The Biblical God does not exist, or is evil!

[west...@cadvision.com]

I've been thinking about this, and I have come to two conclusions: Either
the Biblical God does not exist, or the Biblical God is not such a nice guy.
Let me explain in as few words as possible:

As you know, God apparently has unhindered power and control over the
entire universe, as well as knowing all and seeing all. Given this, you would
think that he could make everyone perfect. But he doesn't. He delibrately
tricks humans for a good laugh. Let me show you:

I'll start with basic human instinct. God makes instincts (such as sex
drive), and then sets the rules against following them, else you go to hell.
What was God's point in this? To see who was the most faithful?

God apparently made the Earth 6000 years ago, but he makes evidence of
Earth being 4.5 billion years old. So, people doubt his religion, and the go
to hell for their sin. God's point here? Well, so that the blindly faithful
(aka ignorant)are let into Heaven.

God created Satan and Hell (he must have, as it exists, and God created
all, right?). He lets Satan influence people with thoughts against him. He is
obviously letting this happen, as he supreme power and knowledge allows this.
Does he do anything? No. He lets Satan take over the world. So, in the end
God ultimately sends millions of people to hell for being influenced by
Satan, even though it is God's fault in the first place.

I could go on, but I'm sure you have better things to do besides read
this. Here is the point: The God of the Bible is either not the "loving" God
as some think him to be, or he doesn't exist at all. What the Biblical God
has created is a system of tricks, such as the ones described above. At any
time God could snap his fingers and everything would be perfect. But does he
do this? No. He likes to watch mankind writhe in pain in the depths of hell.

Does a loving God trick you? Does a loving God kill people with disasters?
Does a loving God let the ignorant and irrational into Heaven, leaving the
reasonable (a skill which God gave them) go to hell? I think not. The
Biblical God is evil. I am definately not a satanist, but I would rather rot
in hell than worship such a hypocritical, evil, trickster such as God!

Thank you very much for reading and I welcome your responses. (Ignore the
spelling mistakes, I was in a hurry. Thanks.)

-Brian M. Westcott

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

[Westwind]

west...@cadvision.com wrote in message <6i8r6g$7v3$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...

> I've been thinking about this, and I have come to two conclusions:
Either
>the Biblical God does not exist, or the Biblical God is not such a nice
guy.
>Let me explain in as few words as possible:
>

<snip>

Hmm...lemme think about this...a God that sends his ONLY son to suffer and
die for 'beings' that he's evil to and he hates? I don't think so. All good
things are of God, but all evil are of Satan. God's good news tells us that.
Why has God allowed Satan to even live? I don't know. Heck, if we're going
there, why did he even create Satan in the first place since he knew that
Satan would sin and lead billions of people to Hell?
I don't know. We're told God works in mysterious ways, and also that no one
knows the thoughts of God.
"...For also, who knows the thoughts of God expect the spirit of God."

Also, God created the earth closer to 13000 years ago. The week of creation
had 7 days, that is 7 of God's days. If you examine the scripture close
enough( I could give some verses if need be), you'll see that a God's day is
1000 years. So creation is 7000 years. But, if we work it out, and remember
that after Armageddon, there will be a millennium of peace and prosperity,
then we must be on the 6th day after the week of Creation. So, we're closer
to 13000 years. Also, it's been shown that a flood of the magnitude of the
Great Flood in Genesis would leave deposits of soil/rock/whatever seem much
older than they really are.

[Pepijn Schmitz]

Wow, you just _want_ to be flamed, don't you?! I'm too tired right now
so I'll let others do that. I'm just going to say: take a look at
www.talkorigins.org to have all your arguments refuted one by one.

Pepijn

[Carl Funk]

Westwind wrote:
<snip>

> Also, God created the earth closer to 13000 years ago. The week of creation
> had 7 days, that is 7 of God's days. If you examine the scripture close
> enough( I could give some verses if need be), you'll see that a God's day is
> 1000 years. So creation is 7000 years. But, if we work it out, and remember
> that after Armageddon, there will be a millennium of peace and prosperity,
> then we must be on the 6th day after the week of Creation. So, we're closer
> to 13000 years. Also, it's been shown that a flood of the magnitude of the
> Great Flood in Genesis would leave deposits of soil/rock/whatever seem much
> older than they really are.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
You don't really believe that, do you? I have a hard time believing
anyone
educated in the Western world could really fall for that crap. Did you
learn *anything* in *any* science class? I know testing has shown that
science education in the U.S. has been declining for decades, but surely
students are still learning *something*. I suggest you check out this
site before you try spouting such nonsense here again.
http://www.talk.origins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

--
Carl Funk "GO WINGS! Bring Lord Stanley back to Hockeytown!"

to bypass my SPAM-deflector, it helps if you realize I am
asthmatic. i.e. no SMOKING please!

[Papel]

west...@cadvision.com wrote in message <6i8r6g$7v3$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> I've been thinking about this, and I have come to two conclusions:
Either
>the Biblical God does not exist, or the Biblical God is not such a nice
guy.
>Let me explain in as few words as possible:
>

You think you have it all figured out? I doubt you have. You can't even
make up your mind what you want to think. You are undecided on whether you
want to believe in God or not.

[west...@cadvision.com]

In article <6i91id$23s$1...@news.islandnet.com>#1/1,

"Westwind" <mag...@islandndet.com> wrote:
>
>
> west...@cadvision.com wrote in message <6i8r6g$7v3$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> > I've been thinking about this, and I have come to two conclusions:
> Either
> >the Biblical God does not exist, or the Biblical God is not such a nice
> guy.
> >Let me explain in as few words as possible:
> >

> <snip>
>
> Hmm...lemme think about this...a God that sends his ONLY son to suffer and
> die for 'beings' that he's evil to and he hates? I don't think so. All good
> things are of God, but all evil are of Satan. God's good news tells us that.
> Why has God allowed Satan to even live? I don't know. Heck, if we're going
> there, why did he even create Satan in the first place since he knew that
> Satan would sin and lead billions of people to Hell?
> I don't know. We're told God works in mysterious ways, and also that no one
> knows the thoughts of God.
> "...For also, who knows the thoughts of God expect the spirit of God."
>

> Also, God created the earth closer to 13000 years ago. The week of creation
> had 7 days, that is 7 of God's days. If you examine the scripture close
> enough( I could give some verses if need be), you'll see that a God's day is
> 1000 years. So creation is 7000 years. But, if we work it out, and remember
> that after Armageddon, there will be a millennium of peace and prosperity,
> then we must be on the 6th day after the week of Creation. So, we're closer
> to 13000 years. Also, it's been shown that a flood of the magnitude of the
> Great Flood in Genesis would leave deposits of soil/rock/whatever seem much
> older than they really are.
>
>

I did not say that "God" thought we were evil and he hates us. I did say that
he tricks us, though. God makes Satan and hell. God lets Satan influence
people so they go to hell. Therefore, since God lets this happen, it is
ultimately God doing. I understand that God is allowed to play by unclear
rules, though, so I guess this is ok then. But in the human world, when a man
makes a deathtrap and lets another man wald into it, it's not a very nice
thing to do.

As for the age of the earth, I'm not going to argue about the Biblical earth
age, as it really doesn't matter. There are scientific studies that PROVE the
earth is 4.3 to 4.6 billion years old, not by sediment, but by rock samples,
far too deep for any flood waters. I read somthing on it once, and, upon
request, I could go back to my local library and find the name of the book
(and author) for anyone who wants it.
Thanks for the comment,

[Andrew Lias]

In article <6i91id$23s$1...@news.islandnet.com>,

Westwind <mag...@islandndet.com> wrote:
>
>west...@cadvision.com wrote in message <6i8r6g$7v3$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>> I've been thinking about this, and I have come to two conclusions:
>Either
>>the Biblical God does not exist, or the Biblical God is not such a nice
>guy.
>>Let me explain in as few words as possible:
>>
><snip>
>
>Hmm...lemme think about this...a God that sends his ONLY son to suffer and
>die for 'beings' that he's evil to and he hates? I don't think so. All good
>things are of God, but all evil are of Satan.

Whence Satan?

If you are going to postulate an ultimate being, then you can't absolve it
of ultimate responsibility for all of its creations.

>God's good news tells us that.
>Why has God allowed Satan to even live? I don't know. Heck, if we're going
>there, why did he even create Satan in the first place since he knew that
>Satan would sin and lead billions of people to Hell?
>I don't know. We're told God works in mysterious ways, and also that no one
>knows the thoughts of God.

In philosophical terms, this would be known as begging the question. In
simpler terms, this is nothing less them a cop out. Saying (in effect),
"There's probably a darned good reason," doesn't do justice to the
question.

[snip creationism]

If you want to argue flood geology or the age of the earth, talk.origins
is the appropriate forum.
--
Andrew Lias | anrw...@wco.com | andre...@lamrc.com | Siste viator
*-----------*------------------*-----------------------*------------*
Christian Fundamentalism: The doctrine that there is an absolutely
powerful, infinitely knowledgeable, universe spanning entity that is
deeply and personally concerned about my sex life.
*-----------*------------------*-----------------------*------------*
http://www.wco.com/~anrwlias

[Sterling Crowe]

edotte wrote in message <35492F...@bellatlantic.net>...

>west...@cadvision.com wrote:
>
>> I've been thinking about this, and I have come to two conclusions:
Either
>> the Biblical God does not exist, or the Biblical God is not such a nice
guy.
>> Let me explain in as few words as possible:
>

>Brian,
>
>First I would like to add that "Biblical God" you refer to should more
>accurately be described as a " sterotypical Biblical God" because not
>all of us Christians believe that. I am one.

That's nice. The one Brian is referring to is the one that can be identified
in the Bible.
You know, the one that wiped out everyone but one family in a big ol' flood.
The one who killed all the firstborn sons in Egypt, after hardening the
heart of the Pharoh.
The one that sends bears to rend children for making fun of one of His
prophets.
Which one do you believe in?

<snip>

>> God apparently made the Earth 6000 years ago, but he makes evidence of
>> Earth being 4.5 billion years old. So, people doubt his religion, and the
go
>> to hell for their sin. God's point here? Well, so that the blindly
faithful
>> (aka ignorant)are let into Heaven.
>

>Not all of us believe these fairy tales. The Bible does not say Earth is
>6,000 years old. The Earth could be 4 billion. Dinosaurs existed.

Beg to differ, and this is one of the major points of contention, I will
agree.
The Bible provides a complete geneology of Jesus (two in fact, since his
adopted human father's father can't be reconciled from the Gospels).
Using these geneologies (and the ages of the people involved), an age of the
Earth at roughly 6000 years can be obtained.
Interesting that you not that "not all believe in these fairy tales", since
this is posted to two atheist NG's.
The problem is, if even the most basic part of the Bible is flawed (which it
obviously is, glad you agree), then how can the rest of the Bible be
trusted?
I'm gonna have to go with "It can't" on that one, myself.

>>
>> God created Satan and Hell (he must have, as it exists, and God
created
>> all, right?). He lets Satan influence people with thoughts against him.
He is
>> obviously letting this happen, as he supreme power and knowledge allows
this.
>> Does he do anything? No. He lets Satan take over the world. So, in the
end
>> God ultimately sends millions of people to hell for being influenced by
>> Satan, even though it is God's fault in the first place.
>

>God did not created Satan. Satan created himself by turning away from
>God. God created an angel of light, sinless.

Yah know, Satan is in what is commonly held to be the oldest of the books of
the Old Testament (Job). Satan is presented in that book as a trusted
servant, given what powers he had directly by the Big Guy himself, for the
sole purpose of torturing a guy who is described as the most moral, god
loving man out there.
Not one thing that Satan does in that book is without God's blessings. Tends
to suggest that Satan ain't exactly rebelling against God there.

> Further, it is arguable if
>hell really exists or if God created it.

It is also arguable whether God exists.
However, how could you possible reconcile the ideas that God created the
universe with the idea of a plane of eternal torture which was NOT created
by Him?

>But for the sake of argument
>God doesn't send people to Hell they do by rejecting him.

Baloney. No one says "I don't believe in God because I want to spend
eternity wailing and gnashing my teeth."
Well, OK, some might.
Those who say that they don't believe in God tend to say so for various
reasons, whether they believe in some other god, or they believe in no gods
(because of a complete lack of evidence which is supported better than the
evidence for the existence of hobbits), or because they happen to be Jewish
and do not believe in Jesus as the Messiah.

> Moreover, my
>God is so powerful, that he can make even Satan evil work for good.

Uh huh. Where was the good involved in the slaying of Job's family so God
could win a little bet with Satan?

> Come
>on you must have experience something in your life that was bad but turn
>out for good in the end?

I can admit that things I had thought were detrimental to me wound up being
beneficial. I see no need to ascribe such things to invisible, supernatural
beings.

>
>> I could go on, but I'm sure you have better things to do besides read
>> this. Here is the point: The God of the Bible is either not the "loving"
God
>> as some think him to be, or he doesn't exist at all.
>

>Concidering that all of your points are debatable this is an unsound
>inference to make.

All of the points of the Bible are debatable.
I would assume, however, that this does not mean that you would consider the
Bible to be unsound in relation to the things which Jesus was supposed to
have said and done.

>
>>What the Biblical God has created is a system of tricks, such as the ones
described above. At any
>> time God could snap his fingers and everything would be perfect.
>

>But then people would decry him as unjust for removing our free will.

How could they, lacking free will?
That is, unless God decided to make his puppets dance in such a way that
they would decry such things.
Some (myself included) consider the idea of free will to be totally
incompatible with the idea of a being who is omnipotent and omniscient.

>Free will is an important part if why things exist the way they do.

Yeah, and things are pretty crappy for a lot of people, huh?

>
>>But does he do this? No. He likes to watch mankind writhe in pain in the
depths of hell.
>

>He has provided a provision that you will not burn in Hell. Jesus.

Uh huh.

>> Does a loving God trick you? Does a loving God kill people with
disasters?
>> Does a loving God let the ignorant and irrational into Heaven, leaving
the
>> reasonable (a skill which God gave them) go to hell? I think not. The
>> Biblical God is evil. I am definately not a satanist, but I would rather
rot
>> in hell than worship such a hypocritical, evil, trickster such as God!
>

>Your whole premise is not valid because God is love.

So, love destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah? Love cast Adam and Eve out of the
Garden of Eden? Love caused worldwide calamity in the for of the Flood? Love
gave Satan carte blanch to do whatever he felt like to Job, except kill him?
Love caused bears to rend children who mocked Elisha? Love turned the Nile
to blood?
Far out. I love my wife, but I wouldn't do any of those things to her. Maybe
I've got a different definition of love than you do.

> No tricks, believe
>in Him and its all your's everything and more.

Or, maybe not, if He decides to play another little game with Satan to test
your faith.

> Isn't hope better than
>the Grave?

Yawn. Pascal's wager. Again.
Interesting twist, though. This one suggests that the alternative to
everlasting life with God is merely non existence, rather than the fiery
pits of Hell.
Here's something I would like theists, specifically Christian theists to
answer:
What's so great about Heaven?
Honestly. Y'all talk about it like it's this wonderful place. A place so
neato that even after being there for multiple googleplexes of millenia, you
won't be tired of it. So, I guess that the questions I have for theists are:
What is there to do in Heaven? What is Heaven like? Can you actually see
your loved ones burning in Hell from Heaven, as the parable of Lazarus the
beggar suggests? Don't you think that seeing an "unsaved" loved one
suffering torment would diminish your happiness?
BTW, I'm already familiar with the "no eye has seen, etc." quote in the
Bible. I want to know what you expect to find in Heaven, not an evasive
reply chosen from Scripture.
Also, don't you think an attitude of "love me or I'll kill you" or "love me
or I'll torture you forever" denotes a certain childishness, especially
since this attitude is supposedly held by an infinite, perfectly moral
being?
Frankly, I'll stick with the Church of Seismology. Rocks don't care if you
love them, all people get to become rocks after death, regardless.

--Sterling Crowe

"Don't appeal to mercy to God the Father up in the sky, little man, because
he's not at home and never was at home, and couldn't care less. What you do
with yourself, whether you are happy or unhappy-- live or die-- is strictly
your business and the universe doesn't care. In fact you may be the universe
and the only cause of all your troubles. But, at best, the most you can hope
for is comradeship with comrades no more divine (or just as divine) as you
are. So quit sniveling and face up to it-- 'Thou art God!'"
-Robert A. Heinlein Oct. 21, 1960

[Tim Beard]

west...@cadvision.com wrote in message <6i8r6g$7v3$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...

> I've been thinking about this, and I have come to two conclusions:
Either
>the Biblical God does not exist, or the Biblical God is not such a nice
guy.

>-Brian M. Westcott

Your problem is your starting point. God made people with desires that had
good purposes. God's first command is to multiply and fill the earth. He
desired husbands to "cleave to" their wives so they would build lasting
families. The sexual desire made those purposes pleasurable for mankind. He
gave a desire to exercise authority with the command to exercise dominion
over the earth. God didn't "design" that good desires be perverted to
selfish and sinful ends. It was man who chose to reject God's right to be
God over him and the resulting sinful nature then turns originally good
desires to bad ends.
The earth only looks 4.5 billion years old to those who already believe
in evolution and who are looking for justification for their beliefs. If you
don't start with all the evolutionary assumptions, you don't come out with
great ages. There are also more indicators of age than the few that
evolutionists choose to emphasize. Most point to a much younger earth.
God didn't make Satan as Satan or man as a sinner. He made creatures
with perception, intellect, and responsible, independent wills. Satan was
the highest of angels, created for eternal fellowship with God. Hell was
made for Satan and his angels (Matt 25:41) only after they rejected
submission to the true God in order to exalt themselves to the position of
gods (Isa 14). People go to hell not for their faith in evolution or for
their sexual sins but only by rejecting God's right to be God and rejecting
the way of salvation that He has provided for all men in Jesus Christ.
There were no disasters in the way the Loving God made the world. Death
and sickness are in the world for a time only because of sin. If there were
no things harmful or hurtful, we would probably successfully deny the
existance of reality. The options of pain and death make all our choices
meaningful. You have to think of eternal things when you realize there is an
end of this life coming soon for you. All the problems we see are the result
of sin's presence in the world, not God's lack of love. If He left it this
way forever, we could question His character, but when He assures us that He
won't, we can wait to see His purpose fully revealed.
God for a time allows Satan and sinful men to go their own ways and see
the results of their rebellion (see Romans 1:18-32). He never approves of
sin. Death is not a part of original creation or the final state, and is
always an enemy (1 Cor 15:26). He makes himself known to all men through
what he has created, and they suppress the truth that is obvious in order to
believe lies. They are unthankful to God and congratulate themselves on the
wisdom of their foolishness. And still God is patient, not desiring that any
should perish but that they should come to the knowledge of the truth.

[Carl Funk]

Tim Beard wrote:
<snip>

> The earth only looks 4.5 billion years old to those who already believe
> in evolution and who are looking for justification for their beliefs. If you
> don't start with all the evolutionary assumptions, you don't come out with
> great ages. There are also more indicators of age than the few that
> evolutionists choose to emphasize. Most point to a much younger earth.

<snip>

Please enlighten me. Which indicators of the earth's age point to an
age
less than 4 billion years? And what do you mean by "evolutionary
assumptions" in this context?

--
Carl Funk "nil illegitimi carborundum"

[Mark C.]

> west...@cadvision.com wrote:

>>>Snip<<<

> >
> > God created Satan and Hell (he must have, as it exists, and God created
> > all, right?). He lets Satan influence people with thoughts against him. He is
> > obviously letting this happen, as he supreme power and knowledge allows this.
> > Does he do anything? No. He lets Satan take over the world. So, in the end
> > God ultimately sends millions of people to hell for being influenced by
> > Satan, even though it is God's fault in the first place.
>
> God did not created Satan. Satan created himself by turning away from
> God. God created an angel of light, sinless.

