evolution is impossible
Steve Keppel-Jones
In article <33E82C...@iinet.com>, eRaCer <era...@speedracer.com> wrote:
>
>God is so great.
God is so great, God is so great, G-R-A-T....
Steve
"But Homey, God only asks for one hour of your time a week!"
"Then he should have made the week an hour longer! Lousy god."
James E. Petts
Steve Keppel-Jones wrote:
> God is so great, God is so great, G-R-A-T....
And you're posting that in an ATHEISTS'S forum?
James E. Petts
http://www.visitweb.com/philosophy ***DISCUSS PHILOSOPHY***
cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Steve Keppel-Jones (ste...@bnr.ca) wrote:
: God is so great, God is so great, G-R-A-T....
Scripture attributable (is that a word?) to Homer, son of Abraham...
--
***********************************************************
I saw weird stuff in that place last night -- weird,
strange, sick, twisted, eerie, godless, *evil* stuff!
And I want in!
Homer J. Simpson
***********************************************************
Steve Keppel-Jones
James E. Petts <pe...@geocities.com> wrote:
>Steve Keppel-Jones wrote:
>
>> God is so great, God is so great, G-R-A-T....
>
Uh huh... that there would be an example of humor, son... I'm a-throwin'
'em but you ain't a-catchin' 'em!
If you didn't spot the Simpsons reference, it may not be quite so funny,
however.
Steve
Donna Coyne
cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
: Steve Keppel-Jones (ste...@bnr.ca) wrote:
: : In article <33E82C...@iinet.com>, eRaCer <era...@speedracer.com> wrote:
: : >
: : >God is so great.
: : God is so great, God is so great, G-R-A-T....
: Scripture attributable (is that a word?) to Homer, son of Abraham...
Can I get a "Woo Hoo!"?
cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Wm James
:> In order for evolution to be possible, one would most likely assert that
:> spontaneous generation also occured. Spontaneous generation states that
:> given enough time, chemecials would form a living organism by chance.
:> However, a first year chemistry student knows that as time increases,
:> chemicals tend to move toward equilibrium. So, time actually hinders the
:> theory of spontaneous generation.
:>
:
:The clue's in the question, old chum. 'tend to move toward equlibrium'.
:Not 'all rush headlong toward equlibrium without so much as a glance over
:their dainty molecular shoulders'. Also see terms such as 'dynamic
:equlibrium' and 'basic knowledge of physical chemistry'.
:
I think he is refering to the 2nd law f thermodynamics. Does the
creationisst handbook never get updated? That argument against
evoulution would only apply if can demonstrate that the earth
receives no energy from the sun. Your ability to boil water would
violate the law for the same reason. Why to the superstitious
keep trying this?
William R. James
Samuel Martin Ventola
There may be a problem with definitions here. Evolution is something
different than natural selection. Evolution certainly exists. It can
be observed in historical times. Certain species have adapted to
better fit their environment. Certain species have died off. My dog,
which was born of a parent which was white and a parent which was
brown, is white with brown spots. He's evolved. I would think that
even the most fundamentalist person would agree that evolution, in some
form, exists.
It is a different issue whether the cause of that evolution, or whether
the cause of all evolution or some part of evolution, is natural
selection. There is a legitimate, and apparently persuasive,
scientific criticim of the theory that all evolution is due to natural
selection. I do not take this as proof of the existence of God, since
its possible we just don't know all the facts. Based on the current
state of knowledge, however, it is difficult to explain the current
panoply of flora and fauna through natural selection or any other
"natural" explanation.
Erik Marksberry
On 12 Aug 1997, Samuel Martin Ventola wrote:
>
> It is a different issue whether the cause of that evolution, or whether
> the cause of all evolution or some part of evolution, is natural
> selection. There is a legitimate, and apparently persuasive,
> scientific criticim of the theory that all evolution is due to natural
> selection.
Evolution is also caused by genetic drift. In fact, genetic drift
is thought to be the MAJOR contributory factor in evolution.
--
Erik Marksberry
The Corinthian
Erik Marksberry <mark...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.A41.3.95.970813...@green.weeg.uiowa.edu>...
Do creationists ever put up the idea that maybe their god kicked the whole
proccess off?
Maybe someone should suggest it to them.....might make them feel like they
are getting somewhere in this discussion.
John Ings
On 16 Aug 1997 02:52:39 GMT, "The Corinthian"
<corin...@netaccess.co.nz> wrote:
>Do creationists ever put up the idea that maybe their god kicked the whole
>proccess off?
>Maybe someone should suggest it to them.....might make them feel like they
>are getting somewhere in this discussion.
Most of them don't buy it. I think it's an ego thing. If God just
kicked off the evolutionary process and then stood back to see what
would happen, then mankind is a creature of chance, not made in God's
image like the Bible says. They can't stand that idea.
Terry D. Gray
On the contrary, being a Christian and thus "creationist", I personally have
no trouble at all with evolution. God, the creator of such an incredibly
complex biosphere, almost countless variations of species, and such finely
tuned balancing of it all, certainly has his hands full. I'm not suprised at
all that God would set a series of evolutionary paterns and processes into
motion. It has to be a whole lot less work and effort than making every one
of those things individually by hand.
I guess the biggest reason that "evolutionists" and "Creationists" so
vehemently dissagree, is that evolutionists choose to not think about where
all the energy and matter of the universe came from, and "creationists" are
too closed minded to think that the concept of time has very different
meanings to God Vs. Man's current understanding of time.
It's ludicrous to think that God is bound by the laws of physics in the
universe, because he himself designed them -which means he functioned outside
of those laws that did not exist, and outside a Universe that did not exist.
So if the creations say that God Created the Heavens and the Earth in six
days and rested on the seventh, my question is... why do you box up God into
a tight little container and say that a day is only a day. A day is a day to
us. But I doubt very much that we have any concept whatsoever of what a day
is to God. Or for that matter, if God's Days are all the same lenght even.
Many Christians are simply too scared of science and it's effects on society,
to open up and take it for what it is....
Science is God's Gift of:
1.) Thinking something might be such a way
2.) Testing it to see if it is so
3.) Testing it to see if it is not
4.) ...and then leaving it at that until...
they think it might be some other way, (then back to step one)
Yet every Christian, myself included, takes these exact same steps with the
contents of the Bible in regards to their faith, so Christians should not
condemn science as an act, because Science is a fancy name for mankind's
built-in, designed, God-made function of: living ones life.
Science is a never ending cycle of non-absolutes, ya gotta love it for that
because it keeps our species questing, exploring, and discussing the beauty
of God's work, so that we can inturn, reflect with awe upon the artist
himself.
wf...@enter.netxx
On Sat, 16 Aug 1997 06:08:13 -0700, "Terry D. Gray" <gr...@direct.ca>
wrote:
>I guess the biggest reason that "evolutionists" and "Creationists" so
>vehemently dissagree, is that evolutionists choose to not think about where
>all the energy and matter of the universe came from,
of course we do. we just have no evidence for it. the YEC on the other
hand, have no fear about saying 'since we dont KNOW how it happened,
god musta done it'...its a poor argument
Tedd Hadley
"The Corinthian" <corin...@netaccess.co.nz> writes:
>Do creationists ever put up the idea that maybe their god kicked the whole
>proccess off?
>Maybe someone should suggest it to them.....might make them feel like they
>are getting somewhere in this discussion.
Actually, I think the majority of people who call themselves
creationists believe this. The reason you don't often hear from
them is because they have no need to tear down science to shore up
their beliefs.
On the other hand, Fundamentalist Christianity and its forms of
creationism is thoroughly dependent on a belief in a huge conspiracy:
a powerful, invisible, widespread, and unbelievably evil force that
manipulates the thoughts and activities of humankind for the sole
purpose of getting them to reject God. Science, as a human pursuit,
is corrupted by Satan and no compromise with its conclusions is
acceptable. If science doesn't agree with the Bible, science is
wrong, period.
++
Tedd Hadley <had...@uci.edu>
John Ings
>> >Do creationists ever put up the idea that maybe their god kicked the whole
>> >proccess off?
>> >Maybe someone should suggest it to them.....might make them feel like they
>> >are getting somewhere in this discussion.
>>
>> Most of them don't buy it. I think it's an ego thing. If God just
>> kicked off the evolutionary process and then stood back to see what
>> would happen, then mankind is a creature of chance, not made in God's
>> image like the Bible says. They can't stand that idea.
>>
>
>On the contrary, being a Christian and thus "creationist", I personally have
>no trouble at all with evolution.
Yes, but you're in the minority, and I note you put quotes around the
word creationist. The mindset I refer to is held by what might
properly be called "Creationists" (capital C). In other words
fundamentalist, literalist-inerrantists who insist on a 6000 year old
world that was created in six literal days. Even the gap-theorist
faction of this bunch won't hold still for a human race not
purposefully created by God in his own image.
>I guess the biggest reason that "evolutionists" and "Creationists" so
>vehemently dissagree, is that evolutionists choose to not think about where
>all the energy and matter of the universe came from,
Why should they? The origin of the universe has nothing to do with
evolution. I think you are falling into the Creationist's habit of
referring to the entire body of modern science as "eevilushunism".
> and "creationists" are
>too closed minded to think that the concept of time has very different
>meanings to God Vs. Man's current understanding of time.
No, I don't buy that one. No matter what length the Genesis creation
"days" were, the creation order is wrong. The earth was not made
before the stars for instance, nor trees before fish.
>Many Christians are simply too scared of science and it's effects on society,
>to open up and take it for what it is....
Science has been pushing religion out of the material world since the
time of Galileo, to the point that now whenever the theist dares to
tread outside his supernatural purview, he gets his toes stepped on.
Al
---------> After reading all the opinions of the people who have
submitted a reply to this article, I began to think. I then concluded
that God created science, and explained the way things worked (through
the Bible) in a way that the people, at that time period, could
understand. If you tried to explain the atomic composition of, for
instance, water, people 2000 years ago wouldn't have a clue as to what
he was talking about. It is a lot simpler to say that God said "Let
there be light" instead of describing how a Nebula condences into a sun
and, in our sun, how the heat provided by it comes from 600 million
tonnes of Hydrogen burning from it per second. Trying to explain nuclear
fusion in the sun to people 2000 years ago woud be virtually impossible.
Al MacDougall
trav...@netroute.net
http://www.netroute.net/~traveler
Drachen
You're getting very close to it. replace the phrase "God created
science" with "the writers of the Bible created a mythology" and you
have it. It has been said many times before that the Bible is a book of
mythology. It was fine 6000 years ago, but has since outlived its
usefulness. Science now far surpasses the Bible in terms of explaining
the world.
--
-Drachen
alt.atheism atheist #742
Direct all correspondance/flames to:
dra...@worldnet.att.net
Rev. Chuck
> >content of the bible and it is simply written by men... then I would ask you
> >this question, how is it possible, for a book scribed by several dozen people
> >over a period of time of several thousand years, to make 100's of predictions
> >about specific future occurances and be 100% accurate in every case that our
> >timeline has reached. Predictions were made 100's of years in advance about
> >civilizations and places that did not even exist at the time of their
> >writing. I'm sorry, but man is not capable of such accurate prophecy.
> >
> <snip>
> And neither is your bybel.
Lloyd Zusman
I'm in agreement with what you have posted, except for one point (see
below):
On Sat, 16 Aug 1997 06:08:13 -0700, Terry D. Gray <gr...@direct.ca> wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> On the contrary, being a Christian and thus "creationist", I personally have
> no trouble at all with evolution. [ ... ]
>
> I guess the biggest reason that "evolutionists" and "Creationists" so
> vehemently dissagree, is that evolutionists choose to not think about where
> all the energy and matter of the universe came from, and "creationists" are
> too closed minded to think that the concept of time has very different
> meanings to God Vs. Man's current understanding of time.
Don't forget that there is nothing in any theories of evolution which
talks about the origins of energy and matter. Evolutionary theories
only concern themselves with the way in which life changes over time,
and they say nothing about cosmology, nuclear physics, etc. How the
universe came into being is totally unrelated to theories of
evolution.
There are many people like you who accept that evolution takes place
and who still believe that God has created everything. For the most
part, the only people I see who incorrectly try to combine evolution
with the theories of how the universe came into being are creationists
who are creating this straw man in an attempt to discredit evolution.
> [ ... remainder deleted to save space ... ]
--
Lloyd Zusman
l...@asfast.com
William
>>>Do creationists ever put up the idea that maybe their god kicked the whole
>>>proccess off?
>>>Maybe someone should suggest it to them.....might make them feel like they
>>>are getting somewhere in this discussion.
>>
>> Most of them don't buy it. I think it's an ego thing. If God just
>> kicked off the evolutionary process and then stood back to see what
>> would happen, then mankind is a creature of chance, not made in God's
>> image like the Bible says. They can't stand that idea.
>
>On the contrary, being a Christian and thus "creationist", I personally have
>complex biosphere, almost countless variations of species, and such finely
>tuned balancing of it all, certainly has his hands full.
>
>I'm not suprised at all that God would set a series of evolutionary
>paterns and processes into motion.
>It has to be a whole lot less work and effort than making every one
>of those things individually by hand.
Some christians are creationists; others strongly oppose them.
Some creationists accept evolution; others strongly oppose it.
Some christians who are creationists and who accept evolution also
accept the genesis account; others strongly oppose that, saying that
it has to be taken as a poetry . . . . .and so on.
You've now added another breakaway strand by proposing that God is not
omnipotent. (ie omnipotence would be a contradiction if he had limited
resources by having his 'hands full' and choosing to go for less work
and effort); many of the above would strongly oppose this
What are we enquiring outside observers to make of it all?
