
> >
> Raymond E. Griffith
>
Dear Raymond,
I am a Christian too, but believe it or not, after years of just accepting
at face value what our "public schools" teach about evolution, it was my
scientific background rather than my Christian background that made me
overwhelmingly reject every word written by Darwin.
He was truly pathetic, but I never knew it, because I never looked into his
history--until the DNA evidence proved, once and for all, that Neanderthal,
Cro Magnon, and homo sapiens are not genetically linked.
The bones mean nothing. They can fit them together any way they choose.
The DNA proved that Neanderthal is extinct, Cro Magnon is extinct, and homo
sapiens survived.
That was the last gasp in the argument for evolution. Homo sapiens did not
"evolve" from anything else, and thus neither did a bird "evolve" from a
dynasaur, and neither did a fish become a turtle. DNA slammed the door shut
on "evolution".
You are correct about the best way for a Christian to approach this. But
when all of this sinks in (which assumes that you do the research necessary
to confirm the above), then you will realize that we as Christians must play
a completely different role than our "school system" teaches.
Sincerely,
John Knight
ps--this is the passage which made me reject Darwin:
===============================
On an average every species must have same number killed year with year by
hawks, by cold, & c.--even one species of hawk decreasing in number must
affect instantaneously all the rest. The final cause of all this wedging
must be to sort out proper structure.... One may say there is a force like a
hundred thousand wedges trying to force every kind of adapted structure in
the gaps in the oeconomy of nature, or rather forming gaps by thrusting out
weaker ones.
============================
fm
news:3ad52348....@news.fcc.net...
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2001 19:17:30 GMT, "fm" <j.w.k...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>
> >These are not necessarly mutually exclusive, but it misses the point.
The
> >problem is that science itself has been unable to locate and identify
even
> >ONE "missing link" which demonstrates the "evolution" of one species into
> >another. All "science" has as "proof" of this "theory" [and the word
> >"theory" here by no means fits the scientific criteria to be a "theory"]
is
> >childish speculation by IDIOTS (who aren't "scientists" at all) that the
> >bones of one species look similar to the bones of another species, so one
> >must have evolved from the other.
> >
> >worse, to teach that this is "science", in the face of the fact that not
a
> >single bone of the millions of bones which have been found supports that
> >"theory".
> >
>
> You sure do have that one right. Glad to see more and more people
> figuring this business out.
>
> Evolution has been so thoroughly discredited at this point that you
> assume nobody is defending it because they believe in it
> anymore, and that they are defending it because they do not like the
> prospects of having to defend or explain some axpect of their
> lifestyles to God, St. Peter, Muhammed et. al.
>
> evolution, as a doctrine, is so overwhelmingly STUPID that,
> faced with a choice of wearing a sweatshirt with a scarlet letter F
> (for fornicator), D (Democrat), O (Other loser of some sort or
> other) or I (for IDIOT), you'd actually be better off sticking with
> one of the former choices because, as Clint Eastwood noted in
> The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly:
>
> God hates IDIOTS, too!
>
> The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves
> trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new
> basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between
> both old and new organs.
>
> Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to
> become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized
> systems, including wings, flight feathers, a specialized light bone
> structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs,
> specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.
>
> For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until
> the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the
> chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling
> evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an
> infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.
>
> happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says
> that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is
> ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth
> or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe
> isn't long enough for that to happen once.
>
> All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than
> that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for
> hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to
> evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori.
> In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk
> around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march
> towards a future requirement which evolution requires.
>
> And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism
> dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were
> to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become
> a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations
> rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first,
> having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have
> DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.
>
> Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of
> complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for
> life had ever evolved ONCE.
>
> Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has
> happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite
> number of absolutely zero probability events.
>
> And, if you were starting to think that nothing could possibly be any
> stupider than believing in evolution despite all of the above (i.e.
> that the basic stupidity of evolutionism starting from 1980 or
> thereabouts could not possibly be improved upon), think again.