If it was sinless, how could it turn from God? And if it could,
and God created this being, then God is responsible for this beings
actions.

Further, it is arguable if

> hell really exists or if God created it. But for the sake of argument

> God doesn't send people to Hell they do by rejecting him.

But the whole point is, an omniscient being would know all of this
before hand. So who is really responsible?

Moreover, my
> God is so powerful, that he can make even Satan evil work for good. Come

> on you must have experience something in your life that was bad but turn
> out for good in the end?

I see, starvation and disease are really good things right?

>
> > I could go on, but I'm sure you have better things to do besides read
> > this. Here is the point: The God of the Bible is either not the "loving" God
> > as some think him to be, or he doesn't exist at all.
>
> Concidering that all of your points are debatable this is an unsound
> inference to make.

No it's not. This god is presented to us as an all-loving
creature who knows all. And yet, when viewed through the Bible, this
god appears as nothing more than a vicious, petty tyrant who doesn't
even know who is going to believe in him or not.

>
>
> >What the Biblical God has created is a system of tricks, such as the ones described above. At any
> > time God could snap his fingers and everything would be perfect.
>
> But then people would decry him as unjust for removing our free will.

> Free will is an important part if why things exist the way they do.

If this god is omniscient, than we have no free-will. If we have
free-will, then this god is hardly omniscient.

>
> >But does he do this? No. He likes to watch mankind writhe in pain in the depths of hell.
>
> He has provided a provision that you will not burn in Hell. Jesus.

Which shows how all-loving this god of yours is.

>
> > Does a loving God trick you? Does a loving God kill people with disasters?
> > Does a loving God let the ignorant and irrational into Heaven, leaving the
> > reasonable (a skill which God gave them) go to hell? I think not. The
> > Biblical God is evil. I am definately not a satanist, but I would rather rot
> > in hell than worship such a hypocritical, evil, trickster such as God!
>
> Your whole premise is not valid because God is love.

Ridiculous assumption when you read the Bible.

No tricks, believe
> in Him and its all your's everything and more.

So He wasn't tricking Job?

Isn't hope better than
> the Grave?

Weak pascal's wager.

>
> In Christ,
> Edward
--
Mark C.
#99

"Men are mammals and Women are femammals."
From a student essay-Skeptic Vol.5 No.3

"All the animals were here before mankind.
The animals lived peacefully until mankind
came along and made roads, houses, hotels,
and condoms." - A student essay - Skeptic
Vol.5, No.3

"They call them extremists. We have our own names. We call them
Senators, congressman, governers, mayors, state legislators."
-Ralph Reed, Christian Coalition Executive Director

"God gave the savior to the German people.
We have faith, deep and unshakeable faith
that he was sent to us by God to save
Germany." - Hermann Goering
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

[Mark C.]

>
> Your problem is your starting point. God made people with desires that had
> good purposes. God's first command is to multiply and fill the earth. He
> desired husbands to "cleave to" their wives so they would build lasting
> families. The sexual desire made those purposes pleasurable for mankind. He
> gave a desire to exercise authority with the command to exercise dominion
> over the earth. God didn't "design" that good desires be perverted to
> selfish and sinful ends. It was man who chose to reject God's right to be
> God over him and the resulting sinful nature then turns originally good
> desires to bad ends.

But this god is suppossed to be omniscient. He should have seen
it coming.

> The earth only looks 4.5 billion years old to those who already believe
> in evolution and who are looking for justification for their beliefs.

No, the Earth is that old because all the tests support that age.
It's the YEC's who want the Earth to be 6,000 years old to justify
*their* belief.

If you
> don't start with all the evolutionary assumptions, you don't come out with
> great ages.

Show how this is so.

There are also more indicators of age than the few that
> evolutionists choose to emphasize.

Which is?

Most point to a much younger earth.

I notice that you asserted this without any evidence.

> God didn't make Satan as Satan or man as a sinner. He made creatures
> with perception, intellect, and responsible, independent wills.

Then God is not omniscient.

Satan was
> the highest of angels, created for eternal fellowship with God.

But God fucked up.

Hell was
> made for Satan and his angels (Matt 25:41) only after they rejected
> submission to the true God in order to exalt themselves to the position of
> gods (Isa 14). People go to hell not for their faith in evolution or for
> their sexual sins but only by rejecting God's right to be God and rejecting
> the way of salvation that He has provided for all men in Jesus Christ.

So much for a "all-loving" god.

> There were no disasters in the way the Loving God made the world. Death
> and sickness are in the world for a time only because of sin. If there were
> no things harmful or hurtful, we would probably successfully deny the
> existance of reality. The options of pain and death make all our choices
> meaningful.

So IOW, God created this Eden where nothing ever went wrong but
whose inhabitents had no meaning and God said "It is good". But then
something *did* go wrong, and man sinned and there was nothing but
chaos after that which gave meaning to it's inhabitants and God said
"It is bad and I will create a hell for those little fuckers to fry in
for the rest of eternity"! The Christian logic is staggering! I'm
getting a headache. I think I better lie down.

>>>Snip<<<

[webg...@rocketmail.com]

In article <6ic30s$s...@news1.ee.net>#1/2,

"Sterling Crowe" <weezbo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> edotte wrote in message <35492F...@bellatlantic.net>...
> >west...@cadvision.com wrote:

[snip!]

Well, first off, Heaven is about 1500 degrees hotter than Hell. This can be
proven in the Bible, using the following verses:

Isaiah 30:26 Moreover the light of the moon shall be as the
light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold,
as the light of seven days, in the day that the LORD bindeth
up the breach of his people, and healeth the stroke of their
wound.

In other words, when the end of the world is past, the light of the sun in
Heaven "shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days". Since Heaven is
routinely explained as an infinite surface, then the light must also be the
same on every square inch of Heaven's surface, or else Heaven is pretty dark
(take a finite amount of light and shine it over an infinite surface...).
Using the properties of optics, the light from the sun over a period of seven
days would heat up one square inch of surface to 5500 degrees.

Hell, on the other hand, is described in Revelations as a "lake of fire and
brimstone":

Revelation 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the
abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers,
and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the
lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the
second death.

Brimstone only melts at a temperature of 4000 degrees, thereby making Hell
only 4000 degrees.

This means--do the math--that Heaven, at 5500 degrees, is roughly 1500 degrees
hotter than Hell.

----------
Side Note: Jesus has a bit to say about who else lands in the lake of fire.

Matthew 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away
his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry
another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which
is put away doth commit adultery.

In other words, divorce is the same as adultery. In the above listing of
everyone who is thrown into the fire, we get "the fearful, and
unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers,
and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars,".

Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not murder.
Exodus 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Exodus 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Yup, I thought adultery was as bad a sin as "murder" and "lying"!

Guess who's been divorced and remarried? Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole,
Phil Gramm, Dick Armey, George Will, and Rush Limbaugh (twice!).

Guess they'll be cooling their butts in the lake of fire while everyone in
Heaven is stepping lightly on the hot ground! :)

Except that they won't, since they all claim to be Christian believers (see
below).

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

People you might expect to see in Heaven: ax murderers, child molestors,
rapists, Hitler, etc.

This is because of the "deathbed conversion" allowance: if, for example,
Hitler, decided to convert to Christianity and ask forgiveness for his sins a
few seconds before the cyanide pill took effect, he would become a
believer--aside of the fact that he considered himself to be a Christian and
earnestly believed that killing the Jews was in line with Jesus' work--and
would be prevented from going to Hell.

This is because of the famous fundamentalist slogan, "Good works are
irrelevant, only faith counts". Since good works do not count, therefore bad
works do not count either, especially if you ask the Christian God for
forgiveness for them. If faith is all you need to get into Heaven, then Hitler
choosing faith in God would mean that he is waiting for you in Heaven, since
the alternative is that a believer was sent to Hell merely for failing to
perform good works! Since failure to perform good works is not grounds for
ejection from Heaven, Hitler is awaiting us all there.

Tanya Faye Tucker was considered by most Christians to be "going to Heaven",
in spite of the fact that she brutally killed a couple with an ax,, was proud
of her actions at the time, and felt no remorse until many years later.
Apparently conversions are all that is needed to get yourself into Heaven.
Just look at the large numbers of death row inmates who convert to
Christianity: they've had the whole "conversion = Heaven" thing explained to
them.

So, we can expect to see many ax murderers, Tanya Faye Tucker among them,
rapists, Hitler, killers, thieves (remember Calvary?), and so forth, numbered
among the "Saved".

<SARCASM> Boy, this deathbed conversion thing really makes Heaven sound
worthwhile, huh? Do evil your whole life, convert and confess on your
deathbed, and you get Heaven too! </SARCASM>

[tas...@webtv.net]

I can tell you must not have put alot of thought into your words.

Would you not understand the difference between light and dark if you
never seen the dark. Could you appreiciate a sunny day if you have never
experinced it being cloudy. Can you appreiciate the experience of being
alive if there were not death. Could you enjoy the miracles of Love if
you have not experinced hate.

I think not.

Tashia

[Tim Beard]

Carl Funk wrote in message <354AFB...@SMOKINGameritech.net>...
>Tim Beard wrote:
> <snip>

>> The earth only looks 4.5 billion years old to those who already
believe

>> in evolution and who are looking for justification for their beliefs. If

you
>> don't start with all the evolutionary assumptions, you don't come out
with

>> great ages. There are also more indicators of age than the few that
>> evolutionists choose to emphasize. Most point to a much younger earth.
> <snip>
>
>Please enlighten me. Which indicators of the earth's age point to an
>age
>less than 4 billion years? And what do you mean by "evolutionary
>assumptions" in this context?
>--
>Carl

Carl asked about indicators that pointed toward a young age for the earth
and about what I considered evolutionary assumptions required in order to
think that the earth appeared to be 4 billion years old. Henry Morris, in
The Biblical Basis of Modern Science, lists 68 indicators of a young earth
based on uniformitarian assumptions. In his pamphlet "Evidence for a Young
World," Dr. Russell Humphreys list the following evidences that make great
ages unlikely: (1) Galaxies wind themselves up too fast, (2) comets
disintegrate too quickly, (3) earth's continents erode too quickly, (4)
there is not enough sediment on the sea floors, (5) the oceans accumulate
sodium too fast, (6) the earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast, (7)
multi-layer fossils straddle too many strata, (8) many strata are too
tightly bent, (9) out of sequence fossils scramble timetables, (10) fossil
radioactivity [Polonium radio halos] shortens "geologic ages" to a few
years, (11) there isn't enough helium in the earth's atmosphere, (12) there
is too much helium in hot rocks, (13) there aren't enough stone age
skeletons, (14) agriculture is too recent, and (15) recorded history is too
short. Lord Kelvin assumed that he had thoroughly disproved evolution before
his death, and I think his proofs are valid. He said that the earth retains
too much heat, its magnetic field is to strong, its moon is too close, and
its speed is too fast for everything to have been cooling and running down
for billions of years. The shape of the earth is all wrong for the earth to
have formed as a molten body spinning as fast as it would have had to be in
order to still be turning. Any dynamo theory for a recharged magnetic field
is based more on the need for such a theory than on evidence for it.
Evolutionary assumptions include that it is okay to date sedimentary rocks
by the fossils they contain and then date the fossils by the rocks they are
found in. Uniformitarianism assumes that rates are slow and constant, and
that God or any outside force has never acted to change those rates. They
assume that sedimentation is by slow deposition. We have to assume that
nearly all "original" geological evidence is no missing (about 97%) and that
it is systematic enough so as to remove all evidence of most critical phases
of the evolutionary possess. It assumes without evidence that all life forms
are related to a common ancestor. It assumes that chaos or randomness can
created intelligent order without any supporting evidence and that small
changes within a species can add up to produce entirely new body plans and
organs.
Radiometric dating is based on the assumption that there were no "daughter
elements" in the original state, that there has been no appreciable leaching
or addition of decay products, that the rate of decay is constant without
regard to factors such as pressure, heat, state of the earth's atmosphere,
submersion under varying depths of earth or water, etc. There is no way of
knowing if any of those are correct assumptions. There is in fact great
variation in results of radiometric dating and many dates are patently
wrong: 180 year old lava flows in Hawaii dated at 2.96 billion years, lava
flows going down the side of Grand Canyon dated older than lava in the
foundation levels, living mollusks dates as 25,000 years old.
The following is a list I made up that you might help me improve if you
have the time.

Reasons to favor Creation over Evolution:

1. Evolution requires the self-creation of matter and the auto-development
of natural laws from what would otherwise have been a vacuum. Creation has
no such problem.

2 Evolution requires the self-organization of chemicals into highly complex
patterns by unintelligent (random) methods, and then the self-generating of
life within those chemicals. This violates both logic and everything learned
by the scientific method so far. Creation has no such problem.

3. Evolution must generate volumes of new genetic information for entirely
new systems of organs by random methods in order to have "speciation."
Science shows that the greater number of mutations, the less likely the
organism will survive. Mutations are almost uniformly harmful or at best
neutral, and they don't build on each other in any particular direction.

4. Time is not a substitute for intelligence. What is impossible today or
in recorded history or in a million years is probably equally impossible in
longer times as well. The second law of thermodynamics says the organization
decreases over time, so that longer times don't produce more order.

5. The order in the universe, the solar system, and even down to the atomic
level is contrary to random chance and is not explained by any naturalistic
"scientific theory." It is quite explainable if order and complex
information are supplied from a source outside the material universe.

6. There in no agreed mechanism of evolution and none postulated that would
produce the results observed. Hoyle stated that the chance of the
development of one protein in a human cell is about 1x1040,000. The chance
of life developing on this earth by natural processes is nil.

7. The pattern of extinctions of more than 2000 per year in our low
extinction place in history, along with the absence of newly developed
species, points to the fact that there are more species further back in
time, not a development from few to many as evolution postulates.

8. There are no intermediate forms in the fossil record, even though Darwin
predicted that they must be present in great numbers. There are no signs of
developing systems that would be associated with change from one kind of
animal to another. No one can even conceive of an intermediate stage between
a reptilian scale and a bird feather or an arm and a wing or how such
structures could be beneficial to survival. There is no known mechanism to
begin or advance such a transformation. That the fossil record contains no
evidence for such change coincides with the predictions of creationism but
contradicts the natural expectations of evolutionary theory.

9. The order in the fossil record is imposed largely by the interpreter
(ref. David Raup). The degree of order that does exist was originally seen
as evidence for creation and a world-wide Flood, and such an interpretation
hasn't been disproved by any scientific evidence.

10. Natural selection is largely a tautology (the fit survive; those who
survive are fit), and to the extent that it operates as a genetic force, it
is a conservative force to preserve species, not generate new ones.

11. Homology is as strong a reason for believing in a single wise designer
as for believing in random modifications and natural selection. The numerous
"false homologies" prove that the design is efficient and that similar
structures don't prove similar parentage.

12. Vestigial organs and recapitulation have been shown by science to be a
baseless support for evolution. The fact that they are even used at all
shows the scarcity of evidences for evolution.

13. Imperfection in nature conforms well with creationism because of the
second law of thermodynamics (or "the curse on the earth"). "Imperfection"
only has real meaning within a creationist framework, because it assumes
purposefulness and standards that are not applicable within a system of
random chance. Using "perfection" may support the ontological argument for
God.
.
14. The presence of polonium halos in the "earliest rocks" indicates that
the earth was formed cool, which refutes all evolutionary theories for
origins and dating. (cf. Robert Gentry)

15. The lack of equilibrium in certain gases shows that the world is not
old, e.g. Helium-4.

16. The worldwide fossil beds, massive amount of sedimentary rock, etc., is
evidence for catastrophism, which undermines uniformitarianism, which is
still basic to evolutionary assumptions.

17. Recent catastrophes, such as the Mt. Saint Helen's eruption, demonstrate
that many uniformitarian assumptions are false. Significant depths of
laminae and beds are laid down in a matter of hours. Massive erosion can
also take place in similar time-frames. Settling water-soaked logs are being
buried in a fashion so as to resemble polystrate fossils and in patterns
that have been interpreted previously by evolutionists as successive forests
and indications of long ages.

18. The moral, ethical results of consistent evolutionism have been almost
uniformly bad, e.g. Fascism, Communism, racism, and anti-life humanism and
anti-human environmentalism.

19. The language-like nature of DNA could not have developed by chance, and
it shows no evolutionary tree. We can't conceive of reproducing life without
DNA but evolution requires it.

20. The rates of the decay of the earth's magnetic field, the recession of
the moon from the earth, the slowing the earth's rotation by friction, and
the cooling of the earth's interior all point to a young age for the earth
that is incompatible with evolutionary theory (Lord Kelvin's disproofs of
great age).

21. Evolution is not an observable, repeatable, falsifiable theory and
therefore not a part of real science. Evolutionists claim either that
evolution happens too slow to be observed or too fast to be observed, but in
either case they admit that it is not observable. The fact that both
opposing positions are held demonstrates that the method of change is
unknown to science. Creation is more consistent with science since its
supports are present within the observable world while evolution's are
almost entirely hypothetical. The language-likeness of DNA; the complexity
and order of the universe, solar system, and atoms; Pasteur's disproof of
spontaneous generation of life; the harmfulness of mutations, the absence of
transitional fossils: all of these are observable phenomena consistent with
creation theory. The form of the evolutionary tree, the mechanisms for
speciation and information production, the mechanisms for shaping the
universe and solar system, the theories of abiogenesis are all matters of
hypothetical conjecture which either conflict with observable data or exist
only in the realm of fantasy. The need to move to "punctuated equilibrium"
as the preferred form of evolution and the resort to "cold dark matter" to
shape the universe shows that evolutionism has felt the need to retreat
within the realm of a non-testable, non-falsifiable belief system
unsupported by physical evidence, producing increasing numbers of "gods of
the gaps" to support the belief system.

Tim Beard

[Carl Funk]

Tim Beard wrote:
> Carl asked about indicators that pointed toward a young age for the earth
> and about what I considered evolutionary assumptions required in order to
> think that the earth appeared to be 4 billion years old.

Thanks for the reply, Tim. Most of the science news that I see dismiss
creationist claims rather readily. I got the impression that scientists
are showing the creationist stuff to be poorly thought out. The
examples
I've seen seem to support this.

> Henry Morris, in
> The Biblical Basis of Modern Science, lists 68 indicators of a young earth
> based on uniformitarian assumptions. In his pamphlet "Evidence for a Young
> World," Dr. Russell Humphreys list the following evidences that make great
> ages unlikely: (1) Galaxies wind themselves up too fast, (2) comets
> disintegrate too quickly, (3) earth's continents erode too quickly, (4)
> there is not enough sediment on the sea floors, (5) the oceans accumulate
> sodium too fast, (6) the earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast, (7)
> multi-layer fossils straddle too many strata, (8) many strata are too
> tightly bent, (9) out of sequence fossils scramble timetables, (10) fossil
> radioactivity [Polonium radio halos] shortens "geologic ages" to a few
> years, (11) there isn't enough helium in the earth's atmosphere, (12) there
> is too much helium in hot rocks, (13) there aren't enough stone age
> skeletons, (14) agriculture is too recent, and (15) recorded history is too
> short.

I haven't seen Morris's book, but based on the title I think I can
safely ignore it. (As an atheist, I don't believe in God, and I don't
think anything written by an ancient people has any bearing on a
modern philosophy of science.) For the 15 you have listed here, I have
found some refutations (rather than waste bandwidth by summarizing
here, I will list their URLs).
http://www.talk.origins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html (refutes 5, 6,
11)
http://www.talk.origins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/age.html#comets (2)
http://www.talk.origins.org/faqs/debate-age-of-earth.html#erosion (3,
4)
http://www.talk.origins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html (7)
http://www.talk.origins.org/faqs/po-halos.html (10)

For points 14 and 15, I'm sure Dr. Humphreys greatly underestimated
the powerful impact that agriculture and writing have on society.