Perhaps we'd better come back when you've all got your act together.
William
Terry D. Gray
Tedd Hadley wrote:
>
> "The Corinthian" <corin...@netaccess.co.nz> writes:
>
> >Do creationists ever put up the idea that maybe their god kicked the whole
> >proccess off?
> >Maybe someone should suggest it to them.....might make them feel like they
> >are getting somewhere in this discussion.
>
> creationists believe this. The reason you don't often hear from
> them is because they have no need to tear down science to shore up
> their beliefs.
Amen! Creationists who understand what Science actually is, have no fear of
it getting in the way of their beliefs in the bible as God's word to man.
That's because 'proper' science is a continous process, that does not state
absolutes, but only offers a current explanation for the scientific data that
is known and testable as of today.
>
> On the other hand, Fundamentalist Christianity and its forms of
> creationism is thoroughly dependent on a belief in a huge conspiracy:
> a powerful, invisible, widespread, and unbelievably evil force that
> manipulates the thoughts and activities of humankind for the sole
> purpose of getting them to reject God. Science, as a human pursuit,
> is corrupted by Satan and no compromise with its conclusions is
> acceptable. If science doesn't agree with the Bible, science is
> wrong, period.
Be carefull about lumping all fundamentalists into the same mold,
(stereotype). I believe that in any social group within humanity, there is a
majority that causes the stereotype, but there is also a sizable minority
that de-stabilzes the traits associated with the group as a whole.
I doubt there is a single social group within humanity, that has 'never'
changed it's tune on what it believes as generally accepted truth. Science
included. Christianity included! All social groups are dynamicly changing
because of the simple fact, that they are made up of... humans, who are in
fact extremely dynamic and change driven.
Terry D> Gray
>
> ++
> Tedd Hadley <had...@uci.edu>
Patrick541
> Al <trav...@netroute.net>Wrote:
> I then concluded
>that God created science, and explained the way things worked (through
>the Bible) in a way that the people, at that time period, could
>understand.
Here is another conclusion:
How about *man* created God and explained the way things worked (through
the bible) in a way that the people at that time period could understand.
The scare tactics (i.e. Hell) were thrown in to scare the barbaric people
(they nailed people to trees) of that time into some level of order.
Why hasn't your god put out a revised edition of the bible to accomodate
all the current knowledge? The truth is, man(men) wrote the bible and he
has updated it (albeit differently), that is why we have hundreds of
religions to day.
Patrick541
>Terry D. Gray <gr...@direct.ca> wrote:
>I guess the biggest reason that "evolutionists" and "Creationists" so
>> vehemently dissagree, is that evolutionists choose to not think about
where
>
>> all the energy and matter of the universe came from, and "creationists"
are
>
>> too closed minded to think that the concept of time has very different
>> meanings to God Vs. Man's current understanding of time.
The big difference here is that science does not try to fit everything
into a nice neat little package, namely a single book.
All fields of science have gray areas between the individual fields of
study. Evolution is but a small part of science. It does not concern
itself with the origin of the universe, that is a different department.
Creationists have their work cut out for them, they have to take on all of
science and refer the appropriate questions to the correct fields of
study. How would you like an evolutionist to ask you a question concerning
the beliefs of buddism? Not a very fair contest. On the other hand, most
religions have all of their so-called answers in one book and accept it as
is.
Ken Livingston
Al <trav...@netroute.net> wrote:
> ---------> After reading all the opinions of the people who have
> submitted a reply to this article, I began to think. I then concluded
> that God created science, and explained the way things worked (through
> the Bible) in a way that the people, at that time period, could
> understand. If you tried to explain the atomic composition of, for
> instance, water, people 2000 years ago wouldn't have a clue as to what
> he was talking about. It is a lot simpler to say that God said "Let
> there be light" instead of describing how a Nebula condences into a sun
> and, in our sun, how the heat provided by it comes from 600 million
> tonnes of Hydrogen burning from it per second. Trying to explain nuclear
> fusion in the sun to people 2000 years ago woud be virtually impossible.
Wisdom does, in fact, arise on Usenet from time to time.
Regards,
Ken
--
Ken Livingston
ken...@pcug.org.au
John Ings
On Sat, 16 Aug 1997 20:01:57 -0400, Al <trav...@netroute.net> wrote:
> ---------> After reading all the opinions of the people who have
>submitted a reply to this article, I began to think. I then concluded
>that God created science, and explained the way things worked (through
>the Bible) in a way that the people, at that time period, could
>understand. If you tried to explain the atomic composition of, for
>instance, water, people 2000 years ago wouldn't have a clue as to what
>he was talking about. It is a lot simpler to say that God said "Let
>there be light" instead of describing how a Nebula condences into a sun
>and, in our sun, how the heat provided by it comes from 600 million
>tonnes of Hydrogen burning from it per second. Trying to explain nuclear
>fusion in the sun to people 2000 years ago woud be virtually impossible.
Sure. There would be no point in attempting to explain solar physics
to a Babylonian priest. On the other hand, if your message is "God
made the earth and everything on it" why include details like the
order in which things were made, and get that order wrong?
g&g #750
> If you are candidly stating here that God is not the writer of the
> content of the bible and it is simply written by men... then I would ask
you
> this question, how is it possible, for a book scribed by several dozen
people
> over a period of time of several thousand years, to make 100's of
predictions
> about specific future occurances and be 100% accurate in every case that
our
> timeline has reached. Predictions were made 100's of years in advance
about
> civilizations and places that did not even exist at the time of their
> writing. I'm sorry, but man is not capable of such accurate prophecy.
>
100s of predictions? Please name 20 of them. From my experience, these
predictions are tenuous at best and are constantly changing to be force-fit
into current events. The predictions that were used in my youth (50 years
ago) to prove the soon return of Jesus are now being used for the same
purpose but with significantly different interpretations. So, show me 20
accurate predictions from the Bible that are verifiable. Otherwise just
keep quiet.
Also, stating that god wrote the bible so that the people of the time could
understand it is really a reach. Why didn't he write it so that folks in
our time could understand it? I don't think it would have been too
difficult to write it in such a way that anyone from any age could
understand it clearly with no need to discuss what is literal and what is
allegory. And why not just leave out all the errors? They aren't all that
important to the overall book so leaving them out would have made little
difference and avoided all the controversy they now create.
John Ings
On Sun, 17 Aug 1997 02:09:39 -0700, "Terry D. Gray" <gr...@direct.ca>
wrote:
>If you are candidly stating here that God is not the writer of the
>content of the bible and it is simply written by men... then I would ask you
>this question, how is it possible, for a book scribed by several dozen people
>over a period of time of several thousand years, to make 100's of predictions
>about specific future occurances and be 100% accurate in every case that our
>timeline has reached.
Easy. The 'predictions', like those in the Book of Daniel, were made
after the fact. Just because it is supposed to have been written by a
sixth century prophet doesn't mean it really was. And it's not hard to
get the future right when it's really history.
Emir Aly Mohammed
cam...@WBUR.BU.EDU wrote:
> I'm not religious or anything, just rational. How can you say that
> evolution is a FACT?. . . .Looking back on the span of human
> accomplishment, there's been so many "facts", that turned out to be
> false later on. It used to be a FACT that the world was flat.
Well "fact" in so far as to the best of our knowledge it is fact... even
something like the existence of other people in the world (or that an
external world even exists ) is hard to conclusively demonstrate...
philosophically at least...
Laters,
Emir A. Mohammed... philosopher and atheist...
William
On Sat, 16 Aug 1997 20:01:57 -0400, Al <trav...@netroute.net> wrote:
>Al MacDougall wrote:
> ---------> After reading all the opinions of the people who have
>submitted a reply to this article, I began to think. I then concluded
>that God created science, and explained the way things worked (through
>the Bible) in a way that the people, at that time period, could
>understand. If you tried to explain the atomic composition of, for
>instance, water, people 2000 years ago wouldn't have a clue as to what
>he was talking about. It is a lot simpler to say that God said "Let
>there be light" instead of describing how a Nebula condences into a sun
>and, in our sun, how the heat provided by it comes from 600 million
>tonnes of Hydrogen burning from it per second. Trying to explain nuclear
>fusion in the sun to people 2000 years ago woud be virtually impossible.
>
I think this is a valid point but, as with many explanations, it
raises a set of other questions.
Principally, if the bible describes the origins of the universe and
humanity in 'non-factual' imagery in order that a particular society
will get the message then we must be entitled to ask 'then what about
us?'.
Why should they have a description that is clear and non-contradictory
and we don't? Particularly since, by any standard, (and I'm
addressing this to reasonable minds like yours) today's knowledge of
the universe is much closer to reality than the early knowledge
If one of us is going to get a description we don't understand then
why not them instead of us? It might have been puzzling to them but
at least the accusation of inaccuracy and contradiction would not
arise.
I wasn't intending to get into the argument about the 'accuracy' of
the Genesis account, but to counter any possible 'blasts' on my use
of the word, I'll just say that that the hot debate which has raged
for so long does indicate that it's meaning, to us, is far from clear.
Was 'day' solar days or thousands of years?
Did the earth exist before the stars?
Did trees arrive before fishes?
Did water and plants arrive before the sun (if the 'day' was thousands
of years then did water, plants and trees exist for thousands of years
before the sun?)
A 6000 year old earth seems to be out by a factor of about a million
Not to mention problems of competition, death and suffering long
before Adam
Very few question on this would have arisen in the minds of those who
it was written for. But it certainly raises questions now. They had
a convincing and satisfactory account, addressed to them in their
culture. We don't have one. And, worst still, we can see that the
one they had has serious problems.
William
Patrick541
>"Terry D. Gray" wrote:
>It's ludicrous to think that God is bound by the laws of physics in the
>universe, because he himself designed them -which means he functioned
outside
>
>of those laws that did not exist, and outside a Universe that did not
exist.
Creationists could do themselves a big favor, and expand their view of
their god. Have you ever thought that maybe your god * is* bound by the
laws of the universe? You could then have much better arguments with
scientists if you would align your belief in gods with scientific
reasoning. Then their would be no need for this debate at all. Then it
would only be a question of "I believe in god" or "I do not believe in
god". Hence, the resurrection of the word "faith" Then there will be no
need to try to convince the scientific community that all of this enormous
evidence of evolution, which contradicts a long perpetuated myth (the
bible), is false. You will never win over logical thinking people with
fantastic stories that contradict logic itself. Logic is our religion.
Terry D. Gray
Drachen wrote:
>
> Al wrote:
> ><snip>
> > I then concluded
> > that God created science, and explained the way things worked (through
> > the Bible) in a way that the people, at that time period, could
> > understand.
> > Al MacDougall
> > trav...@netroute.net
> > http://www.netroute.net/~traveler
>
> You're getting very close to it. replace the phrase "God created
> science" with "the writers of the Bible created a mythology" and you
> have it.
If you are candidly stating here that God is not the writer of the
content of the bible and it is simply written by men... then I would ask you
this question, how is it possible, for a book scribed by several dozen people
over a period of time of several thousand years, to make 100's of predictions
about specific future occurances and be 100% accurate in every case that our
timeline has reached. Predictions were made 100's of years in advance about
civilizations and places that did not even exist at the time of their
writing. I'm sorry, but man is not capable of such accurate prophecy.
> It has been said many times before that the Bible is a book of
> mythology. It was fine 6000 years ago, but has since outlived its
> usefulness. Science now far surpasses the Bible in terms of explaining
> the world.
>
I agree that the Bible is not highly useful for explaining our complex world
in terminology that is applicable in today's varied scientific disciplines.
Yet you need to be aware that the Bible was not meant to do this. The
mysteries of the universe are left to man to analyse, label, study and care
for. This was part of our purpose here on Earth, right from day one.
StevenX
"Terry D. Gray" <gr...@direct.ca> wrote:
>If you are candidly stating here that God is not the writer of the
>content of the bible and it is simply written by men... then I would ask you
>this question, how is it possible, for a book scribed by several dozen people
>over a period of time of several thousand years, to make 100's of predictions
>about specific future occurances and be 100% accurate in every case that our
>timeline has reached. Predictions were made 100's of years in advance about
>civilizations and places that did not even exist at the time of their
>writing. I'm sorry, but man is not capable of such accurate prophecy.
>
<snip>
You're not serious ???!!!!??? How hard do you think it would be for the men
who wrote and edited the books of the bible to have built into them various
prophecies? These would then appear to have "come true" to any person reading
these prophecies in his or her own time. These bible writers were simply
turning their own _history_ into apparent predictions of the future. Not hard
.. any idiot could do it.
If you REALLY think the bible contains CLEAR predictions of future events, then
why don't you list a dozen or so ... nevermind your nonsense claim of 100's of
predictions !! Just a few .... c'mon ... lessee ya do it ...
And don't expect to offer up some incoherent gibberish ala Nostradamus' quatrain
crapola and then apply your own self-serving interpretation to it ! Let's see
you give us some clear predictions with "real meat on their bones" ... you won't
be able to do it .. cuz yer little book of myths is a joke, and worse.
petejanR...@spamblockc-zone.net
Pete comments: It seems certain that the theory of evolution
has been dis proven to such an extent that no rational
individual could believe in it any longer. Evolution is
based upon the "steady state" theory of the history of
our solar system - a concept Velikovsky put to rest
within his book Worlds in Collision (1950).
In fact, now we are suddenly hearing Velikovsky's
Catostrophic theory of the history of our world and
solar system being "discovered" by today's astronomers
without any credit being given to Velikovsky. Which
is apparently the norm within the "scientific" community.