> Because there is zero evidence in the fossil record (despite the BS
> claims of talk.origins "crew" and others of their ilk) to support
> any sort of a theory involving macroevolution, and because the
> original conceptions of evolution are flatly refuted by developments
> in population genetics since the 1950's, the latest incarnation of
> this theory, Steve Gould and Niles Eldredge's "Punctuated
> Equilibrium or punc-eek" attempts to claim that these wholesale
> violations of probabilistic laws all occurred so suddenly as to never
> leave evidence in the fossil record, and that they all occurred
> amongst tiny groups of animals living in "peripheral" areas. That says
> that some velocirapter who wanted to be a bird got together with fifty
> of his friends and said:
>
> Guys, we need flight feathers, and wings, and specialized
> bones, hearts, lungs, and tails, and we need em NOW; not
> two years from now. Everybody ready, all together now:
>
> OOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....
>
> You could devise a new religion by taking the single stupidest
> doctrine from each of the existing religions, and it would not be as
> stupid as THAT.
>
> But it gets even stupider.
>
> Again, the original Darwinian vision of gradualistic evolution is
> flatly refuted by the fossil record (Darwinian evolution demanded that
> the vast bulk of ALL fossils be intermediates) and by the findings of
> population genetics, particularly the Haldane dilemma and the
> impossible time requirements for spreading genetic changes through any
> sizeable herd of animals.
>
> Consider what Gould and other punk-eekers are saying. Punc-eek amounts
> to a claim that all meaningful evolutionary change takes
> place in peripheral areas, amongst tiny groups of animals which
> develop some genetic advantage, and then move out and
> overwhelm, outcompete, and replace the larger herds. They are claiming
> that this eliminates the need to spread genetic change
> through any sizeable herd of animals and, at the same time, is why we
> never find intermediate fossils (since there are never enough
> of these CHANGELINGS to leave fossil evidence).
>
> Obvious problems with punctuated equilibria include, minimally:
>
> 1. It is a pure pseudoscience seeking to explain and actually be
> proved by a lack of evidence rather than by evidence
> (all the missing intermediate fossils). Similarly, Cotton Mather
> claimed that the fact that nobody had ever seen or heard
> a witch was proof they were there (if you could see or hear them, they
> wouldn't be witches...) The best example of that sort of logic in
> fact that there ever was was Michael O'Donahue's parody of the
> Connecticut Yankee (New York Yankee in King Arthur's Court) which
> showed Reggie looking for a low outside fastball and then getting
> beaned cold by a high inside one, the people feeling Reggie's wrist
> for pulse, and Reggie back in Camelot, where they had him bound hand
> and foot. Some guy was shouting "Damned if e ain't black from ead to
> foot, if that ain't witchcraft I never saw it!!!", everybody was
> yelling "Witchcraft Trial!, Witchcraft Trial!!", and they were
> building a scaffold. Reggie looks at King Arthur and says "Hey man,
> isn't that just a tad premature, I mean we haven't even had the TRIAL
> yet!", and Arthur replies "You don't seem to understand, son, the
> hanging IS the trial; if you survive that, that means you're a witch
> and we gotta burn ya!!!" Again, that's precisely the sort of logic
> which goes into Gould's variant of evolutionism, Punk-eek.
>
> 2. PE amounts to a claim that inbreeding is the most major source
> of genetic advancement in the world. Apparently Steve Gould never saw
> Deliverance...
>
> 3. PE requires these tiny peripheral groups to conquer vastly
> larger groups of animals millions if not billions of times, which is
> like requiring Custer to win at the little Big Horn every day, for
> millions of years.
>
> 4. PE requires an eternal victory of animals specifically adapted
> to localized and parochial conditions over animals which are globally
> adapted, which never happens in real life.
>
> 5. For any number of reasons, you need a minimal population of
> any animal to be viable. This is before the tiny group even gets
> started in overwhelming the vast herds. A number of American species
> such as the heath hen became non-viable when their numbers were
> reduced to a few thousand; at that point, any stroke of bad luck at
> all, a hard winter, a skewed sex ratio in one generation, a disease of
> some sort, and it's all over. The heath hen was fine as long as it was
> spread out over the East coast of the U.S. The point at which it got
> penned into one of these "peripheral" areas which Gould and Eldredge
> see as the salvation for evolutionism, it was all over.