With the other five points, if I can spare the time in the near
future I will try to examine them closer.

The rest of your post I intend to address in further posts.
(Two reasons: putting it all in one post would make it *very* large;
and it will take me some time to track down more information and
compose my answers.) I'm assuming you are expecting some kind of
reply, since you spent so much effort typing in all of that
propaganda, instead of listing a few URLs.

<snip of lengthy arguments for creationism>

> Tim Beard

Carl

[geo...@usa.net]

In article <6iisb1$9im$1...@paperboy.owt.com>#1/3,
"Tim Beard" <tbe...@bentonrea.com> wrote:
>
[snip]

> The following is a list I made up that you might help me improve if you
> have the time.

OK, I'll bite:

>
> Reasons to favor Creation over Evolution:

You might want to state at the outset what your version of
creation is. There are so many different ones going around.

>
> 1. Evolution requires the self-creation of matter and the auto-development
> of natural laws from what would otherwise have been a vacuum. Creation has
> no such problem.

This is not evolution, it is cosmology. You might want to define
evolution, if you are going to use a non-standard definition.

>
> 2 Evolution requires the self-organization of chemicals into highly complex
> patterns by unintelligent (random) methods, and then the self-generating of
> life within those chemicals. This violates both logic and everything learned
> by the scientific method so far. Creation has no such problem.

I think you are referring to abiogenesis. You might also wish to
consider that chemistry is not random, and that this statement in
this form makes you appear unknowlegeable to anybody that
knows anything about chemistry (if you care what they think).

>
> 3. Evolution must generate volumes of new genetic information for entirely
> new systems of organs by random methods in order to have "speciation."
> Science shows that the greater number of mutations, the less likely the
> organism will survive. Mutations are almost uniformly harmful or at best
> neutral, and they don't build on each other in any particular direction.

Natural selection is not a random process, and in #11 below you
indicate that natural selection is a tautology (and therefore
true). Are you saying that no mutations are beneficial? If so,
then you would be wrong, and if not, I don't see your point.

>
> 4. Time is not a substitute for intelligence. What is impossible today or
> in recorded history or in a million years is probably equally impossible in
> longer times as well. The second law of thermodynamics says the organization
> decreases over time, so that longer times don't produce more order.

What is the second law of thermodynamics. It is not clear from
this statement that you know what it is.

>
> 5. The order in the universe, the solar system, and even down to the atomic
> level is contrary to random chance and is not explained by any naturalistic
> "scientific theory." It is quite explainable if order and complex
> information are supplied from a source outside the material universe.
>
> 6. There in no agreed mechanism of evolution and none postulated that would
> produce the results observed. Hoyle stated that the chance of the
> development of one protein in a human cell is about 1x1040,000. The chance
> of life developing on this earth by natural processes is nil.

You appear to be confusing abiogenesis and evolution again. The
mechanism for evolution is reproduction, mutation, and natural selection.
Of these, I assume that you accept reproduction, and I know from
#11 that you accept natural selection. The only question is
whether there are beneficial mutations. How do you explain drug
resistant bacteria, for example?

>
> 7. The pattern of extinctions of more than 2000 per year in our low
> extinction place in history, along with the absence of newly developed
> species, points to the fact that there are more species further back in
> time, not a development from few to many as evolution postulates.

Do you have a reference for this one?

>
> 8. There are no intermediate forms in the fossil record, even though Darwin
> predicted that they must be present in great numbers. There are no signs of
> developing systems that would be associated with change from one kind of
> animal to another. No one can even conceive of an intermediate stage between
> a reptilian scale and a bird feather or an arm and a wing or how such
> structures could be beneficial to survival. There is no known mechanism to
> begin or advance such a transformation. That the fossil record contains no
> evidence for such change coincides with the predictions of creationism but
> contradicts the natural expectations of evolutionary theory.

What is archaeopteryx?

Look very carefully at the fossil record, and see if you still
want to make this statement. "No intermediate forms" is a very
strong statment, and implies that you have looked at every form
which is considered to be an intermediate and determined that
it is not. I doubt very much that you have done so, and I think
that you should question your source for this information.

>
> 9. The order in the fossil record is imposed largely by the interpreter
> (ref. David Raup). The degree of order that does exist was originally seen
> as evidence for creation and a world-wide Flood, and such an interpretation
> hasn't been disproved by any scientific evidence.

How would a flood explain any order in the fossil record at all? Wouldn't
that violate the second law of thermodynamics?

>
> 10. Natural selection is largely a tautology (the fit survive; those who
> survive are fit), and to the extent that it operates as a genetic force, it
> is a conservative force to preserve species, not generate new ones.

I'm glad that you at least accept natural selection. It is a very
important mechanism for evolution. Of course, this point contradicts
point number 6 above.

>
> 11. Homology is as strong a reason for believing in a single wise designer
> as for believing in random modifications and natural selection. The numerous
> "false homologies" prove that the design is efficient and that similar
> structures don't prove similar parentage.
>
> 12. Vestigial organs and recapitulation have been shown by science to be a
> baseless support for evolution. The fact that they are even used at all
> shows the scarcity of evidences for evolution.

How do vestigal organs support your version of creation?

Evolution, like any other scientific theory, says nothing about morals.
Or are you using some weird definition of evolution? If so, you
should state which definition you are using. Perhaps it is the
case that no scientist would agree with your definition, in which
case this whole discussion is moot.

>
> 19. The language-like nature of DNA could not have developed by chance, and
> it shows no evolutionary tree. We can't conceive of reproducing life without
> DNA but evolution requires it.

The fact that you can't conceive of something is hardly evidence against
it.

>
> 20. The rates of the decay of the earth's magnetic field, the recession of
> the moon from the earth, the slowing the earth's rotation by friction, and
> the cooling of the earth's interior all point to a young age for the earth
> that is incompatible with evolutionary theory (Lord Kelvin's disproofs of
> great age).
>
> 21. Evolution is not an observable, repeatable, falsifiable theory and
> therefore not a part of real science.

Just a minute -- evolution is not falsifiable?! Didn't you just spend
the last two pages trying to falsify evolution? Now you say it is
not falsifiable? Are you trying to be funny?
It would be a great improvement to your essay if
you could at least be consistent from one item to the next. I think
you have a lot of work to do if you want to make your essay convincing.

You may want to look at http://www.talkorigins.org to do some
further research. (If you are interested in some facts.)

> Evolutionists claim either that
> evolution happens too slow to be observed or too fast to be observed, but in
> either case they admit that it is not observable. The fact that both
> opposing positions are held demonstrates that the method of change is
> unknown to science. Creation is more consistent with science since its
> supports are present within the observable world while evolution's are
> almost entirely hypothetical. The language-likeness of DNA; the complexity
> and order of the universe, solar system, and atoms; Pasteur's disproof of
> spontaneous generation of life; the harmfulness of mutations, the absence of
> transitional fossils: all of these are observable phenomena consistent with
> creation theory. The form of the evolutionary tree, the mechanisms for
> speciation and information production, the mechanisms for shaping the
> universe and solar system, the theories of abiogenesis are all matters of
> hypothetical conjecture which either conflict with observable data or exist
> only in the realm of fantasy. The need to move to "punctuated equilibrium"
> as the preferred form of evolution and the resort to "cold dark matter" to
> shape the universe shows that evolutionism has felt the need to retreat
> within the realm of a non-testable, non-falsifiable belief system
> unsupported by physical evidence, producing increasing numbers of "gods of
> the gaps" to support the belief system.

You should look up what "god of the gaps" means. I don't think you
want to remind people about it.

>
> Tim Beard

[Preferred Customer]

>> 8. There are no intermediate forms in the fossil record...
>
>What is archaeopteryx?

Up until 1986, Archaeopteryx was a curious, mosaic form (not in transition.
Everything fully formed). After it was proven to be a hoax in 1986, then it
was just a hoax. Of course, that didn't stop "science" from insisting on
including the known hoax into textbooks even today.

[Magnus Henriksson]

Preferred Customer wrote:

A quick look in the Talk.Origins archive:

http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/bvickers/origins/archaeopteryx/forgery.txt

Sorry, you are wrong...

/magnus

[geo...@usa.net]

In article <iqF31.1$Ou6....@news.san.rr.com>#1/1,

"Preferred Customer" <dwes...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >> 8. There are no intermediate forms in the fossil record...
> >
> >What is archaeopteryx?
>
> Up until 1986, Archaeopteryx was a curious, mosaic form (not in transition.
> Everything fully formed). After it was proven to be a hoax in 1986, then it
> was just a hoax. Of course, that didn't stop "science" from insisting on
> including the known hoax into textbooks even today.
>
>

This is an interesting comment. You first state that archaeopteryx is
not transitional. Then you say it is a hoax. If it is not
transitional, then what is the point of the hoax? I think you would
be better off either saying that it is a hoax, or that it is not
transitional, but not both. By using both arguments, you only
show that you are confused.

As somebody else pointed out, you can read about the "hoax" at
http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/bvickers/origins/archaeopteryx/forgery.txt
(if you dare).

As for not being transitional, archaeopteryx has several characteristics
of reptiles and several characteristics of birds. If this is not
transitional, then what exactly would a transitional form look like?
(If you are going to give the standard, and stupid, "half an arm"
answer, then please tell me what "half an arm" looks like.)

GS

[* (Libertarius)]

In <6in6ht$84m$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> geo...@usa.net writes:
>
>In article <6iisb1$9im$1...@paperboy.owt.com>#1/3,
> "Tim Beard" <tbe...@bentonrea.com> wrote:
>>
>[snip]
>> The following is a list I made up that you might help me improve if
you
>> have the time.
>
>OK, I'll bite:
>>
>> Reasons to favor Creation over Evolution:
>
>You might want to state at the outset what your version of
>creation is. There are so many different ones going around.
>
>>
>> 1. Evolution requires the self-creation of matter and the
auto-development
>> of natural laws from what would otherwise have been a vacuum.
Creation has
>> no such problem.
>
>This is not evolution, it is cosmology. You might want to define
>evolution, if you are going to use a non-standard definition.

===>"Creationism", in ALL of its forms, "requires the self-creation" of
an unobservable, extra-natural ("supernatural", "spiritual") "Creator".

On the other hand, we need no special skills, or instruments, or
"faith" to know that Nature, the Universe, EXISTS. We need no
extra-natural being or force to explain its existence. It IS, WAS, and
WILL BE always, and ETERNAL process of formation and transformation of
ALL that ever was, is, and will be.

Libertarius
*DON'T CONFUSE FICTION WITH REALITY*
"Faith is the belief in the unreal by the uninformed;
Doctrine is nothing but petrified faith."

[don]

I enjoyed your point by point refutation of this individual's
attack on evolution. Your use of reason and logic was impressive.

And that's the problem. This individual clearly has a case
of "the universal neurosis", religion. He certainly could
be classified as a neurotic, if not a psychotic, to have
convinced himself that scientific reasoning can be used to
prove the veracity of ANY form of religion, let alone the
born-again variety of Christianity he is obviouly defending.

Therefore, it is quite useless to try and change the "mind"
of an individual like him. It is so twisted that he is
beyond help.

Don

[Al Klein]

On Tue, 05 May 1998 17:06:21 +0200, Magnus Henriksson
<Magnus.H...@id.sigma.se> wrote:

>Preferred Customer wrote:

>> >> 8. There are no intermediate forms in the fossil record...

>> >What is archaeopteryx?

>> Up until 1986, Archaeopteryx was a curious, mosaic form (not in transition.
>> Everything fully formed). After it was proven to be a hoax in 1986, then it
>> was just a hoax. Of course, that didn't stop "science" from insisting on
>> including the known hoax into textbooks even today.

>A quick look in the Talk.Origins archive:

>http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/bvickers/origins/archaeopteryx/forgery.txt

>Sorry, you are wrong...

I think he means "After it was proven to be a hoax in 1986" by
creationists, using standard creationist arguments . . .
---
Al
aklein at villagenet dot com

[Doug Schiffer]

Preferred Customer wrote:
>
> >> 8. There are no intermediate forms in the fossil record...
> >
> >What is archaeopteryx?
>
> Up until 1986, Archaeopteryx was a curious, mosaic form (not in transition.
> Everything fully formed). After it was proven to be a hoax in 1986,

Two questions:

Who "proved" it to be a hoax?

and

How?

> then it
> was just a hoax. Of course, that didn't stop "science" from insisting on
> including the known hoax into textbooks even today.

The onus of proof that it is a hoax is now on you. Please proceed.

--
Stop population growth before population growth stops us
http://www.zpg.org/Default.htm
Delete 'XYZZY.' to reply via email

[Preferred Customer]

Magnus Henriksson wrote in message <354F2AEC...@id.sigma.se>...

>
>
>Preferred Customer wrote:
>
>> >> 8. There are no intermediate forms in the fossil record...
>> >
>> >What is archaeopteryx?
>>
>> Up until 1986, Archaeopteryx was a curious, mosaic form (not in
transition.

>> Everything fully formed). After it was proven to be a hoax in 1986, then

it
>> was just a hoax. Of course, that didn't stop "science" from insisting on
>> including the known hoax into textbooks even today.
>

>A quick look in the Talk.Origins archive:
>
>http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/bvickers/origins/archaeopteryx/forgery.txt
>
>Sorry, you are wrong...
>

>/magnus
>

I noticed several interesting things about that article:

1) They never mention that modern birds have been found in the fossil record
below Archaeopteryx, so it could not have possibly been the ancestor of
today's birds.

2) The reptile skin is fully reptile, and not in transition. The feather is
also fully formed, and not in transition. Even if Archaeopteryx could be
proven to be an authentic fossil, it would be classified as a mosaic form,
not a transitional form (like platypus).

3) They never mention that *only* the British Museum specimen has a visible
"wishbone". It is a strange wishbone, "relatively the largest known in any
bird."

4) They never mention that the "wishbone" it is upside down, a point
acknowledged by two giants of the evolutionist movement裕. H. Huxley
(Darwin's so-called bulldog) and Gavin deBeer. "It was somewhat unwise for
the forgers to endow Compsognathus with a furcula (wishbone), because a
cavity had to be cut in the counterslab, with at least some semblance to
providing a fit to the added bone. This would have to be done crudely with a
chisel, which could not produce a degree of smoothness in cutting the rock
similar to a true sedimentation cavity." -Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra
Wickramasinghe.

5) They don't mention that after the x-ray resonance test, the British
Museum has refused to allow any more outside testing of the fossils (an
interesting position for a scientific organization to take)!

see http://www.creationscience.com/ for the other side of the story and the
associated references.

[Shawn]

: > west...@cadvision.com wrote:

: > >God created Satan and Hell (he must have, as it exists, and God created

: > >all, right?). He lets Satan influence people with thoughts against
: > >him. He is

Impossible! How can an imaginary being create another imaginary being who
can then influences us ???

[Carl Funk]

Tim Beard wrote:
>
<snip>

> Reasons to favor Creation over Evolution:

From your post, I get the impression that you are just reciting
the standard creationist dogma. Have you ever really
examined these claims, or do you just accept them because
you like the conclusion? I've noticed the tendency of creationists
to lump all of non-creation science under the term "Evolution."
I understand their contention that we have two choices:
"God did it" or "there is another explanation," but why
use the term "Evolution" for the opposing viewpoint?

>
> 1. Evolution requires the self-creation of matter and the auto-development
> of natural laws from what would otherwise have been a vacuum. Creation has
> no such problem.

This is a poor attack on the current theory of cosmology. A vacuum is
a portion of space that has no matter in it. As I understand it,
there was no space before the Big Bang. A singularity containing
a lot of energy expanded, "creating" space. Some of the energy was
converted to matter.

> 2 Evolution requires the self-organization of chemicals into highly complex
> patterns by unintelligent (random) methods, and then the self-generating of
> life within those chemicals. This violates both logic and everything learned
> by the scientific method so far. Creation has no such problem.
>

A mechanism not driven by intelligence (unintelligent) isn't necessarily
non-selective (random). Abiogenesis requires a selective mechanism
that organizes chemicals into highly complex patterns. If a complex
molecule has the ability to self-replicate, then we are well on our way
towards life.

> 3. Evolution must generate volumes of new genetic information for entirely
> new systems of organs by random methods in order to have "speciation."
> Science shows that the greater number of mutations, the less likely the
> organism will survive. Mutations are almost uniformly harmful or at best
> neutral, and they don't build on each other in any particular direction.
>

Speciation doesn't require "entirely new systems of organs." Many
species of trees, for example, are almost identical _functionally_;
the differences are only in the superficial details. Compare the
anatomy of humans and baboons: I see _alot_ more similarities than
differences. Mutations are not always harmful, and they _do_ build
on each other.

> 4. Time is not a substitute for intelligence. What is impossible today or
> in recorded history or in a million years is probably equally impossible in
> longer times as well. The second law of thermodynamics says the organization
> decreases over time, so that longer times don't produce more order.
>

You can't equate improbable and impossible. Imagine an event that
has a very small probability, say 10^(-8)/day. The probability
that it won't be observed in:
1 day = .99999999
1 year = .99999635
1000 years = .99635667
50000 years = .83318464
1 million years = .02599113
The second law of thermodynamics states "For any two interacting
systems the entropy of the combined systems cannot decrease."
Entropy is a measure of the number of accessible states of a
system. Nothing about evolution violates this law.

> 5. The order in the universe, the solar system, and even down to the atomic
> level is contrary to random chance and is not explained by any naturalistic
> "scientific theory." It is quite explainable if order and complex
> information are supplied from a source outside the material universe.
>

I don't understand what this statement is supposed to mean. From the
little I've learned about quantum mechanics, it _does_ explain the
order seen on the atomic level. Celestial mechanics _does_ explain
the order seen in the solar system and in the parts of the universe
we can readily observe.

> 6. There in no agreed mechanism of evolution and none postulated that would
> produce the results observed. Hoyle stated that the chance of the
> development of one protein in a human cell is about 1x1040,000. The chance
> of life developing on this earth by natural processes is nil.
>

I haven't heard of a single proposed mechanism that would produce
all of the results observed, but are we really limited to just
one mechanism? In the complex interactions of the observed world,
I thing it is much more likely that _several_ mechanisms are/were
working concurrently. Hoyle made some ludicrous assumptions in
his calculations for the formation of proteins.

> 7. The pattern of extinctions of more than 2000 per year in our low
> extinction place in history, along with the absence of newly developed
> species, points to the fact that there are more species further back in
> time, not a development from few to many as evolution postulates.
>

From what I've read, we're finding more species every year, at a
faster rate than we observe extinctions.

<snip of points 8-21, to be addressed in a later post>
>
> Tim Beard

[geo...@usa.net]

In article <geR31.225$rU.9...@news.san.rr.com>#1/1,

"Preferred Customer" <dwes...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
> Magnus Henriksson wrote in message <354F2AEC...@id.sigma.se>...
> >
> >
> >Preferred Customer wrote:
> >
> >> >> 8. There are no intermediate forms in the fossil record...
> >> >
> >> >What is archaeopteryx?
> >>
> >> Up until 1986, Archaeopteryx was a curious, mosaic form (not in
> transition.
> >> Everything fully formed). After it was proven to be a hoax in 1986, then
> it
> >> was just a hoax. Of course, that didn't stop "science" from insisting on
> >> including the known hoax into textbooks even today.
> >
> >A quick look in the Talk.Origins archive:
> >
> >http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/bvickers/origins/archaeopteryx/forgery.txt
> >
> >Sorry, you are wrong...
> >
> >/magnus
> >
>
> I noticed several interesting things about that article:
>
> 1) They never mention that modern birds have been found in the fossil record
> below Archaeopteryx, so it could not have possibly been the ancestor of
> today's birds.