Evolution is dead -0 replaced by the Catostrophic model
or our history and solar system.
Pete
Bob Casanova
On Mon, 18 Aug 1997 11:27:59 GMT, in sci.skeptic,
petejanR...@spamBLOCKc-zone.net wrote:
>Emir Aly Mohammed <Dista...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>cam...@WBUR.BU.EDU wrote:
>>> I'm not religious or anything, just rational. How can you say that
>>> evolution is a FACT?. . . .Looking back on the span of human
>>> accomplishment, there's been so many "facts", that turned out to be
>>> false later on. It used to be a FACT that the world was flat.
>>
>>Well "fact" in so far as to the best of our knowledge it is fact... even
>>something like the existence of other people in the world (or that an
>>external world even exists ) is hard to conclusively demonstrate...
>>philosophically at least...
>>
>>
>>Laters,
>>
>>Emir A. Mohammed... philosopher and atheist..
>
>
>Pete comments: It seems certain that the theory of evolution
>has been dis proven to such an extent that no rational
>individual could believe in it any longer.
Really? Please provide evidence.
Evolution is
>based upon the "steady state" theory of the history of
>our solar system
BZZZZT! Wrong, but thanks for playing.
- a concept Velikovsky put to rest
>within his book Worlds in Collision (1950).
Velikovsky's "facts" have some problems, such as violation of orbital
mechanics. i.e., "wrong again".
>
>In fact, now we are suddenly hearing Velikovsky's
>Catostrophic theory of the history of our world and
>solar system being "discovered" by today's astronomers
>without any credit being given to Velikovsky. Which
>is apparently the norm within the "scientific" community.
Evidence for this somewhat extraordinary claim?
>
>Evolution is dead -0 replaced by the Catostrophic model
>or our history and solar system.
Since you apparently know nothing about evolution (or stellar
mechanics, or just about anything else about which you post so
vehemently and inaccurately), I believe we can also ignore this claim.
Say goodnight, Gracie.
>
>Pete
>
(Note followups, if any)
Bob C.
Reply to cas @ clark.net (without the spaces, of course)
"Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness
to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt."
--H. L. Mencken
petejanR...@spamblockc-zone.net
Pete comments: smoke, no fact, just smoke. Evolution
depened upon the steady state theory, the same one
that had Jupiter covered with slabs of Ice - until
Velikovsky came along and showed the astronomers
the truth - the Venus was a proto planet and Jupiter
was a source of radio signal.
So, what we have here is smoke from someone who
hasn't a clue about stellar machanics. Pete
Shane D. Killian
Also Sprach Zandvoort (cbu...@reuna.cl):
> but I cannot read a story about Adam & Eve and think...OH, he is trying
> to say something else... I think that was a true belief of someone of
> how the world was created.
Was the Prodigal Son a true story, then? Are you familiar with the term
"allegory"?
sha...@vnet.net | http://www.vnet.net/users/shanek
-----
"Start making sense, NOW!" --Michael Garibaldi, "Grey 17 Is Missing"
Mike Painter
Bob Casanova wrote in article <33fbbd65...@news.clark.net>...
>On Mon, 18 Aug 1997 11:27:59 GMT, in sci.skeptic,
>petejanR...@spamBLOCKc-zone.net wrote:
>
>>Emir Aly Mohammed <Dista...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>cam...@WBUR.BU.EDU wrote:
>>>> I'm not religious or anything, just rational. How can you say that
>>>> evolution is a FACT?. . . .Looking back on the span of human
>>>> accomplishment, there's been so many "facts", that turned out to be
>>>> false later on. It used to be a FACT that the world was flat.
Not in recorded history. We have no way of knowing if people who actually
thought about it came to different conclusions prior to that time.
Perhaps you should be posting in urban myths.
>>>Well "fact" in so far as to the best of our knowledge it is fact... even
>>>something like the existence of other people in the world (or that an
>>>external world even exists ) is hard to conclusively demonstrate...
>>>philosophically at least...
>>>
>>>
>>>Laters,
>>>
>>>Emir A. Mohammed... philosopher and atheist..
>>
>>
>>Pete comments: It seems certain that the theory of evolution
>>has been dis proven to such an extent that no rational
>>individual could believe in it any longer.
>
>Really? Please provide evidence.
>
> Evolution is
>>based upon the "steady state" theory of the history of
>>our solar system
>
>BZZZZT! Wrong, but thanks for playing.
>
>- a concept Velikovsky put to rest
>>within his book Worlds in Collision (1950).
>
>Velikovsky's "facts" have some problems, such as violation of orbital
>mechanics. i.e., "wrong again".
>
>>
>>In fact, now we are suddenly hearing Velikovsky's
>>Catostrophic theory of the history of our world and
>>solar system being "discovered" by today's astronomers
>>without any credit being given to Velikovsky. Which
>>is apparently the norm within the "scientific" community.
>
>Evidence for this somewhat extraordinary claim?
I suspect the "evidence" is that in fairly recent times science has found
evidence for meteor strikes causing major upheavals.
If you leave out a few things, like time scales, you can "credit" V with
this discovery.
I think psychics have a higher hit rate.........
>>Evolution is dead -0 replaced by the Catastrophic model
James E. Petts
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------023DEB57F4BD096870502E20
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Terry D. Gray wrote:
> John Ings wrote:
> >
> > On 16 Aug 1997 02:52:39 GMT, "The Corinthian"
> > <corin...@netaccess.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> > >Do creationists ever put up the idea that maybe their god kicked
> the whole
> > >proccess off?
> > >Maybe someone should suggest it to them.....might make them feel
> like they
> > >are getting somewhere in this discussion.
> >
> > Most of them don't buy it. I think it's an ego thing. If God just
> > kicked off the evolutionary process and then stood back to see what
> > would happen, then mankind is a creature of chance, not made in
> God's
> > image like the Bible says. They can't stand that idea.
> >
>
> On the contrary, being a Christian and thus "creationist", I
> personally have
> no trouble at all with evolution. God, the creator of such an
> incredibly
> complex biosphere, almost countless variations of species, and such
> finely
> tuned balancing of it all, certainly has his hands full. I'm not
> suprised at
> all that God would set a series of evolutionary paterns and processes
> into
> motion. It has to be a whole lot less work and effort than making
> every one
> of those things individually by hand.
So your "God" thingy is lazy now, is it? What evidence do you have to
suggest that this happened? Why do you disbelieve the more likely
scientific explanation of spontaneous generation?
> I guess the biggest reason that "evolutionists" and "Creationists" so
> vehemently dissagree, is that evolutionists choose to not think about
> where
> all the energy and matter of the universe came from, and
> "creationists" are
> too closed minded to think that the concept of time has very different
>
> meanings to God Vs. Man's current understanding of time.
We can say for matter what you can say for God. The origin of matter is
no harder to explain than the origin of God. To us, matter is God.
> It's ludicrous to think that God is bound by the laws of physics in
> the
> universe, because he himself designed them
How do you know?
> -which means he functioned outside of those laws that did not exist,
> and outside a Universe that did not exist.
The universe literally means "every-thing". If the universe did not
exist, then no thing would exist. "God" by your definition is some thing
(by mine no thing), yet how can some thing come from no thing? Is that
not the type of question that religion was supposed to make easier?
> So if the creations say that God Created the Heavens and the Earth in
> six
> days and rested on the seventh, my question is... why do you box up
> God into
> a tight little container and say that a day is only a day.
Err... what else could a day be?
> A day is a day to us.
A day is a day is a day. We invented the term. It's ours.
> But I doubt very much that we have any concept whatsoever of what a
> day
> is to God.
Is your "God" such a bad communicator?
> Or for that matter, if God's Days are all the same lenght even.
That must be rather awkward for it...
> Many Christians are simply too scared of science and it's effects on
> society,
> to open up and take it for what it is....
TRUE.
> Science is God's Gift of:
How do you know?
> 1.) Thinking something might be such a way
> 2.) Testing it to see if it is so
> 3.) Testing it to see if it is not
> 4.) ...and then leaving it at that until...
> they think it might be some other way, (then back to step one)
Had you not concieved the notion that perhaps human inginutiy invented
science?
> Yet every Christian, myself included, takes these exact same steps
> with the
> contents of the Bible in regards to their faith,
The whole concept of blind faith flies in the face of all science.
> so Christians should not condemn science as an act, because Science is
> a fancy name for mankind's
> built-in, designed, God-made function of: living ones life.
>
> Science is a never ending cycle of non-absolutes, ya gotta love it for
> that
> because it keeps our species questing, exploring, and discussing the
> beauty
> of God's work, so that we can inturn, reflect with awe upon the artist
>
> himself.
What makes you think that reality is art? How can there be art with out
reality? James E. Petts
http://www.visitweb.com/philosophy
--------------023DEB57F4BD096870502E20
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for James Petts
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
begin: vcard
fn: James Petts
n: Petts;James
org: Project InterActive
email;internet: pe...@geocities.com
title: http://www.visitweb.com/InterActive
note: http://www.visitweb.com/philosophy ***DISCUSS PHILOSOPHY***
x-mozilla-cpt: ;0
x-mozilla-html: TRUE
end: vcard
--------------023DEB57F4BD096870502E20--
Shooty
petejanR...@spamBLOCKc-zone.net wrote:
>
> Emir Aly Mohammed <Dista...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >cam...@WBUR.BU.EDU wrote:
> >> I'm not religious or anything, just rational. How can you say that
> >> evolution is a FACT?. . . .Looking back on the span of human
> >> accomplishment, there's been so many "facts", that turned out to be
> >> false later on. It used to be a FACT that the world was flat.
> >
> >something like the existence of other people in the world (or that an
> >external world even exists ) is hard to conclusively demonstrate...
> >philosophically at least...
> >
> >
> >Laters,
> >
> >Emir A. Mohammed... philosopher and atheist..
>
> Pete comments: It seems certain that the theory of evolution
> has been dis proven to such an extent that no rational
> based upon the "steady state" theory of the history of
> within his book Worlds in Collision (1950).
>
> Catostrophic theory of the history of our world and
> solar system being "discovered" by today's astronomers
> without any credit being given to Velikovsky. Which
> is apparently the norm within the "scientific" community.
>
> or our history and solar system.
>
Velikovsky, the man who ignores orbital mechanics, who thinks that the 'Manna'
of the Bible was a part of the atmosphere of Venus, and who claimed that the
Plagues of Egypt also came from the atmosphere of Venus.
Well, I for one think we should throw all our current theories out of the
window and say 'Hail Vali'
Shooty
John Jimenez
Xtains don't want to beliee in it because it comprosmises their faith.
If you were to see proof of it that you knew couldn't be refuted then
you would enter into a crisis moment of your life now wouldn't you?
John Jimenez
Bob Casanova
On Tue, 19 Aug 1997 12:52:56 GMT, in sci.skeptic,
petejanR...@spamBLOCKc-zone.net wrote:
>Pete comments: smoke, no fact, just smoke. Evolution
>depened upon the steady state theory, the same one
>that had Jupiter covered with slabs of Ice
The "steady-state" theory had absolutely nothing to do with the
surface composition of Jupiter (nor with evolution), since it applied
to cosmology. You *do* know what cosmology is, don't you?
BTW, do you make these up yourself, or do you use a random-word
generator?
- until
>Velikovsky came along and showed the astronomers
>the truth - the Venus was a proto planet and Jupiter
>was a source of radio signal.
Venus is a planet; a proto-planet would be an uncondensed swarm of
gas, dust and rubble.
Jupiter is a radio source (IIRC, due to the effects of its magnetic
field). Do you imagine you have a point?
And Velikovsky's hypothesis violated orbital mechanics; it's
impossible to convert Venus from a "reject" of Jupiter to a planet in
the orbit it currently occupies in the timeframe claimed by
Velikovsky.
>
>So, what we have here is smoke from someone who
>hasn't a clue about stellar machanics.
Since the above has nothing to do with stellar mechanics (unless you
think Jupiter is a star), your statement is meaningless. Of course,
*most* of your statements are meaningless.
> Pete
>
>
>
>nos...@buzz.off (Bob Casanova) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 18 Aug 1997 11:27:59 GMT, in sci.skeptic,
>>petejanR...@spamBLOCKc-zone.net wrote:
>>
>>>Emir Aly Mohammed <Dista...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>cam...@WBUR.BU.EDU wrote:
>>>>> I'm not religious or anything, just rational. How can you say that
>>>>> evolution is a FACT?. . . .Looking back on the span of human
>>>>> accomplishment, there's been so many "facts", that turned out to be
>>>>> false later on. It used to be a FACT that the world was flat.
>>>>
>>>>Well "fact" in so far as to the best of our knowledge it is fact... even
>>>>something like the existence of other people in the world (or that an
>>>>external world even exists ) is hard to conclusively demonstrate...
>>>>philosophically at least...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Laters,
>>>>
>>>>Emir A. Mohammed... philosopher and atheist..
>>>
>>>
>>>Pete comments: It seems certain that the theory of evolution
>>>has been dis proven to such an extent that no rational
>>>individual could believe in it any longer.
>>
>>Really? Please provide evidence.
>>
>> Evolution is
>>>based upon the "steady state" theory of the history of
>>>our solar system
>>
>>BZZZZT! Wrong, but thanks for playing.
>>
>>- a concept Velikovsky put to rest
>>>within his book Worlds in Collision (1950).
>>
>>Velikovsky's "facts" have some problems, such as violation of orbital
>>mechanics. i.e., "wrong again".
>>
>>>
>>>In fact, now we are suddenly hearing Velikovsky's
>>>Catostrophic theory of the history of our world and
>>>solar system being "discovered" by today's astronomers
>>>without any credit being given to Velikovsky. Which
>>>is apparently the norm within the "scientific" community.