>
> The sort of things noted in items 3 and 5 are generally referred to as
> the "gambler's problem", in this case, the problem facing the
> tiny group of "peripheral" animals being similar to that facing a
> gambler trying to beat the house in blackjack or roulette; the house
> could lose many hands of cards or rolls of the dice without flinching,
> and the globally-adapted species spread out over a continent
> could withstand just about anything short of a continental-scale
> catastrophe without going extinct, while two or three bad rolls of the
> dice will bankrupt the gambler, and any combination of two or three
> strokes of bad luck will wipe out the "peripheral" species.
> Gould's basic method of handling this problem is to ignore it.
>
> And there's one other thing which should be obvious to anybody
> attempting to read through Gould and Eldridge's BS:
>
> They don't even bother to try to provide a mechanism or
> technical explaination of any sort for this "punk-eek"
>
> They are claiming that at certain times, amongst tiny groups of
> animals living in peripheral areas, a "speciation event(TM)" happens,
> and THEN the rest of it takes place. In other words, they are saying:
>
> ASSUMING that Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happens, then the rest
> of the business proceeds as we have described in our
> scholarly discourse above!
>
> Again, Gould and Eldridge require that the Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM)
> happen not just once, but countless billions of times, i.e. at
> least once for every kind of complex creature which has ever walked
> the Earth. They do not specify whether this amounts to the
> same Abracadabra-Shazaam each time, or a different kind of
> Abracadabra-Shazaam for each creature.
>
> I ask you: How could anything be stupider or worse than that? What
> could possibly be worse than professing to believe in such a
> thing?
>
>
> Ted Holden
> www.bearfabrique.org
>
>
>
>
raotflmao!! Great analogies );
What's even more revealing is that if everything you wrote above is correct
(and I don't doubt for a second that it is), why didn't the "mainstream
media" in this country PRINT IT?
Furthermore, as evidence of the "conspiracy for ignorance" that our
"mainstream media" is fully engaged in when their favorite "theory of
evolution" is challenged, they never PRINTED the fact that the DNA evidence
ruled out Neanderthal and Cro Magnon as ancestors to homo sapiens. Ten
publications around the world did that, but none in the US did.
Why do you think they are they so intent on keeping the big LIE alive?
Sincerely,
John Knight
fm
> in article 3ad52348....@news.fcc.net, med...@bearfabrique.org at
> med...@bearfabrique.org wrote on 4/11/2001 11:45 PM:
>
> > In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things
> > happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says
> > that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is
> > ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth
> > or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe
> > isn't long enough for that to happen once.
>
>
> Question, please. How much probability theory have you taken? What
courses?
>
> Will you please elaborate on whether or not this is the whole scope of
> probability theory's influence on the subject?
>
> Just curious.
>
> Raymond
>
A simple way to look at this is to consider a coin flip, where the odds of
getting a head are 1 in 2, and the odds of getting a tail are 1 in 2.
The odds of getting a head once are 1 in 2, or .5.
The odds of getting a head twice in a row are .5 x .5 = .25
The odds of getting a head three times in a row are .5 x .5 x .5 = .125
At 10 heads, it is .00049
At 20 heads, it is .000000477
His point is that, if you start out with a small probability like .000000477
and expect 12 of them to happen at once, you run out of universe );
The following number are the odds against getting four aces in straight 5
card draw poker 48 times within a 4 week span.
1 out of
5,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00
0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00
0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00
0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00
0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00
0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
John Knight
Adam Marczyk
news:3AD4A3C3...@bcm.tmc.edu...
> "John D. Callahan" wrote:
>
> > But is it possible to be a Christian and fully accept modern science
> > (including biological evolution and the Big Bang),
>
> How one can accept "survival of the fittest" and "Love thy neighbour like
> thyself" at the same time?
Easy. Believe that the first is a simple principle of what happens in nature
without human intervention and the second is a moral guide.