That may be true, but is irrelevant. The question is whether
archie is a reptile or a bird. If it is a bird, why does
it have so many reptile characteristics, and if it is a
reptile, why does it have feathers?

>
> 2) The reptile skin is fully reptile, and not in transition. The feather is
> also fully formed, and not in transition. Even if Archaeopteryx could be
> proven to be an authentic fossil, it would be classified as a mosaic form,
> not a transitional form (like platypus).

Feathers and reptile skin - is it a bird or a reptile? You may choose to
call it a mosaic, but that is just semantics. If you can't tell whether
it is a bird or reptile, then it is transitional.

Furthermore, you think that platypus is transitional? Then what is
the discussion about? If we have a living example of a transitional
form, why do we even need to bother with the fossil record?

>
> 3) They never mention that *only* the British Museum specimen has a visible
> "wishbone". It is a strange wishbone, "relatively the largest known in any
> bird."
>

Isn't this evidence of being transitional?

> 4) They never mention that the "wishbone" it is upside down, a point

> acknowledged by two giants of the evolutionist movement-T. H. Huxley

> (Darwin's so-called bulldog) and Gavin deBeer. "It was somewhat unwise for
> the forgers to endow Compsognathus with a furcula (wishbone), because a
> cavity had to be cut in the counterslab, with at least some semblance to
> providing a fit to the added bone. This would have to be done crudely with a
> chisel, which could not produce a degree of smoothness in cutting the rock
> similar to a true sedimentation cavity." -Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra
> Wickramasinghe.
>
> 5) They don't mention that after the x-ray resonance test, the British
> Museum has refused to allow any more outside testing of the fossils (an
> interesting position for a scientific organization to take)!

I can think of at least one non-conspiracy explanation for this - the
sample is fragile and they don't want it damaged.

>
> see http://www.creationscience.com/ for the other side of the story and the
> associated references.

I have.

[Andrew Lias]

In article <355058...@SMOKINGameritech.net>,
Carl Funk <cf...@SMOKINGameritech.net> wrote:
>Tim Beard wrote:

>> 7. The pattern of extinctions of more than 2000 per year in our low
>> extinction place in history, along with the absence of newly developed
>> species, points to the fact that there are more species further back in
>> time, not a development from few to many as evolution postulates.
>>
>From what I've read, we're finding more species every year, at a
>faster rate than we observe extinctions.

I would like to add that the modern era is most certainly *not* a period
of "low extinction". The rate of extinction is higher than in an period
since the k/t event. The modern biosphere hasn't *quite* reached that
level of despeciation yet, but we're certainly heading in that direction,
largely due to human influence.

It's a sobering thought that, from the perspective of the environment,
humanity is rivaling the impact of an extremely large asteroid in terms of
the effect that we are having on it.

[Fury]

tas...@webtv.net wrote in message
<6iijjl$7l5$1...@newsd-113.bryant.webtv.net>...

I`ll bet all those little kids starving to death in Africa are REALLY
thankful
that God has made it possible for them to see how precious life is.

If this omnipotent god of yours WANTED TO, he could make us able
to appreciate all the good stuff without the pain.

Fury

[Claus Lisberg]

On Fri, 1 May 1998 14:52:27 -0700, "Tim Beard" <tbe...@bentonrea.com>
wrote:

I think I have found "Christian Quote Of The Month" in this post:

> The options of pain and death make all our choices
>meaningful.

I will not comment on the rest of the bull manure.
--
Claus Lisberg,
Founder of PSWEH (Poor Students With Expensive Hobbies)
Nirfur prophet #1
"A casual stroll through an asylum will show that faith proves nothing." - F. Nietzsche

[Shawn]

Tim Beard wrote:

: 2 Evolution requires the self-organization of chemicals into highly complex

: patterns by unintelligent (random) methods, and then the self-generating of
: life within those chemicals. This violates both logic and everything learned
: by the scientific method so far. Creation has no such problem.

Ever heard of a snowflake ? Last time it snowed, I didn't see any
gods creating snowflakes. What I see is the natural laws of physics
at work "creating" perfect 6 sided flakes.

Who needs a god. Only those who don't have a understanding on the
laws of nature.

[roll...@earthlink.net]

On 7 May 1998 03:29:16 GMT, disk...@users.jaxnet.com (Shawn) wrote:

>Who needs a god. Only those who don't have a understanding on the
>laws of nature.

The physical laws of nature break down at one single point.

[Andrew Lias]

In article <3551ca6d...@news.earthlink.net>,

The *descriptions* of the laws of nature break down when applied to
singularities, much as the newtonian descriptions of physics break down
under relatavistic conditions.

All this means is that we don't have a good theory to describe the
conditions present in such an environment (although there are a number of
serious speculations). Given that singularities are esoteric entities
which do not appear to exist in the observable universe (being hidden away
by the event horizons of black holes), this is primarily an area of rather
rarified academic interest which, of course, has not stopped theoretical
physicists from attempting to grapple with them.

I would certainly say that using singularities to salvage the notion of
god is perhaps the oddest form of the God of the Gaps argument that I've
come across.

[psych...@xpoint.at]

In article <6isl3p$f18$1...@news.ncal.verio.com>,

anrwlias@shell. (Andrew Lias) wrote:
>
> In article <3551ca6d...@news.earthlink.net>,
> <roll...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >On 7 May 1998 03:29:16 GMT, disk...@users.jaxnet.com (Shawn) wrote:
> >
> >>Who needs a god. Only those who don't have a understanding on the
> >>laws of nature.
> >
> >The physical laws of nature break down at one single point.
>
> The *descriptions* of the laws of nature break down when applied to
> singularities, much as the newtonian descriptions of physics break down
> under relatavistic conditions.

Sorry for butting in and nit-picking. This is one of my pet peeves.
We probably mean the same thing, only I would say it differently.

Would you agree that the "laws of nature" are identical to the shorthand and
concentrated version of our *current description* of nature - but that they
are not laws "an sich" of which we have only descriptions?
Example: up to E=mc^2 and the first experiments of Rutherford, we would have
claimed there was a "law of the conservation of mass". This "law" has been
amended, as it were, because our explanation of physical phenomena has
changed (i.e. refined to include velocities comparable with c).
I always feel uneasy when hearing about "laws of nature" since this leads too
often to the misunderstanding that those laws require a lawgiver.

In this context, it might be interesting to note that AFAIK the last "laws"
in physics were Planck´s radiation law (1900) and Nernst´s 3rd law of
thermodynamics. Since then, all new ideas have been called "equations",
"models", "symmetries" etc. A good move, IMHO.

Thus I would say: "our current description/explanation of nature becomes
invalid at the singularities".

Regards,
Hans-Richard Grümm

> All this means is that we don't have a good theory to describe the
> conditions present in such an environment (although there are a number of
> serious speculations). Given that singularities are esoteric entities
> which do not appear to exist in the observable universe (being hidden away
> by the event horizons of black holes), this is primarily an area of rather
> rarified academic interest which, of course, has not stopped theoretical
> physicists from attempting to grapple with them.
>
> I would certainly say that using singularities to salvage the notion of
> god is perhaps the oddest form of the God of the Gaps argument that I've
> come across.
>

[roll...@earthlink.net]

On 7 May 1998 15:48:09 GMT, anrwlias@shell. (Andrew Lias) wrote:

>I would certainly say that using singularities to salvage the notion of
>god is perhaps the oddest form of the God of the Gaps argument that I've
>come across.

I would say that by clinging to an unknown science as an unequivocal
basis that there is no God is pretty odd also. For all scientists will
forever be able to claim that science has not caught up with theory
until the end of time.

[Andrew Lias]

In article <3551ed51...@news.earthlink.net>,

<roll...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On 7 May 1998 15:48:09 GMT, anrwlias@shell. (Andrew Lias) wrote:
>
>>I would certainly say that using singularities to salvage the notion of
>>god is perhaps the oddest form of the God of the Gaps argument that I've
>>come across.
>
>I would say that by clinging to an unknown science as an unequivocal
>basis that there is no God is pretty odd also.

I would agree. However, I would also note, that I don't know of very many
atheists that base their atheism on the notion that science has disproven
the existence of deities (surely we aren't going to limit the discussion
to any singular deity). Not only would such a conclusion be bad theology,
it would be bad science.

> For all scientists will
>forever be able to claim that science has not caught up with theory
>until the end of time.

For the most part, I think that you will find that atheists tend to base
their lack of theism on the simple observation that they have no rational
cause to conclude that any gods exist. Certainly science may be used to
bolster that conclusion, but it's a conclusion that does not need to rely
on a comprehensive and infallible scientific understanding of the
universe.

At most, I use science as a tool to check those theological claims that
fall into the arena of scientific investigation, such as the claims of
creationists, or those who would otherwise insist that the scientific
evidence points to the existence of a god. In such cases, it is only
appropriate to invoke the methodology of science in checking such claims.

[Rick Gillespie]

In article <6isl3p$f18$1...@news.ncal.verio.com>,
Andrew Lias <anrwlias@shell.> wrote:

[snip]

>I would certainly say that using singularities to salvage the notion of
>god is perhaps the oddest form of the God of the Gaps argument that I've
>come across.

I dunno; maybe it is time to resurrect (heh!) the Church of the Naked
Singularity. There was also the Church of the Cosmic Egg, but they were
just a bunch of splitters.

Rick Gillespie

[Andrew Lias]

In article <6it0hk$h6l$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <psych...@xpoint.at> wrote:
>In article <6isl3p$f18$1...@news.ncal.verio.com>,
> anrwlias@shell. (Andrew Lias) wrote:

>> The *descriptions* of the laws of nature break down when applied to

>> singularities, much as the Newtonian descriptions of physics break down
>> under relativistic conditions.

>
>Sorry for butting in and nit-picking. This is one of my pet peeves.
>We probably mean the same thing, only I would say it differently.
>
>Would you agree that the "laws of nature" are identical to the shorthand and
>concentrated version of our *current description* of nature - but that they
>are not laws "an sich" of which we have only descriptions?

I'm afraid that I'm not quite following. I'm afraid that my Deutsch is
exceptionally rusty. Perhaps you could explain what you mean by "an
sich"?

As a clarification, I believe that there are objective and regular
(meaning describable) ways that nature behaves. I think that it is
reasonable to describe the rules that govern those behaviors laws. I
would further say, however, that our descriptions of those laws is
typically incomplete or inaccurate to some degree (hopefully a small
degree).

>Example: up to E=mc^2 and the first experiments of Rutherford, we would have
>claimed there was a "law of the conservation of mass". This "law" has been
>amended, as it were, because our explanation of physical phenomena has
>changed (i.e. refined to include velocities comparable with c).

I think that I understand where you are coming from. I don't consider the
laws of nature to be our understanding of them, I consider them to be the
actual way that nature actually works. When we name a law, we are
attempting to codify an understanding of it, but I do not believe that
such codifications (names to the contrary) are equivalent to the actual
laws. In the case of Consideration of Mass and Energy, our codification
was incorrect and needed to be amended to better conform with the actual
laws (or rules of behavior, if you prefer) that govern nature.

>I always feel uneasy when hearing about "laws of nature" since this leads too
>often to the misunderstanding that those laws require a lawgiver.

I consider this to be a defect of language, but a nearly unavoidable one.
Biology has similar problems in describing the design of living organisms
and their parts. Frankly, I prefer to treat those as semantic issues and
to treat any theological arguments that use them as their basis with the
scorn that any argument from semantics deserves.

>In this context, it might be interesting to note that AFAIK the last "laws"
>in physics were Planck´s radiation law (1900) and Nernst´s 3rd law of
>thermodynamics. Since then, all new ideas have been called "equations",
>"models", "symmetries" etc. A good move, IMHO.

On the other hand, "law" has widely been replaced by the term "theory"
(e.g. the Theory of Relativity and the Theory of Natural Selection) which,
alas, has its own set of exploitable connotations for those who wish to
twist words to their ends. I will agree that it's probably best to avoid
calling our descriptions of nature "laws" given the inevitable degree of
inaccuracy that such descriptions will almost invariably have. This
leaves room to treat the actual laws of nature as undiscovered entities
that science is striving to discover (or, at the least, approximate to a
high degree of certainty) but which are, none the less, quite real in
their existence. A failure to make that point only opens the door to all
the trivial nonsense that the post-modernists would like to shower us
with.

>Thus I would say: "our current description/explanation of nature becomes
>invalid at the singularities".

That's pretty much what I meant, but a bit wordy for my tastes. The main
reason that I would avoid putting it in those terms is that it fails to
rebut the notion that nature itself is breaking down in the vicinity of
singularities. The rules governing singularities are exotic, to be sure,
but there's nothing unnatural about them. Certainly I would strongly
doubt that there would be anything about them that would require us to
introduce a deity into the equation.

[roll...@earthlink.net]

On 7 May 1998 19:14:21 GMT, anrwlias@shell. (Andrew Lias) wrote:

>For the most part, I think that you will find that atheists tend to base
>their lack of theism on the simple observation that they have no rational
>cause to conclude that any gods exist. Certainly science may be used to
>bolster that conclusion, but it's a conclusion that does not need to rely
>on a comprehensive and infallible scientific understanding of the
>universe.

If an atheist can look at the complexities of the universe and not see
a Creator given the odds against life randomly creating itself, then
the only rationale is that of ignorance or being content to wait for
the salvation of that rationale by a unknown science. Either way I
would not call that being more rational than that of the creationist.

>At most, I use science as a tool to check those theological claims that
>fall into the arena of scientific investigation, such as the claims of
>creationists, or those who would otherwise insist that the scientific
>evidence points to the existence of a god. In such cases, it is only
>appropriate to invoke the methodology of science in checking such claims.

There is no science available that you can use to disprove the
existence of a Creator and I will bet you a dollar to a donut that you
will never see a unifying principle to do so.

[sregoR .M divaD]

roll...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> On 7 May 1998 19:14:21 GMT, anrwlias@shell. (Andrew Lias) wrote:
>
> >For the most part, I think that you will find that atheists tend to base
> >their lack of theism on the simple observation that they have no rational
> >cause to conclude that any gods exist. Certainly science may be used to
> >bolster that conclusion, but it's a conclusion that does not need to rely
> >on a comprehensive and infallible scientific understanding of the
> >universe.
>
> If an atheist can look at the complexities of the universe and not see
> a Creator given the odds against life randomly creating itself,

Life randomly creating itself? That's a nice strawman.

> then
> the only rationale is that of ignorance or being content to wait for
> the salvation of that rationale by a unknown science. Either way I
> would not call that being more rational than that of the creationist.

I don't know. I consider admitting that we don't know the answers, and
then trying to find them a bit more rational than making up an answer.

> >At most, I use science as a tool to check those theological claims that
> >fall into the arena of scientific investigation, such as the claims of
> >creationists, or those who would otherwise insist that the scientific
> >evidence points to the existence of a god. In such cases, it is only
> >appropriate to invoke the methodology of science in checking such claims.
>
> There is no science available that you can use to disprove the
> existence of a Creator and I will bet you a dollar to a donut that you
> will never see a unifying principle to do so.

He never said there was. What he said was that science could be used
where empirical claims are made (such as a flood being the best
explanation for the fossil record) in religion.
--

The Young American
==========================================
One world at a time.
- Thoreau, when asked about the hereafter

[Sam Lavenz]

I'm only going to reply to a few of these (the ones I'm at least
semi-knowledgeable of)...so here goes.

Tim Beard (tbe...@bentonrea.com) wrote:
: 20. The rates of the decay of the earth's magnetic field, the recession of

: the moon from the earth, the slowing the earth's rotation by friction, and
: the cooling of the earth's interior all point to a young age for the earth
: that is incompatible with evolutionary theory (Lord Kelvin's disproofs of
: great age).

Umm...friction against _WHAT_?? Hmmmm?

: : 21. Evolution is not an observable, repeatable, falsifiable theory and
: therefore not a part of real science. Evolutionists claim either that

Okay...here's a case of you being blatantly _wrong_ studies have been
performed in the South Pacific that _show_ evolution in progress...when major
environmental events occur, such as droughts or floods, the birds on many
islands adapt to be able to eat the seeds that are abundant in result. It is
a small mutation (chaning in beak size/shape) but it is a _mutation_ that
allows the possessors of it to _survive_ better than those who do not have
it...that is natural selection right there. Another question to pose to
here...if there is an island that was created volcanically, since the
theoretical creation of earth (so it wouldn't have been there to have animals
placed on it), how can there be creatures native only to it's soil? Explain
that one by creation for me...please, I'd really like you to.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Lavenz - Tomoe Hotaru
email: sl...@psd.k12.co.us
American Amateur Radio: KC0BUH
_________ ___ _____
___ /________/ / / /____/
__/ /___ _________ / / ___
/_ _ / ____ /_____ / ____ / /___ ____ / /
/ / (_( /___/ / / /___/ / / \ \ /___/ / /
/ (____ _______/ / ,' /_.-' \ ________/ /
(_______/ \________/ |_____.-'\___\ /__________/

Sailor Moon -- Weekdays at 6:30 AM on Denver's FOX 31 (22 Fort Collins)

[Michael W. Fisher]

In article <355220d1...@news.earthlink.net>, roll...@earthlink.net
says...

施f an atheist can look at the complexities of the universe and not see
柑 Creator given the odds against life randomly creating itself,

1.) What do you mean by random?

2.) Who says the formation of life was random?

曷here is no science available that you can use to disprove the
枸xistence of a Creator and I will bet you a dollar to a donut that you
洲ill never see a unifying principle to do so.

Why would I want to spend time trying to prove something does not
exist when it's not even apparent why it would matter if it does?

--
--
Michael Fisher, ET1/SS USN ret.

http://daniel.drew.edu/~ddoughty/jhcbody.html

http://www.magi.com/~oblio/jesus.html

http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/

http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/xtianity/index.html

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html

* * *

He that would make his own liberty secure,
must guard even his enemy from oppression;
for if he violates this duty,
he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.

Thomas Paine

[Andrew Lias]

In article <355220d1...@news.earthlink.net>,

<roll...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On 7 May 1998 19:14:21 GMT, anrwlias@shell. (Andrew Lias) wrote:
>
>>For the most part, I think that you will find that atheists tend to base
>>their lack of theism on the simple observation that they have no rational
>>cause to conclude that any gods exist. Certainly science may be used to
>>bolster that conclusion, but it's a conclusion that does not need to rely
>>on a comprehensive and infallible scientific understanding of the
>>universe.
>

>If an atheist can look at the complexities of the universe and not see
>a Creator given the odds against life randomly creating itself, then

>the only rationale is that of ignorance or being content to wait for
>the salvation of that rationale by a unknown science. Either way I
>would not call that being more rational than that of the creationist.

I'm afraid that this is little more than an appeal to mystery, which is
the cornerstone of the Argument from Personal Incredulity (to say nothing
of inserting a sly bit of ad hominem, but I'll let that side this one
time).

When faced with an unsolved mystery, the only intellectually honest answer
that one can give is to say "I don't know the answer to that."

What you are attempt to do, however, is to state (in effect), "Because you
don't know the answer, you ought to accept the answer that I give."

There was a time in the worlds history when people would point to the
lightning crashing down from thunderstorms and exclaim to one another that
this was the presence of the gods made manifest. I like to imagine what
it would be like to be a skeptic in such an age.

"Why should this constitute evidence for the gods," I might say. And I
see, in my minds eye, the crowd replying, "Oh yeah? Well, if lightning
isn't of the gods, then what causes it," to which I could only shrug my
shoulders, content that I have no need to make up answers where none yet
exist.