>>
>>Evidence for this somewhat extraordinary claim?
>>
>>>
>>>Evolution is dead -0 replaced by the Catostrophic model
>>>or our history and solar system.
>>
cam...@wbur.bu.edu
In article <5tcs5h$l...@snews3.zippo.com> "Mike Painter" <mpai...@maxinet.com> writes:
>From: "Mike Painter" <mpai...@maxinet.com>
>Subject: Re: evolution is impossible
>Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 12:27:16 -0700
>Bob Casanova wrote in article <33fbbd65...@news.clark.net>...
>>On Mon, 18 Aug 1997 11:27:59 GMT, in sci.skeptic,
>>petejanR...@spamBLOCKc-zone.net wrote:
>>
>>>Emir Aly Mohammed <Dista...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>cam...@WBUR.BU.EDU wrote:
>>>>> I'm not religious or anything, just rational. How can you say that
>>>>> evolution is a FACT?. . . .Looking back on the span of human
>>>>> accomplishment, there's been so many "facts", that turned out to be
>>>>> false later on. It used to be a FACT that the world was flat.
>Not in recorded history. We have no way of knowing if people who actually
>thought about it came to different conclusions prior to that time.
>Perhaps you should be posting in urban myths.
nitpick, nitpick, nitpick. . . . you KNOW there're are hundreds of examples I
could have used there, and just because I happened to pick one that's a
mistake, you miss the entire point of what I'm trying to say. . .it's strange
that those who I most agree with are those who are annoying me the most. . .
ONCE AGAIN:
I do not believe there IS a god out there, sitting on a big throne with a
bunch of angels or any of that crap. It's ridiculous to beleive that, if there
is anything "cosmic" or spiritual out there that it would be so simplistic and
humanistic. HOWEVER, I am not denying that there is a possibility that there
is a power, a force, a ________ out there that is more complex, more simple
than we could comprehend.
Chris
camidon AT wbur DOT bu.edu
al_klein
On 19 Aug 1997 09:05:29 -0400, sha...@katie.vnet.net (Shane D.
Killian) wrote:
>Also Sprach Zandvoort (cbu...@reuna.cl):
>> but I cannot read a story about Adam & Eve and think...OH, he is trying
>> to say something else... I think that was a true belief of someone of
>> how the world was created.
>Was the Prodigal Son a true story, then? Are you familiar with the term
>"allegory"?
If the bible is an allegory, then it's useless for proving anything.
Even the existence of god.
That's the nature of allegories.
--
Al
Real email address:
akl...@villagenet.com
Shane D. Killian
Also Sprach AlKlein:
I didn't say the entire Bible was allegories, merely that it used them.
(Although, you're right--it doesn't *prove* anything; it just *describes*,
and often those desciptions cannot be taken at face value. It's a book
of *belief*, after all, not science.)
Jim Carr
petejanR...@spamBLOCKc-zone.net writes:
>
>Pete comments: It seems certain that the theory of evolution
>has been dis proven to such an extent that no rational
>individual could believe in it any longer.
"The" theory? Some of the theories put forward to explain
evolution have been found wanting; all of the creation-based
ones fall in that category.
I think the man infected with a resistant strain of staph,
a not-so-nice example of a change in allele frequence in
response to environmental pressures, believes in evolution.
>Evolution is
>based upon the "steady state" theory of the history of
>our solar system
Nonsense. Creationists are the ones who claim that the solar
system is the same as when it was created 6000 years ago.
--
James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | Commercial e-mail is _NOT_
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | desired to this or any address
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | that resolves to my account
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | for any reason at any time.
David Paulson
Kevin D. Quitt wrote:
>
> On 16 Aug 1997 13:46:02 -0700, Tedd Hadley <had...@NOSPAMuci.edu> wrote:
> >If science doesn't agree with the Bible, science is
> >wrong, period.
>
This also applies to the scientists view of reality. If evolution were
true, then survival of the fittest is the truth. To me, this seems that
we should be letting birth defects and disease take their course. Are we
then causing the extinction of our own species by practicing medicine?
wf...@enter.netxx
On Sat, 23 Aug 1997 17:18:14 -0700, David Paulson <dep...@aol.com>
wrote:
>
>This also applies to the scientists view of reality
golly arent we scientists STTOOOOPPPIIIDDD??!!! i mean it was
PREACHERS who put that rover on mars...preachers who invented the
computer...
. If evolution were
>true,
which it is
then survival of the fittest is the truth. To me, this seems that
>we should be letting birth defects and disease take their course
why? since when do humans have to obey every fact about nature? you in
favor of us discarding clothes and screwing like rabbits?
Dan Hughes
In article <33ff6341...@news.enter.net>, wf...@enter.netxx says...
>
>On Sat, 23 Aug 1997 17:18:14 -0700, David Paulson <dep...@aol.com>
>wrote:
>>
>>This also applies to the scientists view of reality
>
>golly arent we scientists STTOOOOPPPIIIDDD??!!! i mean it was
>PREACHERS who put that rover on mars...preachers who invented the
>computer...
Evidently you believe that technical skill qualifies one to have the
definitive opinion of origins. Is the car mechanic the only one who
gets to say whether the car has a soul or not?
>. If evolution were
>>true,
>
>which it is
>
> then survival of the fittest is the truth. To me, this seems that
>>we should be letting birth defects and disease take their course
>
>why? since when do humans have to obey every fact about nature? you in
>favor of us discarding clothes and screwing like rabbits?
Seems to be the ultimate evolutionary response to reality. Why would
evolution produce a being that *doesn't* obey 'every fact about nature'?
That would seem to be a huge survival advantage.
Natural Selection. Survival of the 'fittest'. Who is the most fit?
Why the survivors, of course. Survival of the survivors. Tautology.
--
DanH...@aol.com
For email use GourmetDan instead of DanHughes.
Cabrutus
David Paulson <dep...@aol.com> wrote in article <33FF7D...@aol.com>...
> Kevin D. Quitt wrote:
> >
> > On 16 Aug 1997 13:46:02 -0700, Tedd Hadley <had...@NOSPAMuci.edu>
wrote:
> > >If science doesn't agree with the Bible, science is
> > >wrong, period.
No. We can assume these statements by your logic:
1. The Bible says science is wrong.
2. Science says the Bible is wrong.
Therefore, either the Bible or Science is wrong. Both cannot be correct.
Both could be incorrect, but it's unlikely.
3. The Bible contradicts itself, and is full of error.
4. The Bible is not valid because it's wrong a lot.
5. If the Bible is invalid, then what it states is invalid.
6. The statement "Science is wrong" is invalid.
If stating "Science is wrong" is invalid, then wouldn't that leave "Science
is not wrong"?
> >
> > You left out "their very narrow and literal interpretation of".
>
> This also applies to the scientists view of reality. If evolution were
(It is)
> true, then survival of the fittest is the truth. To me, this seems that
It is.
> we should be letting birth defects and disease take their course. Are we
Wrong. Our technology is a part of our fitness.
> then causing the extinction of our own species by practicing medicine?
>
No, but we are slowing down evolution in some ways. However, that's okay
here. Our fitness includes our ability to stop some birth defects and
disease.
--
Cabrutus #60
loc...@geocities.com
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3587
wf...@enter.netxx
On 24 Aug 1997 02:05:43 GMT, DanH...@aol.com (Dan Hughes) wrote:
>In article <33ff6341...@news.enter.net>, wf...@enter.netxx says...
>>
>>On Sat, 23 Aug 1997 17:18:14 -0700, David Paulson <dep...@aol.com>
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>This also applies to the scientists view of reality
>>
>>golly arent we scientists STTOOOOPPPIIIDDD??!!! i mean it was
>>PREACHERS who put that rover on mars...preachers who invented the
>>computer...
>
>
>Evidently you believe that technical skill
technical skill? science is a technical skill? tell it to newton.
scientists used his laws to pilot the rover to mars.
guess newton was a mechanic
qualifies one to have the
>definitive opinion of origins
origins? when you cough up evidence you can have something to say. as
ive said, science is as much about god as bowling is. your frustration
over the fact that science is not magical is obvious
. Is the car mechanic the only one who
>gets to say whether the car has a soul or not?
a soul is not a scientific concept.
>
>
>>why? since when do humans have to obey every fact about nature? you in
>>favor of us discarding clothes and screwing like rabbits?
>
>Seems to be the ultimate evolutionary response to reality. Why would
>evolution produce a being that *doesn't* obey 'every fact about nature'?
evolution produced intelligence...us. intelligence has its own rules
Bob Casanova
On Sat, 23 Aug 1997 22:26:36 GMT, in sci.skeptic, wf...@enter.netxx
wrote:
>On Sat, 23 Aug 1997 17:18:14 -0700, David Paulson <dep...@aol.com>
>wrote:
<snip>
> then survival of the fittest is the truth. To me, this seems that
>>we should be letting birth defects and disease take their course
>
>why? since when do humans have to obey every fact about nature? you in
>favor of us discarding clothes and screwing like rabbits?
Sounds like "Bring back the '60s" to me...
;-)
Jess
On 24 Aug 1997 02:05:43 GMT, DanH...@aol.com (Dan Hughes) wrote:
>In article <33ff6341...@news.enter.net>, wf...@enter.netxx says...
<snip>
>Evidently you believe that technical skill qualifies one to have the
>definitive opinion of origins. Is the car mechanic the only one who
>gets to say whether the car has a soul or not?
<snip>
Better than someone who's never seen the insides of a car.
Thinker
Tedd Hadley
DanH...@aol.com (Dan Hughes) writes:
<snip>
>Natural Selection. Survival of the 'fittest'. Who is the most fit?
>Why the survivors, of course. Survival of the survivors. Tautology.
In Darwin's day, it was a routine understanding that God's
promise to Noah meant that all flood surviving species were guaranteed
existence. With SOTF, Darwin made it clear that fitness was the
issue in survival, not God's hand.
Also, compare "survival of the fittest" to "survival of the lucky" or
"survival of the helped and cared for". SOTF is not a tautology. This
is an old creationist misunderstanding.
++
Tedd Hadley <had...@uci.edu>
Erik Marksberry
On Sat, 23 Aug 1997, David Paulson wrote:
> Kevin D. Quitt wrote:
> >
> > On 16 Aug 1997 13:46:02 -0700, Tedd Hadley <had...@NOSPAMuci.edu> wrote:
> > >If science doesn't agree with the Bible, science is
> > >wrong, period.
> >
>
> we should be letting birth defects and disease take their course.
No. It means that the fittest animals will produce the most
offspring and contribute the most to the next gene pool. Anything that
offsets or compensates for those defects would probably make that animal
more fit and more able to reproduce. In other words, from an evolutionary
viewpoint, genetic defects and diseases should be overcome as much as
possible to raise the fitness of that organism.
> Are we
> then causing the extinction of our own species by practicing medicine?
You're misunderstanding the term. Survival of the fittest does
not teach that weaklings should die. It teaches that those that are more
fit will be more able to survive and pass on their traits to the next
generation.
--
Erik Marksberry
al_klein
On 21 Aug 1997 23:24:26 GMT, sha...@vnet.net (Shane D. Killian) wrote:
>Also Sprach AlKlein:
>> On 19 Aug 1997 09:05:29 -0400, sha...@katie.vnet.net (Shane D.
>> Killian) wrote:
>> >Also Sprach Zandvoort (cbu...@reuna.cl):
>> >> but I cannot read a story about Adam & Eve and think...OH, he is trying
>> >> to say something else... I think that was a true belief of someone of
>> >> how the world was created.
>> >Was the Prodigal Son a true story, then? Are you familiar with the term
>> >"allegory"?
>> If the bible is an allegory, then it's useless for proving anything.
>> Even the existence of god.
>> That's the nature of allegories.
>I didn't say the entire Bible was allegories, merely that it used them.
But, of course, nothing in the bible is labeled "allegory", so it's up
to us to decide what is and what's not. I think I hear William of
Occam turning in his grave.
>(Although, you're right--it doesn't *prove* anything; it just *describes*,
>and often those desciptions cannot be taken at face value. It's a book
>of *belief*, after all, not science.)
Then why are people using it to prove things?
Bud
Dan Hughes <DanH...@aol.com> wrote in article
<5u1f4i$er6$3...@ionews.ionet.net>...
> In article <01bcb294$41ebaf00$8574...@bwagner.ionet.net>,
bwa...@ionet.net
> says...
> >
> >How do explain the fact that many bacteria change over a relatively
short
> >period to become resistance to different types of antibotics? What
about
> >the many varieties of insects that have been resistant to pesticides
such
> >as DDT? If these insects and bacteria are not an example of evolution
--
> >process in which something changes into a different or better form --
what
> >are they?
> >
> >Enquiing minds want to know.
>
>
> Bacteria that develop resistance to antibiotics do so at a cost. There
> are fitness losses associated with the deleterious mutation that confers
> antibiotic resistance. This is documented.