--
When I am dreaming,
I don't know if I'm truly asleep, or if I'm awake.
When I get up,
I don't know if I'm truly awake, or if I'm still dreaming...
--Forest for the Trees, "Dream"
To send e-mail, change "excite" to "hotmail"
Raymond E. Griffith
> >
> > It distresses me to see how arrogant we often are, to speak with
authority
> > about an area in which we know so little!
>
To which John Knight responded:
> Gee, you "speak with authority about an area in which [you] know so
little",
> and then complain that it distresses you? You can't claim that What's
Right
> is doing that, because he is 100% in synch with the teachings of the Holy
> Bible. No wonder you're distressed--you expect us to place your "opinion"
> above the fundamental teachings of Christianity.
>
No, no. Not at all. But I wonder how one can be "100% in synch with the
teachings of the Bible" if he is willing to be wrong on the facts in which
he accuses others. I wonder how he can be right if he won't get his
definitions correct.
God's Word does not teach us to be ignorant, nor to fight from ignorance. I
find none of the preachers in the Bible making rash and unfounded
accusations.
Nor does the Scripture teach us to use invectives. Rather, it commands that
our speech be with grace.
And if you are careful to look, I have not said that I am an evolutionist. I
have said that it produces useful models. What I am arguing against is not
creationism, per se, but rather the rash, uneducated drivel some propound
that makes people who believe in Creation look like fools.
I, too, used to charge in like a brave knight to destroy the foe and defend
the Lord. I quickly found out the scripture which says "My people are
destroyed for lack of knowledge" is true. I also was remonstrated for having
the gall to defend Christian teaching while acting in a patently unChristian
manner.
If you are going to fight the fight, know your subject thoroughly. Don't
resort to invectives. Remember that the end result is not to destroy the
foe, but to redeem.
How have my objections to rash statements and inaccurate ideas and data
removed me from the fundamentals of Christianity? I don't believe they have.
Rather, I want to follow the Lord in all honesty and humility.
> > You are correct in saying that we worship and follow tha which we wish.
I
> > worship God. I follow Him. And I trust His Word. Do you? If so, why are
> you
> > so frightened by those who wish to understand the processes God put into
> > place in this world He created?
> >
> > The less I knew, the more confident I was that I knew it all. Now,
having
> > learned a great deal more, I understand that I know very little indeed.
I
> > will keep learning, but I will never know it all.
> >
> > Raymond
> >
>
> Raymond, wadr, you aren't even close. You are correct that science and
God
> coexist, but you are seriously in error to refuse to consider the awful
> ramifications of accepting as "science" the childish ramblings of a
> non-scientist like Darwin. If the "theory of evolution" was even close,
> species have been on the planet long enough that there would now be only
ONE
> species--a conglomeration of every other species that ever existed.
>
Again, a rash statement without a shred of supporting evidence. Sigh. Can't
you see that statements like this only make people decide to ignore your
argument. Can't you see that if you have truth to offer, that rash and
unfounded statements will make people overlook that truth?
I believe the Scriptures. And in following them, I believe it is important
to be knowledgeable about your topics and wise in your speech.
Raymond
fm
"Samuel Lubell" <lubell...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:3ad508a7...@pubnews.netcom.net.uk...
> While not on my usual (and increasingly unreliable) news-server I
> noticed that on Wed, 11 Apr 2001 12:33:04 -0700, Joni J Rathbun
> <jrat...@orednet.org> sent via passenger pigeon:
>
> >
> >On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, fm wrote:
> >
> >
> >> This discredits real science so seriously that it's no wonder that we
scored
> >> so low in the world in science tests. Intelligent children sense the
> >> disconnect and don't trust their science teachers any longer.
> >
> >This certainly doesn't explain why US school districts came in first,
> >third, fourth and fifth in the TIMSS science test. Hint: none of these
> >school districts were in Kansas.
>
> Huh??? The study you are referring to from last week (the TIMSS-R
> Benchmarking study) only included U.S. school districts and compared
> them to the TIMSS-R averages of other nations. See
> http://www.timss.org/timss1999benchmark.html. That's like being
> surprised that a North American team always wins the baseball World
> Series.