When you get right down to it, you can not demonstrate the existence of a
god on the basis of a *lack* of information. At best, such attempts
simply make the term "god" a synonym for our ignorance. Frankly, I don't
see why you would want me to accept the existence of your deity on those
terms.

In particular, I find it interesting that you point to the complexity of
life as cause to believe in God (once again, you seem to be presuming your
god -- why shouldn't I suppose that maybe the Hindu pantheon had a hand in
it, for instance). The fact that you highlight the randomness of it is
telling, as it indicates that you may not have a grasp of what the theory
of natural selection has to say about life's complexity and diversity.

As for the origins of it, that's a different subject. At present, we have
some tantalizing information. We know, for instance, that not only are
amino acids redily producible by natural conditions (to say nothing of
being plentifyl in meteoric material), but we also have gained quite a few
insights into a-biological reactions that replicate themselves to a fair
degree of approximation to the way that living organizms do. At present,
we have at least five theories of a-biogenesis that offer plausible
accounts, none of which strain statistical credability, including the RNA
world model, the clay scaffolding model, and (my personal odds-on
favorite) the autocatalytic network model. In the issue is far from being
decided, it's equally far away from any apparent necessity to invoke the
miraculous.

Be that as it may (and let me note that I'm not interesting in debating
origins with you... if that's your cup of tea, talk.origins is the
appropriate forum), even if I could not offer an account for the origins
or complexity of life, that would still not give me any cause to treat
your explanation ("God did it") as the correct answer. In order for you
to do that, you would have to do far more than merely asserting that
positing God *could* solve the problem, you would actually have to
demonstrate that God *is* the solution to the problem, which is another
thing entirely. Don't forget to account for all those other pantheons on
the way.

>>At most, I use science as a tool to check those theological claims that
>>fall into the arena of scientific investigation, such as the claims of
>>creationists, or those who would otherwise insist that the scientific
>>evidence points to the existence of a god. In such cases, it is only
>>appropriate to invoke the methodology of science in checking such claims.
>

>There is no science available that you can use to disprove the
>existence of a Creator and I will bet you a dollar to a donut that you
>will never see a unifying principle to do so.

What an odd wager to make, particularly since I explicitly stated that
I do not base my atheism on science. Since you saw fit to trim that part
from my post, perhaps I should restore it in order to refresh your memory:

"I would also note, that I don't know of very many atheists that base
their atheism on the notion that science has disproven the existence of
deities (surely we aren't going to limit the discussion to any singular
deity). Not only would such a conclusion be bad theology, it would be bad
science."

So tell me, why in the world should I bet on a proposition that I don't
endorse? I think that I'd prefer to keep my donut rather than wager
against a strawman. Indeed, what I would prefer even more than that would
be if you could focus on what I've actually said than on what you would
prefer for me to have said.

This said, I must note that I am, frankly, not interested in "disproving"
the existence of God (or any other god, for that matter). I know, full
well, the difficulties associated with trying to prove a negative,
particularly when the entity in question has such an ill-defined and
shifting set of definitions associated with it. I may as well spend my
days proving that there aren't any leprechauns in the universe, or
unicorns, or fuzzy-footed, intangible ostriches lurking on the other side
of event horizons. Any of those exercises would be every bit as futile
but neither would my failure to accomplish any of those tasks (which I
couldn't) offer so much as a single iota of indication that any of these
entities (your god included) actually existed.

If you want me to believe in your god, don't bother flapping your hands
while insisting that I can't disprove its existence (scientifically or
otherwise). Such arguments can only serve to provide us with trivial
truths whose veracity is simultaneously non-contentious and non-profound.
Instead, do us both a favor and offer a productive argument that supports
your contention and *then* we'll see about matching pastries for cash.

[Doug Schiffer]

Tim Beard wrote:
> Carl asked about indicators that pointed toward a young age for the earth
> and about what I considered evolutionary assumptions required in order to
> think that the earth appeared to be 4 billion years old. Henry Morris, in
> The Biblical Basis of Modern Science, lists 68 indicators of a young earth
> based on uniformitarian assumptions. In his pamphlet "Evidence for a Young
> World," Dr. Russell Humphreys list the following evidences that make great
> ages unlikely: (1) Galaxies wind themselves up too fast,

The theory of Density waves solves the problem.

> (2) comets disintegrate too quickly,

New comets come in from the Oort cloud to replace them.

(3) earth's continents erode too quickly,

Tectonic activity replaces the crust.

> (4) there is not enough sediment on the sea floors,

Sea floor material is all <100 million years old. The sea floor is
constantly forming and
being destroyed. The formation of new sea floor has been shown on TV.
I guess you were watching Bay Watch or championship wrestling instead.

>(5) the oceans accumulate sodium too fast,

Process at equilibrium can't be used for dating.

> (6) the earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast,

Falsely fitting an exponential curve to a *periodic* function is a sure
fire way to draw erroneous conclusions.

> (7) multi-layer fossils straddle too many strata,

Somethings take years to bury. In oxygen poor waters - no problem.

> (8) many strata are too tightly bent,

Bending of strata is evidence of looooooong sloooooooooow processes.
Brilliant refutation!

> (9) out of sequence fossils scramble timetables,

Intrusions solves the problem, and is easily identified

> (10) fossil radioactivity [Polonium radio halos] shortens "geologic ages" to a few
> years,

See: http://wcl-l.bham.ac.uk/origins/faqs/faq-meritt.html#polonium

> (11) there isn't enough helium in the earth's atmosphere,

Helium leaves earth's atmosphere almost effortlessly, due to its low
molecular weight, and corresponding high average kinetic velocities. No
mystery.

> (12) there is too much helium in hot rocks,

No, there isn't. See:
http://wcl-l.bham.ac.uk/origins/faqs/faq-meritt.html#k-ar

> (13) there aren't enough stone age skeletons,

Low populations, coupled with rarity of fossilization. In addition,
there are many thousands of stone age fossils.

> (14) agriculture is too recent, and (15) recorded history is too
> short.

????????????????

> Lord Kelvin assumed that he had thoroughly disproved evolution before
> his death, and I think his proofs are valid.

Any theory that did not take into account radioactive heating of the
earth's core is doomed to failure. Had the earth formed without any
radioactive materials, then Lord K's analysis might be accurate.
However, it is clear that radioactive deposits exist, and they should be
even more plentiful in the core (heavy material sinks, light stuff
floats.)

> He said that the earth retains
> too much heat, its magnetic field is to strong, its moon is too close, and
> its speed is too fast for everything to have been cooling and running down
> for billions of years.

He was wrong on all these points.

> The shape of the earth is all wrong for the earth to
> have formed as a molten body spinning as fast as it would have had to be in
> order to still be turning.

Do you actually think that the shape of the earth is going to stay
constant as it slows?? No, the earth easily changes its oblateness to
the slower spin rate. The rocks don't have nearly enough strength to
resist it.

> Any dynamo theory for a recharged magnetic field
> is based more on the need for such a theory than on evidence for it.

The source of earth's magnetic field is an area of active research.

> Evolutionary assumptions include that it is okay to date sedimentary rocks
> by the fossils they contain and then date the fossils by the rocks they are
> found in.

Radioisotopes smashes any circularity.

> Uniformitarianism assumes that rates are slow and constant, and
> that God or any outside force has never acted to change those rates.

No natural method of changing decay rates has ever been observed.
Galaxies billions of light years away have the exact same physical
constants we have here (because spectral shapes are identical with same
elements).

Capricious gods who change physical laws at whim are *possible*, but in
that case, any
knowledge of physics is impossible.

> They
> assume that sedimentation is by slow deposition.

Do you have an alternative that can lay down layers that are microns
thick over areas of many thousands of square kilometers?

> We have to assume that
> nearly all "original" geological evidence is no missing (about 97%)

No such assumption is needed.

> and that
> it is systematic enough so as to remove all evidence of most critical phases
> of the evolutionary possess.

Balderdash. Many transitionals exist. See the talk.origins FAQ.

> It assumes without evidence that all life forms
> are related to a common ancestor.

I guess if one is raised on lies, then all one can do is spew lies.

However, there is TONS of evidence of common ancestors, such as
morphology, genetics, common behavior, biochemistry, etc.

(You're wrong, in other words)

> It assumes that chaos or randomness can
> created intelligent order without any supporting evidence and that small
> changes within a species can add up to produce entirely new body plans and
> organs.

A single mutation in a critical area of the a fruit fly's DNA produces a
whole new set of wings.

You're debunked again.

> Radiometric dating is based on the assumption that there were no "daughter
> elements" in the original state,

Such assumptions aren't made.

> that there has been no appreciable leaching
> or addition of decay products,

Cross checks between MULTIPLE decay series of different elements can
detect such changes.

> that the rate of decay is constant without
> regard to factors such as pressure, heat, state of the earth's atmosphere,
> submersion under varying depths of earth or water, etc.

Feel free to support the absurd idea that such trivial differences can
produce changes in elemental nuclei BY ACTUAL EXPERIMENTATION, rather
than fundy hand waving.

> There is no way of
> knowing if any of those are correct assumptions.

False. Multiple series provides cross checks. Other cross checks
include tree ring dating (in the case of C14) and tidal deceleration in
the case of marine organisms (the number of days per month were much
larger back in ancient times. The breaking of earth's rotation by the
moon has slowed the rotation. Fossilized coral capture the difference,
and the ancient coral can be dated by both radioisotopes AND by
calculations on the slow-down time of the earth's rotation. The ages are
in close agreement.

> There is in fact great
> variation in results of radiometric dating and many dates are patently
> wrong: 180 year old lava flows in Hawaii dated at 2.96 billion years, lava
> flows going down the side of Grand Canyon dated older than lava in the
> foundation levels, living mollusks dates as 25,000 years old.

And your peer reviewed citations for these amazing claims are where?

> The following is a list I made up that you might help me improve if you
> have the time.
>

> Reasons to favor Creation over Evolution:
>

> 1. Evolution requires the self-creation of matter and the auto-development

> of natural laws from what would otherwise have been a vacuum. Creation has
> no such problem.

Creation has far larger problems, such as how to self-create an
omnipotent creator of infinite complexity.

> 2 Evolution requires the self-organization of chemicals into highly complex
> patterns by unintelligent (random) methods, and then the self-generating of
> life within those chemicals. This violates both logic and everything learned
> by the scientific method so far. Creation has no such problem.

Creationism requires the self-organization of non-observed supernatural
beings of infinite complexity from nothing.

> 3. Evolution must generate volumes of new genetic information for entirely
> new systems of organs by random methods in order to have "speciation."
> Science shows that the greater number of mutations, the less likely the
> organism will survive. Mutations are almost uniformly harmful or at best
> neutral, and they don't build on each other in any particular direction.

This might be true if there were no beneficial mutations. What is
beneficial depends on what an organism has to do to survive. For
example, a common genetic mutation in humans is webbed feet and hands.
Were humans thrust into a situation where swimming helped ensure
survival, then this would be a BENEFICIAL mutation.

In this case, in a few dozen generations, a webfooted and handed
subspecies of human could easily evolve.

Couple mutation with SELECTION, and it is easy for changes to add up in
a particular direction. Webbed hand mutations could mesh with webbed
toe mutations, plus larger lung mutations, plus...... Eventually, you'd
end up with a water based human that could swim its entire life.

> 4. Time is not a substitute for intelligence. What is impossible today or
> in recorded history or in a million years is probably equally impossible in
> longer times as well.

You're common sense notions fail miserably over the scale of millions of
years. This is not surprising - we have evolved to only consider events
over the span of a few decades at most in our everyday experience.

> The second law of thermodynamics says the organization
> decreases over time, so that longer times don't produce more order.

So, like, how did you get to be a big human from a fertilized egg?

> 5. The order in the universe, the solar system, and even down to the atomic
> level is contrary to random chance and is not explained by any naturalistic
> "scientific theory." It is quite explainable if order and complex
> information are supplied from a source outside the material universe.

No such appeals to higher sources is useful or possible in the purview
of science.

> 6. There in no agreed mechanism of evolution and none postulated that would
> produce the results observed.

This is of course a bald faced lie.

> Hoyle stated that the chance of the
> development of one protein in a human cell is about 1x1040,000.

Yes, why not appeal to a rouge astronomer for opinions on things
biological. Should I use an eccentric auto mechanic to diagnose a
health problem in my child?

> The chance
> of life developing on this earth by natural processes is nil.

Actually, the chances are about 1:1

> 7. The pattern of extinctions of more than 2000 per year in our low
> extinction place in history,

Once again the creationist is caught in their web of lies....

Extinctions are higher now than perhaps ever, due to the actions of man.

> along with the absence of newly developed
> species, points to the fact that there are more species further back in
> time, not a development from few to many as evolution postulates.

Rich, let's fire a gun at you, and see if you have time to evolve an
impenetrable exoskeleton.

> 8. There are no intermediate forms in the fossil record, even though Darwin
> predicted that they must be present in great numbers.

See the talk.origins FAQ for a list of HUNDREDS of intermediate forms.

The creationist lies, lies, lies.

> There are no signs of
> developing systems that would be associated with change from one kind of
> animal to another.

Analogous to the Everyready bunny, he keeps lying, and lying, and
lying.....

> No one can even conceive of an intermediate stage between
> a reptilian scale and a bird feather

See: McGowan, C. 1984. In the Beginning... : A Scientist Shows Why the
Creationists Are Wrong.
Buffalo: Prometheus, page 116-121

> or an arm and a wing

Every seen a flying squirrel? I have.

> or how such
> structures could be beneficial to survival.

For flying squirrels, the answer is obvious... Fewer deaths from falls
and gliding away from predators.

> There is no known mechanism to
> begin or advance such a transformation.

Secret Hint: IT'S CALLED NATURAL SELECTION, AKA EVOLUTION!

[Carl Funk]

Tim Beard wrote:
<snip>

> Reasons to favor Creation over Evolution:

<snip>
> 10. Natural selection is largely a tautology (the fit survive; those who
> survive are fit), and to the extent that it operates as a genetic force, it
> is a conservative force to preserve species, not generate new ones.
>
Natural Selection simply refers to the observation that conditions
in nature influence which genes are propagated. I agree that it is
usually a conservative force, when the environment is fairly constant.
In a changing environment, where the original species is no longer
"fit", individuals farthest from the species norm might have a much
greater chance of passing on their "abnormal" genes. Or consider
the case where a population is split geographically. Both
populations will experience genetic drift, but what happens if
they drift in different direction?

> 11. Homology is as strong a reason for believing in a single wise designer
> as for believing in random modifications and natural selection. The numerous
> "false homologies" prove that the design is efficient and that similar
> structures don't prove similar parentage.
>
I can't argue with this, but looking at the rest of evidence nudges me
in the direction of "random modification and natural selection."

> 12. Vestigial organs and recapitulation have been shown by science to be a
> baseless support for evolution. The fact that they are even used at all
> shows the scarcity of evidences for evolution.
>
I haven't read very widely on evolution, but the only times I've seen
this argument is when a creationist refuses to acknowledge the rest
of the evidence.

> 13. Imperfection in nature conforms well with creationism because of the
> second law of thermodynamics (or "the curse on the earth"). "Imperfection"
> only has real meaning within a creationist framework, because it assumes
> purposefulness and standards that are not applicable within a system of
> random chance. Using "perfection" may support the ontological argument for
> God.
>
I've never heard the 2LoT referred to as "the curse of the earth"
before!
I doubt if any serious biologist claims that any organism is striving
towards perfection. Species survive if they meet a minimum standard.
One would expect an all-mighty creator to instill perfection into
its creation. A story explaining why an all-knowing, all-powerful
creator _allowed_ its creation to become imperfect won't convince
me otherwise.

> 14. The presence of polonium halos in the "earliest rocks" indicates that
> the earth was formed cool, which refutes all evolutionary theories for
> origins and dating. (cf. Robert Gentry)
>
A different scientist looked at the same evidence and concluded that
the halos weren't produced by polonium, but by radon-222.
see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos.html

> 15. The lack of equilibrium in certain gases shows that the world is not
> old, e.g. Helium-4.
>
How does a lack of equilibrium in Helium-4 indicate a limit on the
earth's age? The only reference I could find implied that there
_is_ an equilibrium of He-4 in the atmosphere. Helium is added to
the atmosphere by nuclear decay (alpha radiation), and removed by
the solar wind.

> 16. The worldwide fossil beds, massive amount of sedimentary rock, etc., is
> evidence for catastrophism, which undermines uniformitarianism, which is
> still basic to evolutionary assumptions.
>
Uniformitarian theory simply states that geological processes operate
the same in the past as they do now. i.e. Sedimentary rock was formed
the same way that it is forming now. Geologists don't claim that
catastrophic events didn't happen in the past. I know next to nothing
about geology, but wouldn't events such as continental drift, volcanos,
climate changes, and ice ages affect how _much_ sedimentary rock is
created?

> 17. Recent catastrophes, such as the Mt. Saint Helen's eruption, demonstrate
> that many uniformitarian assumptions are false. Significant depths of
> laminae and beds are laid down in a matter of hours. Massive erosion can
> also take place in similar time-frames. Settling water-soaked logs are being
> buried in a fashion so as to resemble polystrate fossils and in patterns
> that have been interpreted previously by evolutionists as successive forests
> and indications of long ages.
>
I imagine there are other indicators (besides strata) that geologists
can
use to deduce how rock layers are formed.

> 18. The moral, ethical results of consistent evolutionism have been almost
> uniformly bad, e.g. Fascism, Communism, racism, and anti-life humanism and
> anti-human environmentalism.
>
Gee, I thought Fascism and Communism were Authoritarian in nature.
Doesn't Christianity rely on authority? (The Bible is _the_ word of
god.)
Doesn't the Old Test. promote racism? (The hebrews were the "chosen
people", everyone else was the enemy.) What about humanism is
anti-life?
(Oh, you meant pro-choice, didn't you?) How is anti-human
environmentalism
(putting the environment "above" man) any different than religion
(putting god "above" man)?

> 19. The language-like nature of DNA could not have developed by chance, and
> it shows no evolutionary tree. We can't conceive of reproducing life without
> DNA but evolution requires it.
>
Why can't DNA develop by chance? I don't know how to calculate the
probability, but for the sake of argument I'll concede that it is
probably quite small for any given planet. The key, though, is that
there are a lot of planets.

<snip of points 20,21 to be addressed in a later post>
> Tim Beard

--
Carl Funk "nil illegitimi carborundum"

(Peti-scale = 96)

[Rick Gillespie]

In article <355220d1...@news.earthlink.net>,
<roll...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On 7 May 1998 19:14:21 GMT, anrwlias@shell. (Andrew Lias) wrote:
>
>>For the most part, I think that you will find that atheists tend to base
>>their lack of theism on the simple observation that they have no rational
>>cause to conclude that any gods exist. Certainly science may be used to
>>bolster that conclusion, but it's a conclusion that does not need to rely
>>on a comprehensive and infallible scientific understanding of the
>>universe.
>
>If an atheist can look at the complexities of the universe

What complexitities would those be, and why do you think that they
require a deity to create them? Would not the alleged "Creator" itself
be complex, thus needing a "Meta-Creator"? Do you believe it is "gods
all the way up"??

>and not see
>a Creator given the odds against life randomly creating itself,

What do you mean by "life randomly creating itself"? What exactly are
those odds, and how were they calculated? Do you think that chemistry
and physics are random?

>then
>the only rationale is that of ignorance or being content to wait for
>the salvation of that rationale by a unknown science. Either way I
>would not call that being more rational than that of the creationist.

Please explain, for my benefit, in what way "god did it" is a better
explanation than "I don't know".