>
What are your sources? Try reading some medically related books on the
subject of bacteria and viruses. "Why We Get Sick" is a good to start
with. The increasing health threat cause by the growing number of
antibotic-resistant bacteria did not develop due to a mutation. Rather it
developed because in a "group" of bacteria, there will be some that have a
natural resistance to a given antibiotic. When a doctor uses antibotic "A",
it will kill those bacteria that do not have any resistance to antibotic
"A". The "handful" of bacteria left (who all had a natural resistance to
"A", do not have as much competion as they used to have, and these bacteria
have a better chance of surviving. (Yes, they may not have been as "fit"
as the bacteria that "A" killed, but it doesn't matter since there is less
competion. Since antibotic "A" doesn't work as well as it once did (it's
"target" bacteria has pretty much died out), medicine works to develop
antibotic "B". Just like before, there are a handful of bacteria have a
natural resistance to "B". As "B" kills the "A" resistance bacteria, the
"A and B" resistant bacteria thrive because there is less competition. The
medical community goes back to the drawing board and develops antibiotic
"C". And the cycle continues. If you follow medical news, you will see
that this is a real medical concern -- the medical community has not been
able to produce enough new types of antibotics to keep ahead of the
changing bacteria strains -- the last I heard, there only one antibiotic
left that hasn't been totally compromised -- any doctors don't expect that
to be true much longer.
> The mutation that confers antibiotic resistance is a naturally occuring
> mutation that occurs in the 'wild'. In the wild, this mutation is
> deleterious and is selected *against*. That it confers resistance is
> unfortunate for us, but it does so at an absolute cost to the fitness
> of the organism.
>
The question is it really a mutation or a variation of genetic materials?
For example, the trait for blue eyes is a recessive gene. If all the brown
eye people suddenly died, no one would every be born with brown eyes again
since there were be no one left with a brown eye gene to pass on. The same
thing may be happening in nature. The resistance to a given antibiotic may
be a recessive trait.
> This is evidence against evolution because an organisms cannot continue
> accumulate such 'beneficial' mutations at the cost of fitness losses
> indefinitely. It will lose so much fitness that it will go extinct.
>
What fitness losses? Bacteria (and viruses) have been evolving as long as
man has had an immune system. As the immune system has developed such
defenses as antibodies, bacteria has evolved to overcome these new
defenses. The only different with antibiotics is that man has been able to
develop new antibiotics (at least in the past) much faster than mankind has
been able to develop new immune system defenses. Maybe the new strain of
bacteria had been kept in check by the old bacteria (which meant it wasn't
as "fit" as the old bacteria) but that old bacteria is gone. And you need
to remember the problem of antibiotic-resistant bacteria is not limited to
just one type of bacteria. TB, strep, and staph are just a few of the
types of bacteria effected.
"By the way, "survival of the fittest" is not apart of Darwin's theory.
This concept was the brain child. I can never remember his name, but it
started with an F. "
> This is actually evidence of a created genome in a state of 2LoT decline.
> Evidence for creation actually.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I would like to see your
sources. You really need to read the book "Why We Get Sick." This book
looks at illness and disease as an evolutionary process. Scientists are
finding many diseases or illnesses may have initially helped mankind
survive. For example, sickle cell anemia may have originally been an
immune system response to malaria. What was once a benefit, now is
overshadowed by its downside.
>
> The assertion that it supports evolution is where the lie comes in.
> It doesn't.
I think the fact that is shows a change (or evolution) of the bacteria in
how it responds to antibiotics is
does support evolution. The fact the new strain of bacteria is resistant
to a given antibiotic is being proven every day. Just ask your doctor.
>
> While the research has not been performed on insects, in the event that
> it is, creation theory and I would expect to find decline there as well.
>
The situation of insecticide-resistant insects is the similar to bacteria.
There is a handful of insects that have a natural resistence to a given
insecticide. Maleria is a growing problem in many countries because the
insecticides that used to keep mosquitoes in check no longer work. To
compound the problem, the new strains of maleria are more resistant to the
drugs used to treat maleria.
> --
You give me your sources and I will read them. Likewise, I want you to
read "Why We Get Sick" and then we can discuss this some more.
BJ
Jim Meritt
In article <33f99676...@news.c-zone.net>,
petejanR...@spamBLOCKc-zone.net says...
>Pete comments:
[various BS deleted]
> and Jupiter
>was a source of radio signal.
Nice line. Ain't quite true, but what the heck:
In <An address before the Graduate College forum of Princeton University
on October 14, 1953 @ Earth In Upheaval supplement> Immanuel Velikovsky
said:
}Jupiter...it appears probable to me it sends out radio waves as do the
}sun and the stars.
} [page 297]
It doesn't. It does emit strong, nonthermal, polarized, intermittent
radio emissions that are NOTHING like the sun and the stars. And of the
actual distinguishing characteristics Velikovsky mentioned nothing.
You can tell the difference between thermal and nonthermal radiation, right?
--
James W. Meritt
The opinions expressed above are my own. The facts simply
are and belong to none.
Frank Schierenberg
Nathan Filyk <nfi...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca> wrote in article
<5tvvsi$h...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>...
> Evolution _is_ impossible!
>
You guys are a bunch of twits the way you are carrying on. Why not try at
least to make some sense. Here are a number of scenarios to chose from:
1. The "Big Bang" produced all there is out of nothing. But, ever since
then, Matter and Energy behaved according to the laws of physics and life
evolved according to "natural law".
The evolutionists win.
2. Long ago, God created existence and departed elsewhere. From then on all
changes are due to evolution.
Both, creationists AND evolutionists win
3. God created all there is and keeps it in being.
Creationists win
4. All is Mind. To quote Shakespeare: "Life is of the stuff that dreams are
made of". There are no apparent absolutes, as both object and subject as
well as reason and memory are created continually in the present Now.
Neither creationists NOR evolutionists win.
--
Frank
For e-mail and News Author Replies
remove "nospam" from my address.
ResLight
Bud <bwa...@ionet.net> wrote in article
<01bcb294$41ebaf00$8574...@bwagner.ionet.net>...
> How do explain the fact that many bacteria change over a relatively short
> period to become resistance to different types of antibotics? What about
> the many varieties of insects that have been resistant to pesticides such
> as DDT? If these insects and bacteria are not an example of evolution --
> process in which something changes into a different or better form --
what
> are they?
>
> Enquiing minds want to know.
Does the bacteria develop into a new kind of animal? NO! It is still
bacteria.
Do the insects develop into a new kind of animal? NO! It is still an
insect.
Ronald Day
Restoration Light
http://pages.prodigy.net/reslight
Cabrutus
Nathan Filyk <nfi...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca> wrote in article
<5tvvsi$h...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>...
> Evolution _is_ impossible!
>
>
Argument by assertion is fallacious, you brainless legbag. Give me
evidence.
--
Cabrutus
XXXlo...@geocities.com
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3587
Remove the Xs to respond.
Cabrutus
ResLight <ResL...@juno.com> wrote in article
<01bcb31a$58eed520$162aedcc@ron>...
> Bud <bwa...@ionet.net> wrote in article
> <01bcb294$41ebaf00$8574...@bwagner.ionet.net>...
> > How do explain the fact that many bacteria change over a relatively
short
> > period to become resistance to different types of antibotics? What
about
> > the many varieties of insects that have been resistant to pesticides
such
> > as DDT? If these insects and bacteria are not an example of evolution
--
>
> > process in which something changes into a different or better form --
> what
> > are they?
> >
> > Enquiing minds want to know.
>
> Does the bacteria develop into a new kind of animal? NO! It is still
Yes. "New kind of animal" is vague.
> bacteria.
>
> Do the insects develop into a new kind of animal? NO! It is still an
> insect.
Even so, just because it doesn't develop into a new animal doesn't mean it
hasn't evolved. Is Homo sapiens a different kind of animal than Homo
erectus?
>
> Ronald Day
> Restoration Light
> http://pages.prodigy.net/reslight
>
--
mel turner
In article <01bcb31a$58eed520$162aedcc@ron>, ResL...@juno.com
says...
[snip]
>Does the bacteria develop into a new kind of animal? NO! It is still
Of course. Only a silly creationist strawman version of evolution would
expect anything else.
>Do the insects develop into a new kind of animal? NO! It is still an
>insect.
Well, duh! And humans are still just [a branch of the ] African great apes,
are still Hominidae, are still catarrhine primates, are still anthropoids, are
still primates, are still placentals, are still mammals are still synapsids, are
still amniotes, are still tetrapods, are still sarcopterygians, are still
osteichthyans, are still gnathostomes, are still vertebrates, are still
chordates, are still deuterostomes, are still metazoans [animals], are still
eucaryotes... That's the way it works.
Descendent types are always modified versions of their ancestors ( how
could it be otherwise?) ; an insect species could eventually change enough
to be seen as a new kind of insect, but it is always going to be an insect
[even if it comes to lack some characters of Insecta].
[btw, maybe you ought to earn a bit about modern principles of
phylogenetic classification: even if a very derived subgroup changes
enough to be "clearly different" it still belongs (by definition) to the
monophyletic group its ancestors came from. Birds are now considered to
be (a very specialized branch of the) dinosaurs, and reptiles, and amniotes,
and tetrapods...]
cheers
James K Nelson
Excerpts from netnews.sci.skeptic: 27-Aug-97 Re: evolution is impossible
by "ResLight"@juno.com
> bacteria.
>
> insect.
1. What's a "kind"? A specific definition would help. if you mean
species, then speciation has been observed. (So, of course, you don't
mean species...)
2. Do you want to see large scale evolution in your lifetime? Sorry, no
current theory predicts that.
3. large scale evolutionary change is, however, very well documented in
the fossil record.
Given the above, what definition of "kind" are you going stick to?
Since we can observe small scale evolution, and the fossil record
records large scale, where's the problem.
-JKN
Bob Casanova
On Tue, 26 Aug 1997 19:28:13 -0600, in sci.skeptic, Nathan Filyk
<nfi...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca> wrote:
>Evolution _is_ impossible!
Ah, yet another well-reasoned and well-presented argument, fully
supported by replicable evidence.
Thanks for sharing.
Nathan Filyk
> Argument by assertion is fallacious, you brainless legbag. Give me
> evidence.
The argument which is asserted is not necessarily fallacious, but the
method can be misleading.
If you want proof, why don't you go look for it?
--
Nathan
Raistlin Majere, Archmage
On 27 Aug 1997 14:55:14 GMT, DanH...@aol.com (Dan Hughes) let it be known
that:
>In article <01bcb294$41ebaf00$8574...@bwagner.ionet.net>, bwa...@ionet.net
>says...
>>
>>How do explain the fact that many bacteria change over a relatively short
>>period to become resistance to different types of antibotics? What about
>>the many varieties of insects that have been resistant to pesticides such
>>as DDT? If these insects and bacteria are not an example of evolution --
>>process in which something changes into a different or better form -- what
>>are they?
>>
>>Enquiing minds want to know.
>Bacteria that develop resistance to antibiotics do so at a cost. There
>are fitness losses associated with the deleterious mutation that confers
>antibiotic resistance. This is documented.
And your point is?
>The mutation that confers antibiotic resistance is a naturally occuring
>mutation that occurs in the 'wild'. In the wild, this mutation is
>deleterious and is selected *against*. That it confers resistance is
>unfortunate for us, but it does so at an absolute cost to the fitness
>of the organism.
And this is called "natural selection"--one component of evolution.
>This is evidence against evolution because an organisms cannot continue
>accumulate such 'beneficial' mutations at the cost of fitness losses
>indefinitely. It will lose so much fitness that it will go extinct.
Hmmm. Really sounds like a lot of bullshit to me. Unless you're willing to
back up what you claim.
>
>This is actually evidence of a created genome in a state of 2LoT decline.
>Evidence for creation actually.
Ummm. No. Evidence for creation would be for you to produce evidence of
the creator. You must do that first.
>The assertion that it supports evolution is where the lie comes in.
>It doesn't.
Oh really? It's a change in gene frequency over time. That's what
evolution is.
Raist
Raistlin Majere, Archmage
On Tue, 26 Aug 1997 19:28:13 -0600, Nathan Filyk <nfi...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca>
let it be known that:
>Evolution _is_ impossible!
Hmmmm.
A claim.
An assertion.
An unsupported one at that.
Why should we believe it?
Because he says so?
She-ah. Right.
Raist
Raistlin Majere, Archmage
On 27 Aug 1997 18:52:30 GMT, "ResLight" <ResL...@juno.com> let it be known
that:
>Bud <bwa...@ionet.net> wrote in article
><01bcb294$41ebaf00$8574...@bwagner.ionet.net>...
>> How do explain the fact that many bacteria change over a relatively short
>> period to become resistance to different types of antibotics? What about
>> the many varieties of insects that have been resistant to pesticides such
>> as DDT? If these insects and bacteria are not an example of evolution --
>
>> process in which something changes into a different or better form --
>what
>> are they?
>>
>> Enquiing minds want to know.
>
>Does the bacteria develop into a new kind of animal? NO! It is still
>bacteria.
>Do the insects develop into a new kind of animal? NO! It is still an
>insect.
And your point is..that you do not understand that speciation is but a
component and not the end-all and be-all of evolution? Your point is that
you're a smegging git?
Next time, do some research. Idiot.
Raist
Cabrutus
Nathan Filyk <nfi...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca> wrote in article
<5u2jdq$q...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>...
> > Argument by assertion is fallacious, you brainless legbag. Give me
> > evidence.
>
> The argument which is asserted is not necessarily fallacious, but the
In this case it is.
> method can be misleading.
The method is fallacious.
>
> If you want proof, why don't you go look for it?
Okay, hmm, there's a computer. Created by humans. "Created" by evolution.
"Created" by the universe. "Created" by the Big Bang. "Created" by the
formation of energy from vacuum. I've just experienced proof of my
computer's existence.
>
> --
> Nathan
>
>
Nate, please don't post AND email. One or the other, please (I prefer
email).
--
Cabrutus
XXXlo...@geocities.com
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3587
Remove the Xs to respond.
"This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in
it."
John Adams
Dan Hughes
In article <34055fda...@news.clara.net>, ta...@mail.clara.net says...