>
> And even so, all but one of these best districts failed to outscore
> the *average* for Taipai and Singapore.
>
> However, fm is wrong about everything else. Evolution isn't
> questioned in Japan and Europe, even in the countries that score much
> higher in science than does the U.S.
>
> some o
Sam,
Are you suggesting that the openly CHRISTIAN countries like Germany, France,
Spain, Italy, England, who ALL score higher than we do in both math and
science, in almost ALL of the international tests they've ever taken, where
it's not ILLEGAL for them to say spoken CHRISTIAN prayers in their
classrooms--don't teach about God's creation?
Did you REALLY mean to make this claim?
John Knight
fm
"jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist" <j...@research.att.com> wrote in
message news:GBoqq...@research.att.com...
> In article <BT3B6.7719$J8.57...@news1.rsm1.occa.home.com>,
> fm <j.w.k...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> >Most scientists disagree with you, jj.
> I work in a building full of some of the top scientists in the country,
> and they do NOT disagree with me.
>
Well, the top scientists in my building disagree with you, and they can kick
the BUTTS of the top scientists in your building. They can even kick your
grandmother's butt, and your greatgrandmother's.
> >The case against Darwin
>
> >by James Perloff
> >Š 2001 WorldNetDaily.com
>
> This book is a JOKE.
>
> Not only a joke, but a bad one.
F'rinstance?
John Knight
Adam Marczyk
news:i6rB6.8531$J8.65...@news1.rsm1.occa.home.com...
[snip]
> Dear Raymond,
>
> I am a Christian too, but believe it or not, after years of just accepting
> at face value what our "public schools" teach about evolution, it was my
> scientific background rather than my Christian background that made me
> overwhelmingly reject every word written by Darwin.
>
> He was truly pathetic, but I never knew it, because I never looked into
his
> history--until the DNA evidence proved, once and for all, that
Neanderthal,
> Cro Magnon, and homo sapiens are not genetically linked.
Um, what DNA evidence are you referring to? I'm not aware that we have any
Neanderthal DNA. In fact, that would be rather difficult since they died out
a very long time ago and we don't have anything left but bones. Do you have
a citation for this? I rather suspect you don't, because you've made an
extremely obvious error. It would be some trick for Cro-Magnon Man to not be
related to us -- because Cro-Magnon Man _is_ Homo sapiens. It was never
claimed to be anything else.
> The bones mean nothing. They can fit them together any way they choose.
> The DNA proved that Neanderthal is extinct, Cro Magnon is extinct, and
homo
> sapiens survived.
Cro-Magnon Man is extinct? Hmm. That's odd. I could've sworn I saw a few
walking around just the other day...
> That was the last gasp in the argument for evolution. Homo sapiens did
not
> "evolve" from anything else, and thus neither did a bird "evolve" from a
> dynasaur, and neither did a fish become a turtle. DNA slammed the door
shut
> on "evolution".
[snip]
fm
> In article <xJ4B6.7728$J8.57...@news1.rsm1.occa.home.com>,
> fm <j.w.k...@usa.net> wrote:
> >If this "theory of evolution" was at all accurate, then the mule, which
is a
> >cross between the horse and the donkey, could itself procreate.
> Now THAT is exactly opposite what the idea of speciation says.
>
> Your object is absurd, completely absurd, and in fact flat-out
> wrong.
>
> >But it
> >can't, can it? It dies out in one generation, which is exactly what
would
> >happen to any other possible cross-breed between species.
>
> And that's what the idea of speciation suggests will happen
> AT BEST.
>
> >Where are these "missing links"?
>
> Practically speaking, there ARE no "missing links". Your choice of
> shark to human, btw, is NOT what anyone suggests happened.
>
But the claims that ANY speciation takes place suggests that, given enough
time, this could be the final result. Obviously this doesn't happen, a
little or a lot.
> Before you start making ridiculous, offensive assertions,
> you should learn what they theory DOES SAY.