>>At most, I use science as a tool to check those theological claims that
>>fall into the arena of scientific investigation, such as the claims of
>>creationists, or those who would otherwise insist that the scientific
>>evidence points to the existence of a god. In such cases, it is only
>>appropriate to invoke the methodology of science in checking such claims.
>
>There is no science available that you can use to disprove the
>existence of a Creator and I will bet you a dollar to a donut that you
>will never see a unifying principle to do so.

Which "Creator" are you refering to? There is a subset of "Creators" which
*can* be disproved (e.g. the god that created the world 6,000 years ago
and also does not lie) by science, but you are right that, in general, science
cannot disprove the existence of deities. So what?

Rick Gillespie
"I speak only for myself"

[roll...@earthlink.net]

On Thu, 7 May 1998 16:15:09 -0700, nospam....@cts.com (Michael W.
Fisher) wrote:

>In article <355220d1...@news.earthlink.net>, roll...@earthlink.net

>says...
>
>施f an atheist can look at the complexities of the universe and not see
>柑 Creator given the odds against life randomly creating itself,

>
>
> 1.) What do you mean by random?
>
> 2.) Who says the formation of life was random?
>

Maybe I took some liberties and assumed you also believe in evolution.
The idea of throwing elements together hapharzardly and creating
lifeforms is a little absurd.

>
>曷here is no science available that you can use to disprove the
>枸xistence of a Creator and I will bet you a dollar to a donut that you
>洲ill never see a unifying principle to do so.
>
> Why would I want to spend time trying to prove something does not
>exist when it's not even apparent why it would matter if it does?
>

That all depends on your point of view. If your salvation depends on
it then I would say it matters greatly.

[roll...@earthlink.net]

On Thu, 07 May 1998 17:33:36 -0500, "sregoR .M divaD"
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:

>I don't know. I consider admitting that we don't know the answers, and
>then trying to find them a bit more rational than making up an answer.

I thought the term atheist implied no God rather than just not knowing
there is one. I thought not knowing would imply agnostic tendencies.

>He never said there was. What he said was that science could be used
>where empirical claims are made (such as a flood being the best
>explanation for the fossil record) in religion.

There is nothing wrong with using tools to check everything for
validity. I do it everyday. What is wrong, however, is claiming those
tools are without flaw and should never be subject to scrutinization.

[roll...@earthlink.net]

On 7 May 1998 21:24:58 GMT, anrwlias@shell. (Andrew Lias) wrote:

>
>That's pretty much what I meant, but a bit wordy for my tastes. The main
>reason that I would avoid putting it in those terms is that it fails to
>rebut the notion that nature itself is breaking down in the vicinity of
>singularities. The rules governing singularities are exotic, to be sure,
>but there's nothing unnatural about them. Certainly I would strongly
>doubt that there would be anything about them that would require us to
>introduce a deity into the equation.

What is so natural about them then?

[Andrew Lias]

In article <35531c16...@news.earthlink.net>,

Well lets see, they are a natural consequence of natural systems obeying
natural laws. Seems fairly damned natural to me.

What, may I ask, is so unnatural about them? Unless you have some
evidence that they are artificial constructs, I must say that it rather
baffles me that you would ask that particular question.

[Paul G. Wenthold]

roll...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> On Thu, 7 May 1998 16:15:09 -0700, nospam....@cts.com (Michael W.
> Fisher) wrote:
>
> >In article <355220d1...@news.earthlink.net>, roll...@earthlink.net
> >says...
> >
> >施f an atheist can look at the complexities of the universe and not see
> >柑 Creator given the odds against life randomly creating itself,
> >
> >
> > 1.) What do you mean by random?
> >
> > 2.) Who says the formation of life was random?
> >
>
> Maybe I took some liberties and assumed you also believe in evolution.
> The idea of throwing elements together hapharzardly and creating
> lifeforms is a little absurd.
>

Well then, it's a good thing that this has nothing to do with
evolution. Hell, it doesn't have anything to do with
abiogenesis. HINT: Chemical reactions are not random.

paul

--
Invention is 93% perspiration, 6% electricity, 4% inspiration,
and 2% butterscotch ripple --- Willie Wonka

[Michael W. Fisher]

In article <35531e30...@news.earthlink.net>, roll...@earthlink.net
says...
ŹOn Thu, 7 May 1998 16:15:09 -0700, nospam....@cts.com (Michael W.
ŹFisher) wrote:
Ź
Ź>In article <355220d1...@news.earthlink.net>, roll...@earthlink.net
Ź>says...
Ź>
Ź>ŹIf an atheist can look at the complexities of the universe and not see
Ź>Źa Creator given the odds against life randomly creating itself,
Ź>
Ź>
Ź> 1.) What do you mean by random?
Ź>
Ź> 2.) Who says the formation of life was random?
Ź>
Ź
ŹMaybe I took some liberties and assumed you also believe in evolution.

I "believe in" evolution in the same way I "believe in" gravity.

It is simply absurd to deny the existence of either.

ŹThe idea of throwing elements together hapharzardly and creating
Źlifeforms is a little absurd.

You're still begging the question of "random".

What's "haphazardly"?

Ź
Ź>
Ź>ŹThere is no science available that you can use to disprove the
Ź>Źexistence of a Creator and I will bet you a dollar to a donut that you
Ź>Źwill never see a unifying principle to do so.
Ź>
Ź> Why would I want to spend time trying to prove something does not
Ź>exist when it's not even apparent why it would matter if it does?
Ź>
ŹThat all depends on your point of view. If your salvation depends on
Źit then I would say it matters greatly.

What's "salvation"?

How is it that you know "salvation" is possible?

How is it that you know that (assuming the universe is a made or
caused thing) the "creator" cares at all about us, let alone is
interested in our "salvation"?

It is, as I said, not at all apparent why even if the universe
were a created thing, that the creator of that universe would be any more
interested in our individual lives than I am in the individual biots in
my artificial life screen saver.

Ź

[psych...@xpoint.at]

In article <6it8ra$ll6$2...@news.ncal.verio.com>,

anrwlias@shell. (Andrew Lias) wrote:
>
> In article <6it0hk$h6l$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <psych...@xpoint.at> wrote:
> >In article <6isl3p$f18$1...@news.ncal.verio.com>,
> > anrwlias@shell. (Andrew Lias) wrote:

I took the liberty to rename the thread.

> >> The *descriptions* of the laws of nature break down when applied to
> >> singularities, much as the Newtonian descriptions of physics break down
> >> under relativistic conditions.
> >
> >Sorry for butting in and nit-picking. This is one of my pet peeves.
> >We probably mean the same thing, only I would say it differently.
> >
> >Would you agree that the "laws of nature" are identical to the shorthand
and
> >concentrated version of our *current description* of nature - but that they
> >are not laws "an sich" of which we have only descriptions?
>
> I'm afraid that I'm not quite following. I'm afraid that my Deutsch is
> exceptionally rusty. Perhaps you could explain what you mean by "an
> sich"?

Sorry, I was to brief. I tried an analogy to the "Ding an sich" *) of
Immanuel Kant - the "true" object behind our observations - which are
filtered by categories like time, space, causality -, which is essentially
different from the object that we perceive and which we cannot reach(as I.K.
claimed). The "laws an sich" would be the "true" laws of nature, a kind of
Platonic ideal and essentially different from our descriptions.

*) I don´t know the "official" English translation of this essential term of
Kant. "Thing by itself", perhaps ?

> As a clarification, I believe that there are objective and regular
> (meaning describable) ways that nature behaves.

I fully agree. Else no science - probably no life - would be possible.

> I think that it is
> reasonable to describe the rules that govern those behaviors laws. I
> would further say, however, that our descriptions of those laws is
> typically incomplete or inaccurate to some degree (hopefully a small
> degree).
>
> >Example: up to E=mc^2 and the first experiments of Rutherford, we would
have
> >claimed there was a "law of the conservation of mass". This "law" has been
> >amended, as it were, because our explanation of physical phenomena has
> >changed (i.e. refined to include velocities comparable with c).
>
> I think that I understand where you are coming from. I don't consider the
> laws of nature to be our understanding of them, I consider them to be the
> actual way that nature actually works.

On the macroscopic level, I have almost no problem with this. The exception
is quite technical (Feynman´s electrodynamics without electromagnetic fields)
and I will discuss it only if you are interested. Ít is a bit of an angel-
dance-pin question.
On the quantum level - especially in high-energy physics - this distinction
begins to blur, IMHO. This is because the large mathematical apparatus which
is necessary begins to get a life of its own, as it were. Take the vacuum
complete with fluctuations, virtual particle pairs etc. At our current
knowledge level we cannot say if virtual particles are existing objects
governed by some laws of nature or artefacts of the mathematical formalism we
use in particle physics (of course, the experiments show that the vacuum is
not "just nothingness"). I would not go as far to say that the mathematical
formalism which is en vogue at some time *defines* what exists ....

When we name a law, we are
> attempting to codify an understanding of it, but I do not believe that
> such codifications (names to the contrary) are equivalent to the actual
> laws.

> In the case of Consideration of Mass and Energy, our codification
> was incorrect and needed to be amended to better conform with the actual
> laws (or rules of behavior, if you prefer) that govern nature.
>

OK.

> >I always feel uneasy when hearing about "laws of nature" since this leads
too
> >often to the misunderstanding that those laws require a lawgiver.
>
> I consider this to be a defect of language, but a nearly unavoidable one.
> Biology has similar problems in describing the design of living organisms
> and their parts. Frankly, I prefer to treat those as semantic issues and
> to treat any theological arguments that use them as their basis with the
> scorn that any argument from semantics deserves.

Maybe I was influenced by the fact that in German the opportunities for
misunderstanding are even worse; there "law of nature" is rendered as "Natur-
_Gesetz_" and this word almost says explicitely that someone has
"stated/created" it.

> >In this context, it might be interesting to note that AFAIK the last "laws"
> >in physics were Planck´s radiation law (1900) and Nernst´s 3rd law of
> >thermodynamics. Since then, all new ideas have been called "equations",
> >"models", "symmetries" etc. A good move, IMHO.
>
> On the other hand, "law" has widely been replaced by the term "theory"
> (e.g. the Theory of Relativity and the Theory of Natural Selection) which,
> alas, has its own set of exploitable connotations for those who wish to
> twist words to their ends. I will agree that it's probably best to avoid
> calling our descriptions of nature "laws" given the inevitable degree of
> inaccuracy that such descriptions will almost invariably have. This
> leaves room to treat the actual laws of nature as undiscovered entities
> that science is striving to discover (or, at the least, approximate to a
> high degree of certainty) but which are, none the less, quite real in
> their existence. A failure to make that point only opens the door to all
> the trivial nonsense that the post-modernists would like to shower us
> with.

I´m fully with you on this point.

> >Thus I would say: "our current description/explanation of nature becomes
> >invalid at the singularities".
>

> That's pretty much what I meant, but a bit wordy for my tastes. The main
> reason that I would avoid putting it in those terms is that it fails to
> rebut the notion that nature itself is breaking down in the vicinity of
> singularities.

I would have thought my formulation did stress just this point: "our
*current* *description* ... becomes invalid ....". It is like saying in 1904,
just before Einstein´s work on relativity "our current description of nature
breaks down at velocities comparable with the speed of light". Nothing said
about nature breaking down.

> The rules governing singularities are exotic, to be sure,
> but there's nothing unnatural about them. Certainly I would strongly
> doubt that there would be anything about them that would require us to
> introduce a deity into the equation.

Again, full agreement.

Regards,
Hans-Richard Grümm

> Andrew Lias | anrw...@wco.com | andre...@lamrc.com | Siste viator
> *-----------*------------------*-----------------------*------------*
> Christian Fundamentalism: The doctrine that there is an absolutely
> powerful, infinitely knowledgeable, universe spanning entity that is
> deeply and personally concerned about my sex life.
> *-----------*------------------*-----------------------*------------*
> http://www.wco.com/~anrwlias
>
>

[psych...@xpoint.at]

In article <355220d1...@news.earthlink.net>,

roll...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> On 7 May 1998 19:14:21 GMT, anrwlias@shell. (Andrew Lias) wrote:
>
> >For the most part, I think that you will find that atheists tend to base
> >their lack of theism on the simple observation that they have no rational
> >cause to conclude that any gods exist. Certainly science may be used to
> >bolster that conclusion, but it's a conclusion that does not need to rely
> >on a comprehensive and infallible scientific understanding of the
> >universe.
>

> If an atheist can look at the complexities of the universe and not see

> a Creator given the odds against life randomly creating itself, then

> the only rationale is that of ignorance or being content to wait for
> the salvation of that rationale by a unknown science. Either way I
> would not call that being more rational than that of the creationist.
>

> >At most, I use science as a tool to check those theological claims that
> >fall into the arena of scientific investigation, such as the claims of
> >creationists, or those who would otherwise insist that the scientific
> >evidence points to the existence of a god. In such cases, it is only
> >appropriate to invoke the methodology of science in checking such claims.
>

> There is no science available that you can use to disprove the

> existence of a Creator and I will bet you a dollar to a donut that you

> will never see a unifying principle to do so.
>

This is trivially true. You can´t even disprove the claim that my cat created
the universe last thursday, complete with fossils, light from distant stars,
false memories of the past etc. Being trivially true, it doesn´t mean much.

Science is *neutral* with respect to the existence of any supernatural.
The best illustration of its attitude is given by this well-known anecdote:

Laplace once explained to Napoleon his theory of the planetary system.
Napoleon asked him where God could be found in this theory. Laplace´s answer:
"Sire, I did not need this hypothesis".

To paraphrase Dawkins, the scientific developments of the last 150 years or
so have made it intellectually fully respectable to be a weak atheist since
they effectively killed any argument from design (recent claims à la Behe
notwithstanding). We definitely "do not need this hypothesis (see above)";
OTOH, we have no proof that it is false. I have my doubts that it can be
formulated in a really meaningful way.

Hans-Richard Grümm
"Worüber man nicht reden kann, darüber muß man schweigen"
(L.Wittgenstein - Tractatus logico-philosophicus 7)

[Mats Andtbacka]

roll...@earthlink.net, in <355317e7...@news.earthlink.net>:

>I thought the term atheist implied no God rather than just not knowing
>there is one. I thought not knowing would imply agnostic tendencies.

many people do believe that. they're wrong, however.

atheism, from a-theism; lack of theism, means the absence of belief in
gods - for whatever reason, no matter what the person's other beliefs
about theism may be. believing there are no gods is a proper subset of
this, usually referred to as strong atheism.

agnosticism, coined by Thomas Huxley, from a-gnosis; lack of knowledge,
the position that definite knowledge about gods and the existence
thereof either is not possible given what data we have, or (more
commonly) is fundamentally unattainable due to the nature of gods, or
both. agnostics can and do *believe* what they want; the point of
agnosticism is a position about *knowledge*.

see the alt.atheism FAQ at http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/ for
more details.

[...]

>There is nothing wrong with using tools to check everything for
>validity. I do it everyday. What is wrong, however, is claiming those
>tools are without flaw and should never be subject to scrutinization.

"doubt. doubt everything. doubt even that thou doubtest everything."

"i slept with faith, and found a corpse in my arms on awakening; i drank
and danced all night with doubt, and found her a virgin in the morning."

and people wonder why i like Aleister Crowley.
--
...sometimes you're the windshield
sometimes you're the bug...

[Del]

In article <6ivl7p$mc4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, psych...@xpoint.at wrote:

>
>Sorry, I was to brief. I tried an analogy to the "Ding an sich" *) of
>Immanuel Kant - the "true" object behind our observations - which are
>filtered by categories like time, space, causality -, which is essentially
>different from the object that we perceive and which we cannot reach(as I.K.
>claimed). The "laws an sich" would be the "true" laws of nature, a kind of
>Platonic ideal and essentially different from our descriptions.
>
>*) I don´t know the "official" English translation of this essential term of
>Kant. "Thing by itself", perhaps ?

The def I have is: "lit. the thing itself (German); essential
being, prior to secondary qualities."

--
E-mail: remove NOSPAM from jfa...@NOSPAM.earthlink.net

[sregoR .M divaD]

roll...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> On Thu, 07 May 1998 17:33:36 -0500, "sregoR .M divaD"
> <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>
> >I don't know. I consider admitting that we don't know the answers, and
> >then trying to find them a bit more rational than making up an answer.
>

> I thought the term atheist implied no God rather than just not knowing
> there is one. I thought not knowing would imply agnostic tendencies.

Your statement didn't concern the existance of God so much as the
creation of life by God as opposed to the formation of life through a
natural process.

> >He never said there was. What he said was that science could be used
> >where empirical claims are made (such as a flood being the best
> >explanation for the fossil record) in religion.
>

> There is nothing wrong with using tools to check everything for
> validity. I do it everyday. What is wrong, however, is claiming those
> tools are without flaw and should never be subject to scrutinization.

Of course. That's why one of the virtues of the scientific method is
that it is considered self-correcting. Errors inevitably slip through,
but they are also inevitably caught.

[Del]

In article <35531e30...@news.earthlink.net>, roll...@earthlink.net wrote:

>On Thu, 7 May 1998 16:15:09 -0700, nospam....@cts.com (Michael W.

>Fisher) wrote:
>
>>In article <355220d1...@news.earthlink.net>, roll...@earthlink.net

>>says...
>>
>>施f an atheist can look at the complexities of the universe and not see
>>柑 Creator given the odds against life randomly creating itself,

>>
>>
>> 1.) What do you mean by random?
>>

>> 2.) Who says the formation of life was random?
>>
>

>Maybe I took some liberties and assumed you also believe in evolution.

>The idea of throwing elements together hapharzardly and creating

>lifeforms is a little absurd.

Maybe you should learn a bit about evolution so you won't
continue to make such ridiculous assumptions about what it
says. And before you try to shift the burden of proof,
demanding that I educate you on the basics of evolution if
what you say is so ridiculous, it is your job to prove
your characterization is accurate - if you still hold to it.

>
>>
>>曷here is no science available that you can use to disprove the
>>枸xistence of a Creator and I will bet you a dollar to a donut that you
>>洲ill never see a unifying principle to do so.

>>
>> Why would I want to spend time trying to prove something does not

>>exist when it's not even apparent why it would matter if it does?
>>

>That all depends on your point of view. If your salvation depends on

>it then I would say it matters greatly.

Not if you are a Christian and believe that faith is key to
salvation. You cannot have "proof" of, and faith in, the same
thing at the same time.

[Del]

In article <355317e7...@news.earthlink.net>, roll...@earthlink.net wrote:

>On Thu, 07 May 1998 17:33:36 -0500, "sregoR .M divaD"
><Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>
>>I don't know. I consider admitting that we don't know the answers, and
>>then trying to find them a bit more rational than making up an answer.
>
>I thought the term atheist implied no God rather than just not knowing
>there is one. I thought not knowing would imply agnostic tendencies.
>

>>He never said there was. What he said was that science could be used
>>where empirical claims are made (such as a flood being the best
>>explanation for the fossil record) in religion.
>
>There is nothing wrong with using tools to check everything for
>validity. I do it everyday. What is wrong, however, is claiming those
>tools are without flaw and should never be subject to scrutinization.

A religious practice, rather than scientific, if
there ever was one.

[Shawn]

Doug Schiffer wrote:
: Tim Beard wrote:

: > (2) comets disintegrate too quickly,

: New comets come in from the Oort cloud to replace them.
: (3) earth's continents erode too quickly,
: Tectonic activity replaces the crust.
: > (4) there is not enough sediment on the sea floors,

Hold it ! There is not enough brain cells in an xian's head to
continue any further.

Unless the excess brain cells rest on the sea floor.