>
>I've asked this a number of times to similar arguments to the above,
>but have had no reply; either my server is falling over (in which
>case nobody will be reading this) or nobody wants to propose an
>answer.
>
>The question is: if the bacteria was created (designed) and, according
>to your argument, mutations are deleterious, then *why* were so many
>virulent species created in the first place? Many of these cause
>untold misery to millions
The obvious answer is that the virulence comes from *deleterious*mutations*.
They weren't created that way. It should be obvious that killing your host
is a poor survival path.
Rather, if evolution were true, symbiotic relationships should be near
universal (i.e. no disease) since this results in far more 'success' than a
parasitic disease-causing relationship. Since symbiotic relationships are
not universal and in fact disease is the norm, it is further evidence against
evolution.
You guys just don't get it, do you?
Biblically, it would be a result of sin and the fall of mankind. The curse
upon the earth.
James K Nelson
Excerpts from netnews.sci.skeptic: 27-Aug-97 Re: evolution is impossible
>
> Extinction is the ultimate decline, Tedd. The loss of a huge amount
> of genetic information contained in those multitudes of species that
> went extinct.
>
> Do you understand now?
So, the disappearance of forms = extinction = decline.
What about the appearance of forms throughout the fossil record?
-JKN
William
On 28 Aug 1997 13:27:53 GMT, DanH...@aol.com (Dan Hughes) wrote:
>In article <34055fda...@news.clara.net>, ta...@mail.clara.net says...
>>The question is: if the bacteria was created (designed) and, according
>>to your argument, mutations are deleterious, then *why* were so many
>>virulent species created in the first place? Many of these cause
>>untold misery to millions
>
>The obvious answer is that the virulence comes from *deleterious*mutations*.
It is not the obvious answer. A pathogen (disease-pruducing bacterea)
belongs to a clear category of bacteria, according to shape and
mechanism. By it's action it produces dangerous toxins. If it
doesn't operate that way then it is not that bacteria.
>They weren't created that way.
Perhaps you can show us a few 'intermediate stages'?
>It should be obvious that killing your host is a poor survival path.
Not if you have a large supply of hosts
>Rather, if evolution were true, symbiotic relationships should be near
>universal (i.e. no disease) since this results in far more 'success' than a
>parasitic disease-causing relationship.
So where did our immune system come from? Was it put there for some
future time when the pathogens were to be made? What kind of
designer is that? And the 'mutational design' of the pathogen ends
up a marginally better design than the immune system since some always
survive and are aways one step ahead. And in the process often a
great deal of fever and misery.
Or did the immune system come by deleterious mutations? If so, then
by your argument, we are in real trouble. Our survival depends on
which deleterious mutations finish off the particular system -
bacteria or immune system.
>Since symbiotic relationships are not universal and in fact disease is
>the norm, it is further evidence against evolution.
But both are still here and continue to exist and adapt - what's
your point?
>You guys just don't get it, do you?
If you are talking about getting a proper answer you're probably
right.
>Biblically, it would be a result of sin and the fall of mankind. The curse
>upon the earth.
So they were created at the curse? But I thought you said they
weren't created? Or did the curse just start an evolutionary process
that ended up with the pathogens?
William
Ed. Stoebenau
<Followups redirected, again>
On 27 Aug 1997 14:48:27 GMT, DanH...@aol.com (Dan Hughes) wrote:
>I was responding to a fool who said that he hoped humans would 'evolve'
>into a "better" organism. Didn't you see the quotes and understand
>the irony. Evidently not.
Ok, you're right, I did miss them. However, see below.
>Here's one for you. Do you understand that the tendency to adapt to
>ever more specific environments is not one that supports evolution?
No, I do not understand that, especially since it goes against the
evidence.
>Evidently your understanding of the real meaning of adaptation is highly
>lacking. The tendency to adapt to ever more specific environments is
>evidence against evolution. It actually is moving in the wrong direction.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If you don't want to use "better" in any sense, than also don't use
direction. Better presupposes a direction. What I am saying is that
organism adapt to the environment that they are in, to a first
approximation.
>Were evolution true, we should see organisms adapt and improve their
>fitness over a greater *range* of environments, not a *lesser* range of
>environments.
Why? Organisms only need to survive in their own environment.
Remember, evolution selects the organism, not the organism's
great-great-great grandsons, to a first approximation. Plain and
simple, since an organism only lives in its own environment, there is
no selection pressure for it to adapt to a different environment.
Evidently you think that evolution would predict otherwise, even
though evidence and common sense do not agree with you, nor have you
given any reasons for your claims. (Let me quickly state that
pre-adaptationism is not a problem; there is nothing which prevents
adaptations or just variations to make it so that an organism is more
fit in a different environment.) OTOH, an intelligent designer would
know where his works would be used over a long period of time, and
would be able to make them usable over a wide range of environments.
>This is the real meaning of adaptation. Organisms trade fitness over the
>larger range of environments for increased fitness in a *smaller* range
>of environments. Even to the point that they can exist in only one
>specific environment. When that environment disappears, they go extinct.
>
>This is not the formula for evolutionary success. It is the tendency of
^^^^^^^
>a created genome to decline and go extinct.
I thought you were trying to keep your claims directionless.
Evolution does not select for absolute adaptations, but just those of
where the organisms live. Use common sense, and not just any off the
wall claim you can because you think for some odd reason that
evolution contradicts your _essential_ religious beliefs.
>Perhaps you should do some thinking for yourself rather than just
>memorizing what the evolutionists tell you.
Ad hominem does not help your argument any.
>It is the result of the sin and fall of mankind. You really don't know
>much about Christianity do you?
Um yes I do. But I thought this was an argument about science, not
theology. Sin is strictly theological. Sin presupposes that there is
a god to act against.
Now, scientifically, what evidence is there that this "sin" would
result in breakdown, that wouldn't occur before? You cannot claim
that thermodynamics only held true after the "fall," because w/o
thermodynamics humans nor anything else could survive. You cannot
claim that is just because your Bible tells you so, because then you
would have left the realm of science. You cannot claim that the
breakdown is because of sin because you see both breakdown and sin
now, because there hasn't been shown any necessary casual connection
between the two? So then what is it, or is it just creationistic ad
hoc reasoning?
>Yes, extinction is expected. As I discussed above, organisms adapt to
>ever more precise environments until that environment disappears and
>they go extinct. That it doesn't contradict evolution is where you make
>the error. It specifically contradicts evolution.
The derive this supposed contradiction formally, and I will show it
wrong. If you can't clearly show it, then I can only do what is
rational, and assume they aren't. In fact, I'll work on it right now.
Let E = "evolution has occurred (is occurring, will occur)." Let X =
"Extinctions have occurred (occur, will occur.)" Now, to show that (E
& X) is a possible state of affairs, I need to find another claim, so
that that claim is _possible_ (It can even be a false claim, like "Dan
Hughes does not exist," as long it is at least possible), and that
this claim along with either E or X is possible, and that this claim
with the E or X of the above clause implies the other of the E or X.
I will use the claim that "organisms only adapt to the environments
that they inhabit, and that the loss of this environment leads to
their extinction." Call this one O. Now O is certainly
possible.Furthermore, (E & O) also give a possible state of affairs.
But (E & O) imply X. Now, since this is the case, one must conclude
that (E & X) is a possible state of affairs.
>That you can't recognize that fact is the reason that you continue to
>believe in evolution.
No, it is because of the amount of vast evidence.
See http://www.talkorigins.org for example.
--
a #143
Just my four half cents worth Standard disclaimer
Ed. Stoebenau esto...@vt.edu
sregoR .M divaD
> >but have had no reply; either my server is falling over (in which
> >case nobody will be reading this) or nobody wants to propose an
> >answer.
> >
> >to your argument, mutations are deleterious, then *why* were so many
> >virulent species created in the first place? Many of these cause
> >untold misery to millions
>
> The obvious answer is that the virulence comes from *deleterious*mutations*.
> is a poor survival path.
Killing your host is a necessity that comes from destroying it's cells
in order to reproduce. Quite a bit of research has been done into the
varying potency of viruses and the availability of potential hosts. I
recommend that you read about the great influenza epidemic that broke
out during WWI for more information.
> Rather, if evolution were true, symbiotic relationships should be near
> universal (i.e. no disease) since this results in far more 'success' than a
> parasitic disease-causing relationship.
Game theory. If everyone else on earth is honest, you can make a great
deal of money as a thief, since there are no police, locked doors, etc.
Consequently, you can EXPECT deleterious organisms to evolves, since
they would be so successful.
> Since symbiotic relationships are
> not universal and in fact disease is the norm, it is further evidence against
> evolution.
In many cases, it is to an animals advantage NOT to be symbiotic.
However, things always balance out in ecology. Just look at what
happens to the prey species when you remove the predators from a forest,
and tell me that their isn't a kind of relationship going on there.
> You guys just don't get it, do you?
Care to give us a pre-fall ecology lesson? Viruses that don't harm host
cells? Deathless reproduction?
> Biblically, it would be a result of sin and the fall of mankind. The curse
> upon the earth.
And, and Tyrannosaurs ate plants before the fall. I've heard it all
before.
--
The Young American
============================
There's no sign of life
It's just the power to charm
I'm lying in the rain
But I never wave bye bye
But I try
I try
--David Bowie, "Modern Love"
Dan Hughes
In article <5u45ib$9...@dv.ics.uci.edu>, had...@XXXuci.edu says...
>
>DanH...@aol.com (Dan Hughes) writes:
>
>|In article <5u1m7c$5...@dv.ics.uci.edu>, had...@SPAMMENOTuci.edu says...
>|>
>|> Extinction, yes. I don't know about decline. How would decline
>|>be fossilized?
>
>|Extinction is the ultimate decline, Tedd. The loss of a huge amount
>|of genetic information contained in those multitudes of species that
>|went extinct.
>
>When the dinosaurs, along with an estimated 70% of earth's species,
>became extinct following the impact of a 6-12 miles in diameter
>asteriod that is believed to have reduced temperatures around the
>globe, this allowed mammals to rapidly proliferate and speciate to
>occupy biological niches previously filled by dinosaur species.
As previously noted, 'speciation' is the fragmentation of a genome.
How does the fragmentation of the mammal genome offset the complete
loss of the dino genome(s)?
> Thus, there is no net loss of genetic information. The loss of
>the dinosaur genome is equal in some sense to the gain in mammal
>diversity. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In some sense?
What an argument. Somehow, someway, Que Sera Sera.
And this 'gain' in mammal diversity that you assert happened. This is
only true if evolution is true. The evidence is that any 'diversity'
gained by the mammal genome would be in the form of deleterious mutatation.
In what sense does a fragmenting mammal genome accumulating deleterious
mutation offset the complete loss of the dino genome?
>|Do you understand now?
>
> Dan, I've understood your "decline" argument from early on. It
>is sketchy in many details, it seems to ignore as much data as it
>explains, and it fails to provide a better explanation than evolution.
>Therefore, I'll stick with evolution.
It's obvious that you closed your mind to my arguments long ago, if it
ever was open. Your arguments and responses are becoming more and more
nebulous and irrelevant to the discussion.
Perhaps you should sit down now. You are just embarassing yourself.
Dan Hughes
In article <340ca438...@news.pacificnet.net>, Ke...@Quitt.net says...
>
>On 27 Aug 1997 14:48:27 GMT, DanH...@aol.com (Dan Hughes) wrote:
>>Were evolution true, we should see organisms adapt and improve their
>>fitness over a greater *range* of environments, not a *lesser* range of
>>environments.
>
>ability to operate in the existing environment. Specialization is more
>efficient.
Specialization is not more 'efficient'. It places the organism at a
higher risk of extinction. While this is what we observe, it should not
be confused with being evidence in support of evolution.
That is your error.
>Only God could direct the changes of a species *against* a
>more optimal use of the existing conditions. My favorite arguments of
>creationists is when they require evolution to be directed by a purpose
>external to the environment, and when they speak of an organism evolving.
My favorite argument from the evolutionists is when they call decline,
'change' and then assert that there is no qualitative direction
inherent in 'change'.
Under that assumption, Down's Syndrome is as valuable to mankind as is
genius. Maybe they prefer that argument because so many of them are
afflicted with it?
>Adaptation means making maximal use of your environment.
Adaptation means trading fitness over a broad range of environments for
fitness in a narrower range of environments.
>If you're a
>tropical species, it makes no sense to develop antifreeze in your blood so
>you can survive sub-zero temperatures. Only a force external to evolution
>could produce such. A species has no way of "knowing" what future
>conditions might be like and pre-adapting.
Which is why the tendency to adapt to particular environments is so
devastating. Environmental changes (the next ice age) guarantee that
the tropical species will be eliminated.
Again, a huge loss of biodiversity.
>This is what you expect evolution to be? No wonder you don't believe in it.
No, this is what I observe in reality. That it doesn't support
evolution is not my problem. It is a problem for evolution.
>On the other hand, those people who actually know what it means have a
>very different opinion.
Like you?
>> Organisms trade fitness over the
>>larger range of environments for increased fitness in a *smaller* range
>>of environments. Even to the point that they can exist in only one
>>specific environment. When that environment disappears, they go extinct.
>
>If they've over-specialized, yep, that's what happens. Let's say that
>there is no evolution and it's all God's hand: that means that he made a
>mistake when he designed that species. Don't you see you're arguing
>AGAINST what you believe in?
It doesn't mean that He made a mistake. It means that He designed life
*not* to look like evolution! You are the one arguing against what
you believe in.