>
> >For a century and a half now,
> >"scientists" have been trying to make the facts fit the "theory of
> >evolution", and then DNA proved, once and for all, that Neanderthal and
Cro
> >Magnon and homo sapiens are three different species which aren't
genetically
> >related at all.
>
> No, that is NOT what the DNA showed. DNA shows that humans are
> nearly identical to a chimpanzee, and even closer to
> Neandertal.
>
You misread something here. It is not the similarity that's important.
It's the difference. And the difference was great enough to prove that
Neanderthal is not an ancestor to homo sapiens. The *small* difference in
the DNA of the chimpanzee and homo sapiens should give you a clue that this
*small* difference makes a *big* difference in the final product.
It's silly to believe that a chimpanzee had to "evolve" into anything else,
even if you ignore that there has never been a fossile which matches a
mid-range species.
> >In other words, legitimate science has already proven that creation is
the
> >only valid "theory" in town.
>
> Your statement is either a mistaken, born of you being misled by
> people who know better, or intentionally misleading in and of itself.
> Since I don't see what you think, I don't know which.
Well, then, you'll probably find the following urls of interest:
http://www.2think.org/neanderthal.shtml
http://www.anomalous-images.com/news/news087.html
http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news187.htm
http://www.sciam.com/1999/0899issue/0899infocus.html
http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc99/2_6_99/bob1.htm
John Knight
Adam Marczyk
news:3ad628d6....@news.fcc.net...
[snip]
To coin a phrase, probability is irrelevant. Since no one predicted any
result ahead of time, evolution is free to take whatever paths it wants. You
may buy a lottery ticket with 1 in 3 billion odds and discover you had the
winning numbers; would you throw it out because "I couldn't possibly beat
odds that large, so clearly I didn't win after all?" _Someone_ has to win.
mel turner
In article <3ad381dc...@news.lafn.org>, john...@faithreason.org
[John D. Callahan] wrote...
>
>God created the universe with laws (gravity, time, etc.) by which it
>operates; we are able to understand these laws and make discoveries
>about past and future events and phenomena, including evolution.
>Evolution is simply a scientific understanding of our origins. It does
>not make God unnecessary.
Right, that's a very common position. Lots of "evolutionists"
are theists who simply believe that natural evolution was the
method used for the creation of life's diversity.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/interpretations.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/evolutio.htm
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/evolution/kevino.html
http://www.goshen.edu/bio/Biol410/Biol410SrSemPapers97/millerl.html
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~ecolevol/fulldoc.html#fact
http://asa.calvin.edu/ASA/index.html
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/index.html/
http://homepages.tcp.co.uk/~carling/main_sci.html
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~newman/sci-cp/evolution.html
http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~newman/sci-faith.html
http://solon.cma.univie.ac.at/~neum/christ/creation.html
etc.
>However, it may mean we need to reevaluate
>Him and our place in the universe. Evolution may imply that the
>universe is bigger and more complex than we at first imagined.
Well, astronomy and cosmology will tell us that, even if
evolutionary biology itself doesn't.
>Many Christians, unfortunately, are reluctant to accept modern
>science. Creationists, rather than accepting the ever increasing
>mountain of evidence validating evolution, have developed a new
>tactic: in addition to their religious and creation "science" premise,
>they now spin complex and sophisticated scientific arguments debunking
>evolution ("Intelligent Design Theory").
That probably should be "complex and sophisticated-_sounding_
'scientific' arguments". There's arguably little valid science
to any of it.
e,g.,
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html
http://biomed.brown.edu/Faculty/M/Miller/Behe.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
>The Kansas Board of
>Education's 1999 decision removing evolution from their curriculum was
>a short-lived victory for such a strategy.
>
>But is it possible to be a Christian and fully accept modern science
>(including biological evolution and the Big Bang), and a valuable, yet
>non-perfect Bible? A Web site which addresses these issues -- and has
>a pretty good links page to related sites -- is
>
>http://www.faithreason.org (Faith & Reason Ministries)
Added to the above list of "theistic evolution" web sites.
cheers