[Puck Greenman]

In article <355317e7...@news.earthlink.net>, roll...@earthlink.net

writes

>I thought the term atheist implied no God rather than just not knowing

No, the term atheist implies "without god", no more, no less.

-- ################################################
# #
# The spelling, like any opinion stated here, #
# is purely my own. #
# #
# Puck #162 #
# #
################################################

[TW]

God, you people need a better clue...

BOOK OF DIVINITY

What had been sealed is being revealed:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ugr/divinity.html

God Bless You!
William Todd

[roll...@earthlink.net]

On Fri, 08 May 1998 18:35:26 -0700, jfa...@NOSPAM.earthlink.net (Del)
wrote:

>Maybe you should learn a bit about evolution so you won't
>continue to make such ridiculous assumptions about what it
>says. And before you try to shift the burden of proof,
>demanding that I educate you on the basics of evolution if
> what you say is so ridiculous, it is your job to prove
>your characterization is accurate - if you still hold to it.

No, I demand you to show me all the billions of fossilized bones of
species evolving into another, caught in that transitional time at
death. So the burden of proof is on you.

[roll...@earthlink.net]

On Fri, 08 May 1998 11:17:25 -0500, "Paul G. Wenthold"
<went...@dorothy.chem.ttu.edu> wrote:

>Well then, it's a good thing that this has nothing to do with
>evolution. Hell, it doesn't have anything to do with
>abiogenesis. HINT: Chemical reactions are not random.

Well I'll try and put it to you this way. What causes chemical
reactions to happen? What creates elements to cause chemical
reactions? How did the "right" chemical reactions come into being from
a random scatter of elements.

[Paul G. Wenthold]

What do you mean "right chemical reactions"? Chemical reactions
are naturally occuring physical processes, no different than
a book falling to earth. In fact, they are both driven by
a reduction in the potential energy. For a book falling, it
is a reduction in the gravitational PE, while a chemical reaction
leads to a reduction in the chemical potential.

How did the "right" reactions occur? They had to, or
you wouldn't be here to ask the question.

As to what creates elements that undergo chemical reactions,
that is not "random" either. They were created naturally
by physical processes in stars, etc. Definately not random.

[Chris]

Very good rolltide! I asked this question once and never had responses.
In fact it didn't stay posted long either.

Chris

[Michael W. Fisher]

In article <355a71c1...@news.earthlink.net>, roll...@earthlink.net
says...

ŹWell I'll try and put it to you this way. What causes chemical
Źreactions to happen?

Elements stabilizing the quantum state of their outermost electron
shells.

Ź What creates elements to cause chemical
Źreactions?

Fusion reactions inside of stars.

Elements beyond iron are formed in super-nova explosions as trans-
iron fusions absorb energy rather than release energy.

Ź How did the "right" chemical reactions come into being from
Źa random scatter of elements.

What do you mean by "random"?

Ciao.

[Michael W. Fisher]

In article <355a72ca...@news.earthlink.net>, roll...@earthlink.net
says...

ŹNo, I demand you to show me all the billions of fossilized bones of
Źspecies evolving into another, caught in that transitional time at
Źdeath. So the burden of proof is on you.

What makes you think that there are "billions of fossilized bones"
anywhere on earth?

Can you describe how fossilization occurs? What factors must be
present? What very common events must NOT happen if a corpse is to be
fossilized?

If you study up a bit on paleontology you'll be able to answer
your own question.

Ciao.

[Elmer Bataitis]

roll...@earthlink.net wrote:

> On Fri, 08 May 1998 18:35:26 -0700, jfa...@NOSPAM.earthlink.net (Del)
> wrote:

> >Maybe you should learn a bit about evolution so you won't
> >continue to make such ridiculous assumptions about what it
> >says. And before you try to shift the burden of proof,
> >demanding that I educate you on the basics of evolution if
> > what you say is so ridiculous, it is your job to prove
> >your characterization is accurate - if you still hold to it.

> No, I demand you to show me all the billions of fossilized bones of

> species evolving into another, caught in that transitional time at

> death. So the burden of proof is on you.

Well, bones from vertebrates are kinda rare, but many do exist and are
stored in natural history museums around the world. Any modest use of a
library will turn up thousands of examples. There are also plenty of
other fossils that demonstrate gradual, or phylogenetic evolution. For
example:

"Evolutionary Brachiopod Lineages from the Llandovery Series of Eastern
Iowa", by Markes Johnson; "Palaeontology", vol. 22, part 3, 1979, page
549.

**********************************************************
Elmer Bataitis “Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!”
Planetech Services -Hobbes
716-442-2884
**********************************************************

[roll...@earthlink.net]

On Thu, 14 May 1998 09:04:47 -0500, "Paul G. Wenthold" >

>How did the "right" reactions occur? They had to, or
>you wouldn't be here to ask the question.

No kidding. You are evading the question.

>As to what creates elements that undergo chemical reactions,
>that is not "random" either. They were created naturally
>by physical processes in stars, etc. Definately not random.
>

You are still evading. Your arguments are all after the fact. After
the fact of the creation of stars, chemical reactions took place. Well
chemical reactions took place to create those stars. So what created
the stars? Your answer: Chemical reactions of course. Never ending.
Chicken and the egg. Well what created the chicken AND the egg?

[roll...@earthlink.net]

On Fri, 15 May 1998 01:42:07 -0700, nospam....@cts.com (Michael
W. Fisher) wrote:
>
> What makes you think that there are "billions of fossilized bones"
>anywhere on earth?
>
> Can you describe how fossilization occurs? What factors must be
>present? What very common events must NOT happen if a corpse is to be
>fossilized?

There you go. Duck and dive.

[roll...@earthlink.net]

On 15 May 1998 12:55:46 GMT, Elmer Bataitis
<"nyli...@frontiernet.net/nylicence"@aol.com> wrote:

>Well, bones from vertebrates are kinda rare, but many do exist and are
>stored in natural history museums around the world. Any modest use of a
>library will turn up thousands of examples. There are also plenty of
>other fossils that demonstrate gradual, or phylogenetic evolution. For
>example:
>
>"Evolutionary Brachiopod Lineages from the Llandovery Series of Eastern
>Iowa", by Markes Johnson; "Palaeontology", vol. 22, part 3, 1979, page
>549.

Well that does it for me. I'm a believer.

[roll...@earthlink.net]

On Fri, 15 May 1998 01:39:52 -0700, nospam....@cts.com (Michael
W. Fisher) wrote:

Maybe this will help. If chemical reactions created stars and stars
create chemical reactions then which came first the chicken or the
egg?

Why do the PROCESSES of chemical reactions happen in the first place?
No I don't need the taking on and giving off of electrons explanation.
The organized process had to be started somewhere from a point, at a
single time, with a single event.
If you set off an explosion can you cause a chemical reaction that
will create a life regenerating process to create a new species?

[Andrew Lias]

In article <355c72cb...@news.earthlink.net>,

<roll...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 14 May 1998 09:04:47 -0500, "Paul G. Wenthold" >

>>As to what creates elements that undergo chemical reactions,

>>that is not "random" either. They were created naturally
>>by physical processes in stars, etc. Definately not random.
>>
>You are still evading. Your arguments are all after the fact. After
>the fact of the creation of stars, chemical reactions took place. Well
>chemical reactions took place to create those stars. So what created
>the stars?
> Your answer: Chemical reactions of course. Never ending.
>Chicken and the egg. Well what created the chicken AND the egg?

Actually, chemistry has nothing to do with the creation of stars. Stars
are formed by gravitational interactions and they ignite because of
nuclear reactions. Now, I'm certain that your next question is what
causes nuclear and gravitational interactions, to which the answer is that
they are all mediated by the four fundamental forces: gravity,
electro-magnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force.

And what causes those? The answer to that is less clear. Current theory
suggests that they are caused by interactions of unidimensional strings
curved through a number of higher dimensions. The strings themselves are
thought to be composed of highly curved space-time. They, in turn, would
have been created by symmetry collapse during the early period of the big
bang.

And what caused the big bang? We don't know. There are several competing
theories, some of which seem more promising than others (e.g. Linds
Chaotic Inflation model), but that's still a topic of debate with no clear
front runner.

Now, before we go any further, I am perfectly aware that you can keep up
this regress indefinitely. Most people discover that when they're five
years old by playing the "why" game. Beyond a certain point, you have to
simply shrug your shoulders and say, "Haven't a clue". Of course, there
are those who suppose that "God" is the ultimate conclusion for the why
game, but that only works if you arbitrarily decide to stop at that point.
If the game is played consistently, God is no more and ultimate
explanation than anything else since God, itself, requires explanation.

However, the question at hand wasn't what the ultimate source of nature
was, but whether the interactions that lead to life are random. Given the
state of nature post-bang, the interactions that lead to stars, planets,
and life are most certainly not random. Given the *observable* state of
the universe and the rules that govern it, they are neigh-well
inevitabilities.

Now one can question whether those rules are themselves the products of
random circumstances or not, but such considerations are irrelevant. All
we know is that the laws that govern physical, chemical, and biological
interactions do exist and that the consequences of those interactions are,
most certainly, not the random chaos that you and other creationists would
like to imagine that they are.

Let me provide you with a simple analogy. Given the state of the universe,
it is no more surprising that we would find life arising in certain
portions of the cosmos that it is that water falling from the sky tends to
form puddles in certain portions of the earths surface. Even if we didn't
have a theory to account for how water got way up in the sky in the first
place, everything else about puddling would, never the less, fall into
place given our understanding of hydrodynamic interactions. Those who
disbelieved that puddles could possibly be the result of "random"
processes would be missing the point that the forces that produce puddles
are not random in such a manner as to make puddle formation a particular
mystery. Although life is more complicated to puddles, the difference, in
terms of the context of this discussion, is one that is more quantitative
than qualitative.
--

[Christopher A. Lee]

I'm glad you took your time to read it.

[Chris]

How are you using the term dimensional? could you explain this in more
detatil? You have me curious. Thank you

Chris

<snip just for time>

[Andrew Lias]

In article <355c77e5...@news.earthlink.net>,

<roll...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On 15 May 1998 12:55:46 GMT, Elmer Bataitis
><"nyli...@frontiernet.net/nylicence"@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>There are also plenty of
>>other fossils that demonstrate gradual, or phylogenetic evolution. For
>>example:
>>
>>"Evolutionary Brachiopod Lineages from the Llandovery Series of Eastern
>>Iowa", by Markes Johnson; "Palaeontology", vol. 22, part 3, 1979, page
>>549.
>
>Well that does it for me. I'm a believer.

You ask for evidence, you are given a citation, and then you answer the
reference with a sneering response. Is it any wonder to you that so many
people here have a hard time treating you seriously?

[Andrew Lias]

In article <355C9E...@pacifier.com>, Chris <ch...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>Andrew Lias wrote:

>> And what causes those? The answer to that is less clear. Current theory
>> suggests that they are caused by interactions of unidimensional strings
>> curved through a number of higher dimensions. The strings themselves are
>> thought to be composed of highly curved space-time. They, in turn, would
>> have been created by symmetry collapse during the early period of the big
>> bang.
>
>How are you using the term dimensional? could you explain this in more
>detatil? You have me curious. Thank you

I'm using in the standard geometric sense. A string (should string-theory
prove to be an accurate description of reality) has only length. It has
no thickness and no depth. Higher dimensions refers to those spaces where
it is possible to construct a figure that has more that three mutually
perpendicular axes. For a good (and entertaining) primer on the subject,
I'd recommend Edwin A. Abbot's _Flatland_ and the more up-to-date "sequel"
Sphereland by Dionys Burger (they can usually be found compiled into a
single book). I would also recommend Rudy Rucker's "The Fourth Dimension:
A Guided Tour of the Higher Universes", although I would warn you that he
enjoys deliberately bending the minds of his readers.

As for strings, they are still very speculative in nature. There have
been recent challengers to string theory that get rid of strings all
together, replacing them with multi-dimensional "films" and other esoteric
constructs. As I mentioned in a post to Simon Kent, the ultimate arbiter
is, of course, reality itself. Unfortunately, the tools to distinguish
between those theories that are viable and those that are not are, alas,
not quite available yet. The energies that would be required to test most
of these theories exceed our current generation of accelerators (the SSC
had the potential of performing some of that work, but it was killed in
mid-construction). With any luck, will be able to perform a good sifting
of these theories by 2010 or so. Until then, physicists are constrained
to examining the mathematical viability of the various propositions and
probing them to see if there are any simpler means of falsification
available.

String theory, and its variants, seem like good contenders for solving
some of the more vexing problems in physics. It seems likely that one of
the current theories, or something close to them, will provide a good fit
to reality. There is, however, always the possibility that the entire
concept will have to be junked and re-built from scratch. Such is the
nature of scientific endeavors.

[Del]

In article <355B1A...@pacifier.com>, ch...@pacifier.com wrote:

>roll...@earthlink.net wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 08 May 1998 18:35:26 -0700, jfa...@NOSPAM.earthlink.net (Del)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Maybe you should learn a bit about evolution so you won't
>> >continue to make such ridiculous assumptions about what it
>> >says. And before you try to shift the burden of proof,
>> >demanding that I educate you on the basics of evolution if
>> > what you say is so ridiculous, it is your job to prove
>> >your characterization is accurate - if you still hold to it.
>>
>> No, I demand you to show me all the billions of fossilized bones of
>> species evolving into another, caught in that transitional time at
>> death. So the burden of proof is on you.
>

>Very good rolltide! I asked this question once and never had responses.
>In fact it didn't stay posted long either.

Well maybe you can explain the logic of his making a
claim and then asserting I have the burden of proof
- not he - for something entirely different. I
suspect Rolitide isn't quite rational enough to
explain it himself, even if he wanted to.

But I'm glad to see you are interested in transitional
fossils. You can find all you want here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

I don't think there are billions of them though.
Thousands probably. But that should be enough to keep
you busy for a while.

[Del]

In article <355a72ca...@news.earthlink.net>, roll...@earthlink.net wrote:

>On Fri, 08 May 1998 18:35:26 -0700, jfa...@NOSPAM.earthlink.net (Del)
>wrote:
>
>

>>In article <35531e30...@news.earthlink.net>, roll...@earthlink.net
wrote:

>>
>>>On Thu, 7 May 1998 16:15:09 -0700, nospam....@cts.com (Michael W.
>>>Fisher) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <355220d1...@news.earthlink.net>, roll...@earthlink.net
>>>>says...
>>>>
>>>>施f an atheist can look at the complexities of the universe and not see
>>>>柑 Creator given the odds against life randomly creating itself,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1.) What do you mean by random?
>>>>
>>>> 2.) Who says the formation of life was random?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Maybe I took some liberties and assumed you also believe in evolution.
>>>The idea of throwing elements together hapharzardly and creating
>>>lifeforms is a little absurd.

>>Maybe you should learn a bit about evolution so you won't

>>continue to make such ridiculous assumptions about what it
>>says. And before you try to shift the burden of proof,
>>demanding that I educate you on the basics of evolution if
>> what you say is so ridiculous, it is your job to prove
>>your characterization is accurate - if you still hold to it.
>
>No, I demand you to show me all the billions of fossilized bones of
>species evolving into another, caught in that transitional time at
>death. So the burden of proof is on you.

Hahahahahahaha! Imagine that: someone actually
expecting _you_ to substantiate a claim _you_ made!
Gosh, what a shock that must have been. As a good
Christian you expect to be able to false witness
with impunity. Boy I've got some nerve, don't I.

Anyway if you have recovered from your trauma, why don't
you explain why it is that when _you_ are asked to
substantiate a claim _you_ have made, _you_ change the
subject and demand I show you billions of fossils? Is
there some obscure "christian" "logic" involved?

Or does being scientifically illiterate earn you some
sort of handicap so things aren't totally one-sided ?

Perhaps you are invoking your special privilege as a
fundy to duck out on your responsibility to tell the
truth?

What is it about _you_ making a claim that shifts the
burden of proof to me? Explain yourself: why don't you
think you have to support the claims you make?

Can you muster the integrity to offer honest answers?

[Al Klein]

On Fri, 15 May 1998 17:17:14 GMT, roll...@earthlink.net wrote:

>On Fri, 15 May 1998 01:39:52 -0700, nospam....@cts.com (Michael
>W. Fisher) wrote:

>Maybe this will help. If chemical reactions created stars and stars
>create chemical reactions then which came first the chicken or the
>egg?

First generation stars came first.

>Why do the PROCESSES of chemical reactions happen in the first place?
>No I don't need the taking on and giving off of electrons explanation.
>The organized process had to be started somewhere from a point, at a
>single time, with a single event.

No it didn't.

>If you set off an explosion can you cause a chemical reaction that
>will create a life regenerating process to create a new species?

Possibly, but not probably.
---
Al
aklein at villagenet dot com

[Al Klein]

On Fri, 15 May 1998 16:58:51 GMT, roll...@earthlink.net wrote:

>On Thu, 14 May 1998 09:04:47 -0500, "Paul G. Wenthold" >

>>How did the "right" reactions occur? They had to, or
>>you wouldn't be here to ask the question.

>No kidding. You are evading the question.

Not really. See below.

>>As to what creates elements that undergo chemical reactions,
>>that is not "random" either. They were created naturally
>>by physical processes in stars, etc. Definately not random.

>You are still evading. Your arguments are all after the fact.

Your question is looking at the problem backwards. What are the
"right" reactions? Those that allow *us* to be here?

>After
>the fact of the creation of stars, chemical reactions took place. Well
>chemical reactions took place to create those stars.

Wrong. Gravitic reactions took place to create THOSE stars.

Chemical AND gravitic reactions took place to create SECOND generation
stars.

[Al Klein]

On Fri, 15 May 1998 01:39:52 -0700, nospam....@cts.com (Michael
W. Fisher) wrote:

>In article <355a71c1...@news.earthlink.net>, roll...@earthlink.net
>says...

>Č How did the "right" chemical reactions come into being from
>Ča random scatter of elements.

> What do you mean by "random"?

What does he mean by "right"?

[Al Klein]

On Fri, 15 May 1998 17:12:27 GMT, roll...@earthlink.net wrote:

>On Fri, 15 May 1998 01:42:07 -0700, nospam....@cts.com (Michael
>W. Fisher) wrote:

>> What makes you think that there are "billions of fossilized bones"
>>anywhere on earth?

>> Can you describe how fossilization occurs? What factors must be
>>present? What very common events must NOT happen if a corpse is to be
>>fossilized?

>There you go. Duck and dive.

And you duck and weave. WHY do you think there are "billions of
fossilized bones" anywhere?

[Mr. Man]

roll...@earthlink.net wrote in message
<355c72cb...@news.earthlink.net>...

>On Thu, 14 May 1998 09:04:47 -0500, "Paul G. Wenthold" >
>>How did the "right" reactions occur? They had to, or
>>you wouldn't be here to ask the question.
>
>No kidding. You are evading the question.
>

>>As to what creates elements that undergo chemical reactions,
>>that is not "random" either. They were created naturally
>>by physical processes in stars, etc. Definately not random.
>>
>

>You are still evading. Your arguments are all after the fact. After

>the fact of the creation of stars, chemical reactions took place. Well

>chemical reactions took place to create those stars. So what created
>the stars? Your answer: Chemical reactions of course. Never ending.
>Chicken and the egg. Well what created the chicken AND the egg?

How ironic. Who created God, your ultimate chicken?

[Landis D. Ragon]

roll...@earthlink.net wrote:

>On Fri, 15 May 1998 01:39:52 -0700, nospam....@cts.com (Michael
>W. Fisher) wrote:
>
>Maybe this will help. If chemical reactions created stars and stars
>create chemical reactions then which came first the chicken or the
>egg?

Stars are not the result of chemical forces, but are instead, the
result of gravitational ones. Gravity is one of the fundamental forces
in the universe, albeit one of the weakest.