You are arguing that what we observe fits evolution. It doesn't, it
supports creation. You aren't bright enough to realize the implications
of what we really observe vs the theory of evolution.
>Perhaps you should as well. Over-specialization is an occasional expected
>by-product of evolution.
An occasional expected by-product of evolution? Highly adapted species
are ubiquitous, not occasional! Further evidence that what we observe
does not support evolution.
>It would, however, require a fallible God if
>evolution were not the cause. Is this what you are championing? I think
>maybe you're an evolutionist with an agenda, masquerading as a
>creationist, so inconsistent and non-sensical are your arguments.
No, it would not require a fallible God. Just one who designed life
*not* to look like it evolved. The ability of godless men to deceive
themselves is unparalleled.
>>As I discussed above, organisms adapt to
>>ever more precise environments until that environment disappears and
>>they go extinct. That it doesn't contradict evolution is where you make
>>the error. It specifically contradicts evolution.
>
>Organisms don't evolve at all. Species extinctions contradict divine
>design.
Perhaps you could explain why you think that extinctions contradict
divine design?
>That you can't recognize that fact is the reason that you
>continue to believe. Scientists don't BELIEVE in evolution--they accept
>it as fact without the need for belief. Creationists need belief because
>there is no evidence. Your very arguments belie your own beliefs.
Unbelievable.
sregoR .M divaD
Dan Hughes wrote:
>
> In article <340ca438...@news.pacificnet.net>, Ke...@Quitt.net says...
> >
> >On 27 Aug 1997 14:48:27 GMT, DanH...@aol.com (Dan Hughes) wrote:
> >>Were evolution true, we should see organisms adapt and improve their
> >>fitness over a greater *range* of environments, not a *lesser* range of
> >>environments.
> >
> >Rubbish. Such flexibility can occur only at the cost of the species'
> >ability to operate in the existing environment. Specialization is more
> >efficient.
>
> Specialization is not more 'efficient'. It places the organism at a
> higher risk of extinction. While this is what we observe, it should not
> be confused with being evidence in support of evolution.
Evolution is not an intelligent being that plans ahead, saying "Hmm... I
better not specialize too much, because the in the long term, the
descendants of animals that do so are going to pay for it." Natural
selection can only operate with existing genomes in a current
environment.
Consequently, mass extinctions do occurr.
> That is your error.
It is just one more prediction that evolution makes, and is verified in
the fossil record (remember what happened to the dinosaurs when _their_
environment changed too quickly?)
> >Only God could direct the changes of a species *against* a
> >more optimal use of the existing conditions. My favorite arguments of
> >creationists is when they require evolution to be directed by a purpose
> >external to the environment, and when they speak of an organism evolving.
>
> My favorite argument from the evolutionists is when they call decline,
> 'change' and then assert that there is no qualitative direction
> inherent in 'change'.
There is no inherent direction in any random occurance. And genetic
mutations are about as close to random as you can get.
> Under that assumption, Down's Syndrome is as valuable to mankind as is
> genius. Maybe they prefer that argument because so many of them are
> afflicted with it?
Down's syndrome is common because the mutation which produces it is very
simple -- the replication of a single chromosome. I have never heard of
a person with Down's reproducing, so it plays no part in evolution.
> >Adaptation means making maximal use of your environment.
>
> Adaptation means trading fitness over a broad range of environments for
> fitness in a narrower range of environments.
There is no reason for a Sahara insect to be adapted to a winter
environment, and evolutionary theory predicts that they won't display
such adaptations, because they are not naturally selected for.
Another confirmation of evolution. You're really chalking them up.
> >If you're a
> >tropical species, it makes no sense to develop antifreeze in your blood so
> >you can survive sub-zero temperatures. Only a force external to evolution
> >could produce such. A species has no way of "knowing" what future
> >conditions might be like and pre-adapting.
>
> Which is why the tendency to adapt to particular environments is so
> devastating. Environmental changes (the next ice age) guarantee that
> the tropical species will be eliminated.
And the surviving species will evolve and fill the newly available
niches, just like mammals did after the dinosaurs were wiped out.
> Again, a huge loss of biodiversity.
Which is quickly recovered.
> >This is what you expect evolution to be? No wonder you don't believe in it.
>
> No, this is what I observe in reality. That it doesn't support
> evolution is not my problem. It is a problem for evolution.
You have yet to create a significant problem for evolution, try as you
might.
SNIP
> >> Organisms trade fitness over the
> >>larger range of environments for increased fitness in a *smaller* range
> >>of environments. Even to the point that they can exist in only one
> >>specific environment. When that environment disappears, they go extinct.
> >
> >If they've over-specialized, yep, that's what happens. Let's say that
> >there is no evolution and it's all God's hand: that means that he made a
> >mistake when he designed that species. Don't you see you're arguing
> >AGAINST what you believe in?
>
> It doesn't mean that He made a mistake. It means that He designed life
> *not* to look like evolution! You are the one arguing against what
> you believe in.
Are you saying that specialization is not predicted by evolution?
> You are arguing that what we observe fits evolution. It doesn't, it
> supports creation. You aren't bright enough to realize the implications
> of what we really observe vs the theory of evolution.
Then I guess I'm in the same boat with the entire biological, pale
ontological and anthropological community. Just a bunch of idiots all,
and you, a Usenet troll, smarter than all of us.
> >Perhaps you should as well. Over-specialization is an occasional expected
> >by-product of evolution.
>
> An occasional expected by-product of evolution? Highly adapted species
> are ubiquitous, not occasional! Further evidence that what we observe
> does not support evolution.
They are not ubiquitous. Many species survive in a great variety of
climates -- bears, roaches, bees, large cats, hares, raptors, whales,
etc.
> >It would, however, require a fallible God if
> >evolution were not the cause. Is this what you are championing? I think
> >maybe you're an evolutionist with an agenda, masquerading as a
> >creationist, so inconsistent and non-sensical are your arguments.
>
> No, it would not require a fallible God. Just one who designed life
> *not* to look like it evolved. The ability of godless men to deceive
> themselves is unparalleled.
So, apparently, is that magnificent deception of God's... the fossil
record.
> >>As I discussed above, organisms adapt to
> >>ever more precise environments until that environment disappears and
> >>they go extinct. That it doesn't contradict evolution is where you make
> >>the error. It specifically contradicts evolution.
> >
> >Organisms don't evolve at all. Species extinctions contradict divine
> >design.
>
> Perhaps you could explain why you think that extinctions contradict
> divine design?
God is perfect therefore His designs are perfect. No animals are
perfect, therefore no animals are designs of God. Extinction is proof
of imperfection.
> >That you can't recognize that fact is the reason that you
> >continue to believe. Scientists don't BELIEVE in evolution--they accept
> >it as fact without the need for belief. Creationists need belief because
> >there is no evidence. Your very arguments belie your own beliefs.
>
> Unbelievable.
Talk sense to a fool and he will call you foolish.
Robert Tichacek
In article <5u4rfg$bq3$1...@ionews.ionet.net>, DanH...@aol.com (Dan Hughes)
wrote:
> Specialization is not more 'efficient'. It places the organism at a
> higher risk of extinction. While this is what we observe, it should not
> be confused with being evidence in support of evolution.
So, an organism which is *better* adapted to an environment, giving it an
advantage other others that it may compete with, is *less* efficient?
>
> That is your error.
Actually, it would be yours.
> >Adaptation means making maximal use of your environment.
>
> Adaptation means trading fitness over a broad range of environments for
> fitness in a narrower range of environments.
If it gives an organism a better chance of surviving in the "narrower
range", it most certainly is a maximal use.
>
> >If you're a
> >tropical species, it makes no sense to develop antifreeze in your blood so
> >you can survive sub-zero temperatures. Only a force external to evolution
> >could produce such. A species has no way of "knowing" what future
> >conditions might be like and pre-adapting.
>
>
> Which is why the tendency to adapt to particular environments is so
> devastating. Environmental changes (the next ice age) guarantee that
> the tropical species will be eliminated.
Please explain how an organism can be selected for a certain environment
when that environment does not even exist yet. How *could* natural
selection produce a tropical organism that is adapted for cold weather?
Please, no circular arguments that rely on your own definitions of
"evolution", "adaptation" and the like - demonstrate the mechanics.
> An occasional expected by-product of evolution? Highly adapted species
> are ubiquitous, not occasional! Further evidence that what we observe
> does not support evolution.
"Highly adaptated species are ubiquitous" coming from a creationist. A
clear contestant for Most Unintentionally Ironic Statement. Now, if poorly
adapted species were ubiquitous, but still survived for long periods,
*that* would be an argument for creation...
> No, it would not require a fallible God. Just one who designed life
> *not* to look like it evolved. The ability of godless men to deceive
> themselves is unparalleled.
Ah, the "evolution = godlessness" red herring. Damn that godless Pope John
Paul II. Damn my membership in that heathen ~2000 year old religion....
>As I discussed above, organisms adapt to
>ever more precise environments until that environment disappears and
>they go extinct. That it doesn't contradict evolution is where you make
>the error. It specifically contradicts evolution.
Actually, species becoming extinct when they are not well adapted to their
environment - as may happen during a climatic shift - not only does not
contradict natural selection and evolution, it is a prediction of same.
Organisms have trouble surviving to reproductive age, population count goes
down, other critters fill the niche. Now, if the organisms somehow knew
ahead of time that the climate would change, and were thus preadapted to
it, *that* would be a challenge to evolution via natural selection. As I
asked above, please explain how this could occur.
RT
Tedd Hadley
DanH...@aol.com (Dan Hughes) writes:
>In article <5u45ib$9...@dv.ics.uci.edu>, had...@XXXuci.edu says...
>>
>> When one species becomes extinct, that opens a niche for another.
>>When the dinosaurs, along with an estimated 70% of earth's species,
>>became extinct following the impact of a 6-12 miles in diameter
>>asteriod that is believed to have reduced temperatures around the
>>globe, this allowed mammals to rapidly proliferate and speciate to
>>occupy biological niches previously filled by dinosaur species.
>As previously noted, 'speciation' is the fragmentation of a genome.
>How does the fragmentation of the mammal genome offset the complete
>loss of the dino genome(s)?
That's the problem. Speciation is not a fragmentation, it is
new information by any standard I can think of. It is new mutations,
new body plans, new structures, possibly new organs. Or are you
really arguing that the tiny mammal-like creatures that existed
around the time of the dinosaurs had enough information in the
their genomes to account for the vast array of mammal species we
have today?
We can observe from the fossil record that mammals proliferated
after time of the extinction event. Before, only a few small
mammal-like creatures are observed in the fossil record. Afterwards,
we have a vast host of creatures that rival the dinosaurs in
diversity and geologic range. The number of mammal species observed
after the extinction of the dinosaurs is certainly equal to (if
not greater than) the number of species of dinosaurs. Thus, by
any metric I can think of, there has been no permanent loss of
"information" and only gain.
>> Thus, there is no net loss of genetic information. The loss of
>>the dinosaur genome is equal in some sense to the gain in mammal
>>diversity. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>In some sense?
>What an argument. Somehow, someway, Que Sera Sera.
If you don't understand the argument, ask. Not surprisingly
you misinterpreted what I meant by "in some sense". See the
previous paragraph.
>And this 'gain' in mammal diversity that you assert happened. This is
>only true if evolution is true. The evidence is that any 'diversity'
>gained by the mammal genome would be in the form of deleterious mutatation.
This of course is false. Not all mutations are deleterious.
Beneficial mutations can cause an increase in overall fitness (which
still remains an ill-defined concept), as we have discussed in email.
>In what sense does a fragmenting mammal genome accumulating deleterious
>mutation offset the complete loss of the dino genome?
See previous paragraphs.
>> Dan, I've understood your "decline" argument from early on. It
>>is sketchy in many details, it seems to ignore as much data as it
>>explains, and it fails to provide a better explanation than evolution.
>>Therefore, I'll stick with evolution.
>It's obvious that you closed your mind to my arguments long ago, if it
>ever was open.
It seems that to you a closed mind is one that rejects your
arguments on the basis of logic and evidence. What you don't seem
to realize is that much of your argument requires a belief in God
and a firm faith that the Bible is all but literally true. In
scientific discussions, you should check your religious dogma
at the door.
>Your arguments and responses are becoming more and more
>nebulous and irrelevant to the discussion.
>Perhaps you should sit down now. You are just embarassing yourself.
Dan, Dan, always with the transparent debating tricks. How
many people have you successfully intimated into silence with
these tactics? Anyone?
++
Tedd Hadley <had...@uci.edu>
Cemtech
In article <5tuli6$oqn$2...@ionews.ionet.net>, DanH...@aol.com says...
> In article <5tsr51$q...@dv.ics.uci.edu>, had...@NOSPAMuci.edu says...
> > Is it better to wait a million years and hope that humans evolve
> >into a "better" organism
>
> What do you mean 'hope that humans evolve into a "better" organism'?
> Evolution is *guaranteed* to produce a "better" organism, isn't it?
Only in cartoons, the air pockets of religious, zealot skulls, and
perhaps you.
> It's inevitable! We have millions and billions of years, don't we?
Pathetic. Demand your money back from every school you've attended!
You've been robbed of an education.
----------------------------
Advice for new creationists when around other creationists...
"If you act like a dumbshit, they'll treat you as a equal"
-J.R."BOB" Dobbs
ra...@kaiwan.com OR cem...@pacbell.net (phase out end September)
cem...@sprintmail.com (phase in now)
Raistlin Majere, Archmage
On Wed, 27 Aug 1997 19:13:55 -0600, Nathan Filyk <nfi...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca>
let it be known that:
>> Argument by assertion is fallacious, you brainless legbag. Give me
>> evidence.