>
>Why do the PROCESSES of chemical reactions happen in the first place?
>No I don't need the taking on and giving off of electrons explanation.
>The organized process had to be started somewhere from a point, at a
>single time, with a single event.

>If you set off an explosion can you cause a chemical reaction that
>will create a life regenerating process to create a new species?

Landis D. Ragon
Chief Elf in the toy factory...

[Elmer Bataitis]

roll...@earthlink.net wrote:

> On Fri, 15 May 1998 01:42:07 -0700, nospam....@cts.com (Michael
> W. Fisher) wrote:

> > What makes you think that there are "billions of fossilized bones"
> >anywhere on earth?

> > Can you describe how fossilization occurs? What factors must be
> >present? What very common events must NOT happen if a corpse is to be
> >fossilized?

> There you go. Duck and dive.

There are billions or trillions of fossils extant. For an understanding
of how bone fossilization occurs try: Pat Shipman's "Life History of a
Fossil", published in 1981.

[Chris Brown]

roll...@earthlink.net wrote in article
<355c7471...@news.earthlink.net>...

> On Fri, 15 May 1998 01:39:52 -0700, nospam....@cts.com (Michael
> W. Fisher) wrote:
>
> Maybe this will help. If chemical reactions created stars and stars
> create chemical reactions then which came first the chicken or the
> egg?

Who claimed that chemical reactions created stars? Gravity created stars.

If you are asking how stars started to shine and create different elements
in the first place if there was only one element to start with, then you
don't understand how stars work, or where the heavier elements came from.
Starts undergo *nuclear* reactions, not chemical reactions. The power
source in a star is the fusion of light elements into heavier elements. In
our sun, this chiefly involves fusion of hydrogen into helium.

As for where the heavier elements came from: fusion stops being exothermic
at the point of iron. Beyond that the reaction is endothermic - it needs to
take energy in which means that it only happens where there is a lot of
energy already present. In space, this tends to happen in extremely violent
circumstances such as supernoave and the big bang its self.

> Why do the PROCESSES of chemical reactions happen in the first place?

That's like asking why gravity happens. It's just the way things are. If
they were different then you wouldn't be here to ask the question. Go and
look up "anthropic principle".

> No I don't need the taking on and giving off of electrons explanation.
> The organized process had to be started somewhere from a point, at a
> single time, with a single event.

It doesn't make sense to talk about the idea of the time of the event that
created the mechanism of chemical reactions (i.e. the big bang), because it
created time too. "When" is not a meaningful concept; as you travel back in
time towards it (imagine that you could, for a moment), as you approach,
time it's self ceases to exist.

> If you set off an explosion can you cause a chemical reaction that
> will create a life regenerating process to create a new species?

The big bang is not an explosion in the way you're likely to be
visualising. It's just the edge of the universe, from which all matter
disperses away from. With our concept of the passage of time, this appears
as an explosion, but it's nothing like blowing up a stick of dynamite, or
whatever.

[Chris Brown]

roll...@earthlink.net wrote in article
<355c72cb...@news.earthlink.net>...

> You are still evading. Your arguments are all after the fact. After
> the fact of the creation of stars, chemical reactions took place. Well

> chemical reactions took place to create those stars? So what created

> the stars? Your answer: Chemical reactions of course.

Stars are created by gravity. Stuff attracts other stuff (just one of those
things, there's a lot of stuff that you're probably standing on right now.
If you hold some more stuff and let it go, they move together, you can test
this for yourself). However, there's this other property of stuff which
divides it into two kinds - stuff of the same kind repels other stuff of
the same kind. You can test this by trying to push the north poles of two
magnets together. Normally when stuff come together under gravity, it is
prevented from touching by this other force. However, when a lot (an awful
lot) of stuff comes together it gets hot. You can test this by compressing
some air stuff inside a bicycle pump - it gets hot. When things get hot,
they move about more. You can test this by heating some water stuff up - it
suddenly starts to occupy your room when it gets above about 100 Celsius by
moving about more. If you get enough stuff in a small enough place, it
starts moving fast enough to overcome this repulsive force and touch. In
particular, these things we call protons (they're a bit small, so you're
unlikely to have seen one) tocuh, they stick together and get even hotter,
as well as becoming something that has different chemical properties to
what you started with. You can test this by being the Indian government
(you might not want to get too close, it can cause sunburn).

Was that simple enough?

[Oldguyteck]

You'r confuseing me now! Where the heck did all this STUFF come from.?
When did STUFF appear, orrigionaly?
This is just STUFF to THIMK <-------- about.
Ed...............(Oldguyteck) †

Chris Brown <cpbrown@no_uce_please.netcomuk.co.uk> wrote in article
<01bd804d$1dcc3040$LocalHost@narcissus>...

[roll...@earthlink.net]

On Fri, 15 May 1998 17:48:22 -0700, jfa...@NOSPAM.earthlink.net (Del)
wrote:

>Anyway if you have recovered from your trauma, why don't
>you explain why it is that when _you_ are asked to
>substantiate a claim _you_ have made, _you_ change the
>subject and demand I show you billions of fossils? Is
>there some obscure "christian" "logic" involved?

If you have been reading anything from me then you would notice I
never made claim to prove physically the existence of God. So when
someome claims physically or biologically there is no reason for God
then the burden of proof is on them. As I've asked before, you believe
in the existence of love don't you? If you can't see it, taste it,
touch it, hear it, or quantify it how do you know it exists?

>Or does being scientifically illiterate earn you some
>sort of handicap so things aren't totally one-sided ?

My observation has been when one person starts taking personal shots
at someone else in a debate then there is usually good reason to
believe that person has problems with his argument.

[roll...@earthlink.net]

On 15 May 1998 17:56:05 GMT, anrwlias@shell. (Andrew Lias) wrote:

>Actually, chemistry has nothing to do with the creation of stars. Stars
>are formed by gravitational interactions and they ignite because of
>nuclear reactions. Now, I'm certain that your next question is what

>causes nuclear and gravitational interactions, to which the answer is that
>they are all mediated by the four fundamental forces: gravity,
>electro-magnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force.

>And what causes those? The answer to that is less clear. Current theory

>suggests that they are caused by interactions of unidimensional strings
>curved through a number of higher dimensions. The strings themselves are
>thought to be composed of highly curved space-time. They, in turn, would
>have been created by symmetry collapse during the early period of the big
>bang.

Even knowing the four forces and knowing how they work is not so
important as to why they exist at all. If any of the forces existed in
a different strength then we wouldn't be worrying about this question.
So you say nature has finely tuned itself?

>And what caused the big bang? We don't know. There are several competing
>theories, some of which seem more promising than others (e.g. Linds
>Chaotic Inflation model), but that's still a topic of debate with no clear
>front runner.
>
>Now, before we go any further, I am perfectly aware that you can keep up
>this regress indefinitely. Most people discover that when they're five
>years old by playing the "why" game. Beyond a certain point, you have to
>simply shrug your shoulders and say, "Haven't a clue". Of course, there
>are those who suppose that "God" is the ultimate conclusion for the why
>game, but that only works if you arbitrarily decide to stop at that point.
>If the game is played consistently, God is no more and ultimate
>explanation than anything else since God, itself, requires explanation.

A consistent game only points more to a Creator. Consider some more
"natural" selections.

Fred Hoyle calculated the chances of resonances in carbon and in doing
so said:

"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a
superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry
and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about
in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so
overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

The ratio of proton to electron mass. Stephen Hawking says:

"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have
been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."

Fred Hoyle calculated the odds that all the functional proteins
necessary for life might form in one place by random events at 1 in
1(with 40,000 zeros after it). Since there are only about 1.000E80
atoms in the entire universe. That is a very small probability even if
the whole universe consisted of organic soup. So it leads some to
conclude that life did not originate here on earth. That genetic
material is being sent throughout universe on stellar winds to take
hold wherever the right conditions apply seems pretty absurd to me.

The balance of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force
in stars. Brandon Carter states;

"If the strength of gravitation force were altered by a mere one part
in 1.000E40, we'd have a world in which all stars would be either red
dwarfs or blue giants."

Low entropy. The universe should have been filled with black holes
instead of stars or gas. Roger Pemrose calculated the odds against the
observed universe appearing by accident at 1 in 1(with 10 zeros after
it)

The precarious balance between expansion and collapse of the universe
has led to theories of replicating universes (big-bang,big-crunch and
on and on), universes with no beginning, infinite number of universes
etc. to get away from the idea of a Creator but even Stephen Hawking
made a statement:

"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set
of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the
equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual
approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer
the questions of why ther should be a universe for the model to
describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?

If you believe in the big-bang then why was there slightly more matter
than anitmatter at the beginning of the universe? Steven Weinberg
says:

"If there had not been a small excess of electrons over
anit-electrons, and quarks over anti-quarks, then ordinary particles
like electrons and quarks would be virtually absent in the universe
today. It is this early excess of matter over anit-matter, estimated
as one part in about 10 billion, that survived to form light atomic
nuclei three minutes later, then after a million years to from atoms
and later to be cooked to heavier elements in stars, ultimately to
provide the material out of which life would arise."

A lucky fluke you may say?

With all the knowledge of gravitational and centrifugal force why
can't NASA put a satellite into orbit and make it stay there for any
great length of time? Why does there continue to be this great balance
to hold the unverse together and to keep it from crashing in on
itself?

Lucky fluke you say? Natural? An infinite number of universes? Does
this universe exist only because it is observed? Can the mere
observaton cause anything to exist? Can we then change the past by
looking through a telescope? I think it takes a greater faith in these
theories than it does to believe in a Creator.

AP? WAP? SAP? PAP? FAP? I tend to agree with Martin Gardner in
completely ridiculous anthropic principle or better know as CRAP.

[roll...@earthlink.net]

On Fri, 15 May 1998 23:22:08 -0400, nxy...@ivyyntrarg.pbz (Al Klein)
wrote:

>And you duck and weave. WHY do you think there are "billions of
>fossilized bones" anywhere?

I don't. That's the point.

[roll...@earthlink.net]

On 15 May 1998 20:51:13 GMT, anrwlias@shell. (Andrew Lias) wrote:

>You ask for evidence, you are given a citation, and then you answer the
>reference with a sneering response. Is it any wonder to you that so many
>people here have a hard time treating you seriously?

Not a sneer. Give me some substance to intrigue me. It should be
pretty easy if the citation is from one page. If I go chasing every
citation given by someone supposedly proving something to me then I
would spend all my time at the library.

[Tony Lawrence]

roll...@earthlink.net wrote:

: Even knowing the four forces and knowing how they work is not so

: important as to why they exist at all. If any of the forces existed in
: a different strength then we wouldn't be worrying about this question.

That's right, you wouldn't.

: So you say nature has finely tuned itself?

No. A week ago my brother-in-law found a 1929 dime under a floor
board in an old house. Based on it's condition, it was probably dropped
there in 1929 or soon after.

If it hadn't have been dropped, it wouldn't have been there to be found.
Because it was, we were able to admire a near uncirculated dime
from 70 years ago.

If the phyics of our Universe were different, the dime wouldn't
have been there, either. But it was *not* different, and the
dime *was* dropped, so here we are. No gods required for
either circumstance, as usual.

--
Tony
Taint Anthony the Astonished BAAWA!
http://world.std.com/~apl

God is a dumb answer to any question.

[Tony Lawrence]

roll...@earthlink.net wrote:

: Fred Hoyle calculated the chances of resonances in carbon and in doing

: so said:
: "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a
: superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry
: and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about
: in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so
: overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

Seem so overwhelming to Fred Hoyle. Others are not so overwhelmed.

: The ratio of proton to electron mass. Stephen Hawking says:

: "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have
: been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."

Hawking has said other things that the godsoaked would cherish
less, but even without that we must note that our notions of
what constitutes life and what makes it possible are changing
rather rapidly, and Hawking is not at all an expert in that
field.

: Fred Hoyle calculated the odds that all the functional proteins

: necessary for life might form in one place by random events at 1 in
: 1(with 40,000 zeros after it). Since there are only about 1.000E80

Same comment, and even more so.

: atoms in the entire universe. That is a very small probability even if

: the whole universe consisted of organic soup. So it leads some to
: conclude that life did not originate here on earth. That genetic
: material is being sent throughout universe on stellar winds to take
: hold wherever the right conditions apply seems pretty absurd to me.

But Make Believe Buddy seems perfectly rational, of course.

: The balance of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force

: in stars. Brandon Carter states;

: "If the strength of gravitation force were altered by a mere one part
: in 1.000E40, we'd have a world in which all stars would be either red
: dwarfs or blue giants."

And that means?

Actually, I rather suspect Mr. Carter is talking through his hat.
Attempting to calculate the entire effect of such a change is
beyond any computing device presently in existence. It's rather
asinine to take a relatively closed system like a star and make projections
based entirely on that.

But even if true, and even if you insist on extrapolating to
no planets capable of life, all that would mean is that there
would NOT be a backwater planet filled with semi-evolved apes
who make idiotic pronouncements like this. The Universe
would continue on its merry way, perhaps devoid of life, perhaps
not. Only you and I and the other life forms on this planet
and similar ones would be missing. Personally, I could
accept the idea that the Universe has no good use for *you*.

: Low entropy. The universe should have been filled with black holes

: instead of stars or gas. Roger Pemrose calculated the odds against the
: observed universe appearing by accident at 1 in 1(with 10 zeros after
: it)

Roger Pemrose :-). How amusing.

: The precarious balance between expansion and collapse of the universe

: has led to theories of replicating universes (big-bang,big-crunch and
: on and on), universes with no beginning, infinite number of universes
: etc. to get away from the idea of a Creator but even Stephen Hawking
: made a statement:

: "Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set
: of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the
: equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual
: approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer
: the questions of why ther should be a universe for the model to
: describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?

Hawking also said (just a couple of paragraphs before the one
you chose to quote):

"But if the Universe is completely self-contained... that has
profound implications for the role of God as the Creator".

Further, you conveniently left off the final sentences of the
paragraph you began above:

"Is the unified theory so compelling that it brings about its
own existence? Or does it need a creator, and, if so, does he
have any other effect on the universe? And who created him?"

: If you believe in the big-bang then why was there slightly more matter

: than anitmatter at the beginning of the universe? Steven Weinberg
: says:

: "If there had not been a small excess of electrons over
: anit-electrons, and quarks over anti-quarks, then ordinary particles
: like electrons and quarks would be virtually absent in the universe
: today. It is this early excess of matter over anit-matter, estimated
: as one part in about 10 billion, that survived to form light atomic
: nuclei three minutes later, then after a million years to from atoms
: and later to be cooked to heavier elements in stars, ultimately to
: provide the material out of which life would arise."

: A lucky fluke you may say?

If we assume the correctness of Weinberg's model, and if you
insist upon Life As We Know It, yadda, yadda.

: With all the knowledge of gravitational and centrifugal force why

: can't NASA put a satellite into orbit and make it stay there for any
: great length of time? Why does there continue to be this great balance
: to hold the unverse together and to keep it from crashing in on
: itself?

Excuse me? Can somebody tell me what *this* prattle is supposed
to signify?

: Lucky fluke you say? Natural? An infinite number of universes? Does

: this universe exist only because it is observed? Can the mere
: observaton cause anything to exist? Can we then change the past by
: looking through a telescope? I think it takes a greater faith in these
: theories than it does to believe in a Creator.

Theories have predictable consequences. Theories can be tested.
God-things are just the products of weak minds.

: AP? WAP? SAP? PAP? FAP? I tend to agree with Martin Gardner in

: completely ridiculous anthropic principle or better know as CRAP.

Martin Gardner? We *do* love to reach *way* back, don't we?

--
Tony
Taint Anthony the Astonished BAAWA!
http://world.std.com/~apl

All the lovability and intelligence of a puppy.

[Jeff Candy]

roll...@earthlink.net writes:

> Even knowing the four forces and knowing how they work is not so
> important as to why they exist at all. If any of the forces existed in
> a different strength then we wouldn't be worrying about this question.

How do you know this? Surely some fine tuning of forces will
make life more -- not less -- likely to arise spontaneously.

<snip>

> A consistent game only points more to a Creator.

No it doesn't. If it did, the existence of a creator would
point to the existence of a meta-creator, and so on.

> Fred Hoyle calculated the chances of resonances in carbon and
> in doing so said:

Do tell what a "resonance in Carbon" is, and why it is relevant
to abiogenesis.

> "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a
> superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry
> and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about
> in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so
> overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

Argumentum ad ignorantium.

<snip>

> Fred Hoyle calculated the odds that all the functional proteins
> necessary for life might form in one place by random events at 1 in
> 1(with 40,000 zeros after it).

So what? These "functional proteins" neither form by "random
events", nor are they alone the only ones which can give rise
to life forms. Hoyle was not a biochemist, and the absurdity
of the claims he makes based on some simple-minded combinatorics
is evident.

Life as we know it does not depend, for example, on having a
cytochrome c molecule with a specific (a priori) amino acid
sequence. It depends, rather, on the availability of agents
to act as electron donors and acceptors.

Right?

So, why didn't Hoyle compute the number of agents which can act
as electron donors? Perhaps because he, like you, let incredulity
get in the way of good science.

> So it leads some to
> conclude that life did not originate here on earth. That genetic
> material is being sent throughout universe on stellar winds to take
> hold wherever the right conditions apply seems pretty absurd to me.

Well, what seems "absurd" to you is very likely not relevant.

> The balance of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force
> in stars. Brandon Carter states;
>
> "If the strength of gravitation force were altered by a mere one part
> in 1.000E40, we'd have a world in which all stars would be either red
> dwarfs or blue giants."

So what?

> Low entropy. The universe should have been filled with black holes
> instead of stars or gas. Roger Pemrose

Roger PeNrose.

> calculated the odds against the observed universe appearing by
> accident at 1 in 1(with 10 zeros after it)

Penrose's considerations show that the universe appears to
have started with very "special" initial conditions. Modern
physics in general is still not adequately sophisticated to
cope with the complexities of the _very_ early universe.

These considerations are scientific speculations, not evidence
of external universe-creating entities.

<snip>

> If you believe in the big-bang then why was there slightly more matter
> than anitmatter at the beginning of the universe? Steven Weinberg
> says:

Baryon number nonconservation. This is consistent with big bang
cosmology.

> A lucky fluke you may say?

No more or less than the conservation of energy and momentum.

The universe and physical laws simply "are".

That's all we can say.

------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Candy (179) http://mildred.ph.utexas.edu/~candy
------------------------------------------------------------

[Chris Brown]

Oldguyteck <edward....@the-spa.com> wrote in article
<01bd809f$49abe780$2b7129cf@default>...

> You'r confuseing me now! Where the heck did all this STUFF come from.?
> When did STUFF appear, orrigionaly?
> This is just STUFF to THIMK <-------- about.

The 'stuff' is the fabric of the universe. It just is. There isn't a
beginning, just an edge which we call the Big Bang.

[Chris Brown]

roll...@earthlink.net wrote in article
<355db3d7...@news.earthlink.net>...

>
> Even knowing the four forces and knowing how they work is not so
> important as to why they exist at all. If any of the forces existed in
> a different strength then we wouldn't be worrying about this question.
> So you say nature has finely tuned itself?

That's a really silly thing to say. To paraphrase, "if the universe was
different, we wouldn't be here to have this conversation, because something
different happened". Well, duh!

> Fred Hoyle calculated the chances of resonances in carbon and in doing
> so said:

Fred Hoyle also believed in the Steady State Theory in the face of
overwheling evidence in support of the Big Bang.

> The ratio of proton to electron mass. Stephen Hawking says:
>
> "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have
> been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."

Go and look up "Anthropic Principle".