>
>The argument which is asserted is not necessarily fallacious, but the
>method can be misleading.
No, you are using argument by assertion. IOW, you simply assert something
to be true and not back it up.
That's a fallacy.
Raist
Raistlin Majere, Archmage
On 28 Aug 1997 13:27:53 GMT, DanH...@aol.com (Dan Hughes) let it be known
that:
>In article <34055fda...@news.clara.net>, ta...@mail.clara.net says...
>>
>>I've asked this a number of times to similar arguments to the above,
>>but have had no reply; either my server is falling over (in which
>>case nobody will be reading this) or nobody wants to propose an
>>answer.
>>
>>The question is: if the bacteria was created (designed) and, according
>>to your argument, mutations are deleterious, then *why* were so many
>>virulent species created in the first place? Many of these cause
>>untold misery to millions
>
>The obvious answer is that the virulence comes from *deleterious*mutations*.
>They weren't created that way. It should be obvious that killing your host
>is a poor survival path.
>
>Rather, if evolution were true, symbiotic relationships should be near
>universal (i.e. no disease)
Really now? Mind proving that?
> since this results in far more 'success' than a
>parasitic disease-causing relationship. Since symbiotic relationships are
>not universal and in fact disease is the norm, it is further evidence against
>evolution.
Aha. I see. More proof by assertion.
>You guys just don't get it, do you?
No. I can't seem to fathom believing in a magic sky-picie.
>Biblically, it would be a result of sin and the fall of mankind. The curse
>upon the earth.
Why not a large tornado carrying a house off to Oz?
Raist
Dan Hughes
In article <5u1n1b$5...@dv.ics.uci.edu>, had...@SPAMMENOTuci.edu says...
>
>DanH...@aol.com (Dan Hughes) writes:
>
>|Survival of the 'lucky' and of the 'helped and cared for' is included in
>|'survival of the fittest' when it suits the evolutionist agenda.
>
>|Follow an evolutionary discussion of the various genetically linked
>|behavioral disorders for an example.
>
> I don't see an argument, here. How can survival of the "lucky"
>or "helped and cared for" be considered survival of the fittest?
>Examples, please. You seem more prone than most to misinterpret
>evolutionary theory when it appears to conflict with your religious
>beliefs so I am simply not going to take your word about what
>evolutionists think without some kind of documentation.
Because 'survival of the fittest' is a tautology. Survival of those
that have survived, you see. Natural disasters and genetic drift have
a far greater impact on populations than 'natural selection'.
Selective pressures aren't even expected to increase 'beneficial'
mutations unless they exceed a 10% selective advantage. Below that,
the 'beneficial' mutation is more likely to be overwhelmed by chance
than it is to be added to the gene pool.
BTW, 10% is a HUGE increase in selective advantage. It is almost never
seen. Even when it is, it appears in environments with severe selective
pressure (malarial) and results in the fixation of a deleterious form
of a previously existing allele (sickle-cell).
You can find your own documentation. Of course, if you knew what you
were talking about, you wouldn't be making such ridiculous statements
in the first place.
|> Tedd Hadley wrote:
|>SOTF is not a tautology. This
|>is an old creationist misunderstanding.
>|SOTF has always been a tautology. It has been recognized as such for
>|a long time, except by evolutionists. Remember that 'misunderstanding'
>|actually means, 'different understanding that we disagree with'.
>
>|What Tedd really means is that "We had this discussion years ago and we
>|declared ourselves the winner." Of course you did.
>
>I don't see an argument, here, either. Do you want to discuss
>this or would you prefer to rant on and on about those evil
>evolutionists?
Since there was no argument in your response, how could I respond to no
argument? "Do you want to dicuss this or would you prefer to rant on
and on about those {stupid creationists}?"
Geez, Tedd. I am merely taking your own techniques and using them
in response to you. You don't seem to recognize them as fallacious
until I use them.
Look I even put them in quotes for you. Do you have any sense of
reason at all?
Jim Meritt
In article <33f5c5fe...@news.clara.net>, ta...@mail.clara.net says...
>Some christians are creationists; others strongly oppose them.
>Some creationists accept evolution; others strongly oppose it.
>Some christians who are creationists and who accept evolution also
>accept the genesis account; others strongly oppose that, saying that
>it has to be taken as a poetry . . . . .and so on.
Concerning your "and so on". Are you aware of any non-christian creatonists?
If so, could you enlighten us?
--
James W. Meritt
The opinions expressed above are my own. The facts simply
are and belong to none.
Dan Hughes
In article <34061CA1...@Awburn.campus.mci.net>,
mca...@Awburn.campus.mci.net says...
>
>Dan Hughes wrote:
>>
>> Specialization is not more 'efficient'. It places the organism at a
>> higher risk of extinction. While this is what we observe, it should not
>> be confused with being evidence in support of evolution.
>
>Evolution is not an intelligent being that plans ahead, saying "Hmm... I
>better not specialize too much, because the in the long term, the
>descendants of animals that do so are going to pay for it." Natural
>selection can only operate with existing genomes in a current
>environment.
You are erroneously equating evolution and natural selection.
Since neither *can* look ahead and avoid specialization, life
*is* placed in untenable situations.
The point is that evolution cannot produce life as we see it. Natural
selection does not support evolution.
>Consequently, mass extinctions do occurr.
>
>It is just one more prediction that evolution makes, and is verified in
>the fossil record (remember what happened to the dinosaurs when _their_
>environment changed too quickly?)
Evolution doesn't make any predictions. In the thread, 'Evolution and the
God of Chance', evolution was shown to be a chaotic system that was
unable to make reliable predictions.
>> My favorite argument from the evolutionists is when they call decline,
>> 'change' and then assert that there is no qualitative direction
>> inherent in 'change'.
>
>There is no inherent direction in any random occurance. And genetic
>mutations are about as close to random as you can get.
No they aren't. We keep getting the same mutations over and over.
DNA has a predisposition to mutate in certain ways. The mutations
that occur are overwhelmingly deleterious.
>> Under that assumption, Down's Syndrome is as valuable to mankind as is
>> genius. Maybe they prefer that argument because so many of them are
>> afflicted with it?
>
>Down's syndrome is common because the mutation which produces it is very
>simple -- the replication of a single chromosome. I have never heard of
>a person with Down's reproducing, so it plays no part in evolution.
See what I mean. Not random and deleterious.
>> >Adaptation means making maximal use of your environment.
>>
>> Adaptation means trading fitness over a broad range of environments for
>> fitness in a narrower range of environments.
>
>There is no reason for a Sahara insect to be adapted to a winter
>environment, and evolutionary theory predicts that they won't display
>such adaptations, because they are not naturally selected for.
And when the next ice age appears, they go extinct. They can't adapt
because the genetic code does not exist in their genome and won't be
created by 'random mutation'.
>Another confirmation of evolution. You're really chalking them up.
More evidence against evolution. You really don't get it do you?
>> >could produce such. A species has no way of "knowing" what future
>> >conditions might be like and pre-adapting.
>>
>> Which is why the tendency to adapt to particular environments is so
>> devastating. Environmental changes (the next ice age) guarantee that
>> the tropical species will be eliminated.
>
>And the surviving species will evolve and fill the newly available
>niches, just like mammals did after the dinosaurs were wiped out.
Again, a huge loss of biodiversity.
>> Again, a huge loss of biodiversity.
>
>Which is quickly recovered.
Wrong. How has the dino diversity been recovered? Where is it?
>> No, this is what I observe in reality. That it doesn't support
>> evolution is not my problem. It is a problem for evolution.
>
>You have yet to create a significant problem for evolution, try as you
>might.
As I have stated many times. There is no evidence that could create a
problem for evolution. It is unfalsifiable.
>> It doesn't mean that He made a mistake. It means that He designed life
>> *not* to look like evolution! You are the one arguing against what
>> you believe in.
>
>Are you saying that specialization is not predicted by evolution?
If evolution predicts specialization, it predicts a phenomena that is in
contradiction to itself.
>> You are arguing that what we observe fits evolution. It doesn't, it
>> supports creation. You aren't bright enough to realize the implications
>> of what we really observe vs the theory of evolution.
>
>Then I guess I'm in the same boat with the entire biological, pale
>ontological and anthropological community. Just a bunch of idiots all,
>and you, a Usenet troll, smarter than all of us.
I thought only creationists were insulting? Don't let Tedd see this.
>> An occasional expected by-product of evolution? Highly adapted species
>> are ubiquitous, not occasional! Further evidence that what we observe
>> does not support evolution.
>
>They are not ubiquitous. Many species survive in a great variety of
>climates -- bears, roaches, bees, large cats, hares, raptors, whales,
>etc.
Do you want to get into a competition of listing generalist vs specialized
species. You would lose big time. Highly adapted species are ubiquitous,
as I said.
>> No, it would not require a fallible God. Just one who designed life
>> *not* to look like it evolved. The ability of godless men to deceive
>> themselves is unparalleled.
>
>So, apparently, is that magnificent deception of God's... the fossil
>record.
The fossil record supports creation. Ever heard of punctuated
equilibrium? This sub-theory of evolution recognizes that fossils
appear fully formed without ancestors, survive for long periods
unchanged and then disappear into extinction. No support for evolution
there.
The fossil record is an interpreted record. It does not appear
consistently in the 'correct' order. Only about 1/3 of fossils are
found in the 'correct' order.
It's not God who has manufactured a deception, it is man.
>> Perhaps you could explain why you think that extinctions contradict
>> divine design?
>
>God is perfect therefore His designs are perfect. No animals are
>perfect, therefore no animals are designs of God. Extinction is proof
>of imperfection.
God does not create perfection because He would be creating Himself.
He creates animals in the image of the heavenly zoa.
Extinction is proof of creation.
Dan Hughes
In article <5u5jjh$f...@dv.ics.uci.edu>, had...@XXXuci.edu says...
>
>DanH...@aol.com (Dan Hughes) writes:
>
>>As previously noted, 'speciation' is the fragmentation of a genome.
>
>>How does the fragmentation of the mammal genome offset the complete
>>loss of the dino genome(s)?
>
> That's the problem. Speciation is not a fragmentation, it is
>new information by any standard I can think of. It is new mutations,
>new body plans, new structures, possibly new organs. Or are you
>really arguing that the tiny mammal-like creatures that existed
>around the time of the dinosaurs had enough information in the
>their genomes to account for the vast array of mammal species we
>have today?
Speciation, as observed, is a fragmentation of the genome. You are
*assuming* that the vast array of mammal species developed additional
information.
This has not been demonstrated by biology. It is an *assumption* of
the theory of evolution. Don't you know the difference between
assumption and evidence?
> We can observe from the fossil record that mammals proliferated
>after time of the extinction event. Before, only a few small
>mammal-like creatures are observed in the fossil record. Afterwards,
>we have a vast host of creatures that rival the dinosaurs in
>diversity and geologic range. The number of mammal species observed
>after the extinction of the dinosaurs is certainly equal to (if
>not greater than) the number of species of dinosaurs. Thus, by
>any metric I can think of, there has been no permanent loss of
>"information" and only gain.
Again, you *assume* that mammals have developed this diversity by
'natural processes'.
No permanent loss of "information"? Where has the dino "information"
been recreated?
>>And this 'gain' in mammal diversity that you assert happened. This is
>>only true if evolution is true. The evidence is that any 'diversity'
>>gained by the mammal genome would be in the form of deleterious mutatation
>
> This of course is false. Not all mutations are deleterious.
>Beneficial mutations can cause an increase in overall fitness (which
>still remains an ill-defined concept), as we have discussed in email.
And these 'beneficial' mutations still result
in fitness losses. They are not truly beneficial. They are redefined
deleterious mutations.
Ill-defined is right. Unfortunately, we arrive at the foundation of
evolutionary evidence and find it 'ill-defined'. No surprise there.
> It seems that to you a closed mind is one that rejects your
>arguments on the basis of logic and evidence. What you don't seem
>to realize is that much of your argument requires a belief in God
>and a firm faith that the Bible is all but literally true. In
>scientific discussions, you should check your religious dogma
>at the door.
No, you can understand my arguments and believe in panspermia, directed
or otherwise, as the source of life on earth. Many people do.
In fact, Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA came to believe in
this concept because he recognized that what he had discovered was
too complex to have happened 'all by itself'.
There is plenty of room for godless theories of creation. You do
admit that your rejection of creation is preceded by your rejection
of the existence of God though.
Therefore I think it is you who need to check your dogma at the door.
Dan Hughes
In article <snakedrill-ya024080...@news.earthlink.net>,
snake...@blahblah.earthlink.net says...
>
>> Specialization is not more 'efficient'. It places the organism at a
>> higher risk of extinction. While this is what we observe, it should not
>> be confused with being evidence in support of evolution.
>
>advantage other others that it may compete with, is *less* efficient?
Not less *efficient*. More at risk of *extinction*. The ultimate loss
of efficiency.
>> >Adaptation means making maximal use of your environment.
>>
>> Adaptation means trading fitness over a broad range of environments for
>> fitness in a narrower range of environments.
>
>If it gives an organism a better chance of surviving in the "narrower
>range", it most certainly is a maximal use.
Until that environment changes and the organisms goes extinct.
>> Which is why the tendency to adapt to particular environments is so
>> devastating. Environmental changes (the next ice age) guarantee that
>> the tropical species will be eliminated.
>
>Please explain how an organism can be selected for a certain environment
>when that environment does not even exist yet. How *could* natural
>selection produce a tropical organism that is adapted for cold weather?
>Please, no circular arguments that rely on your own definitions of
>"evolution", "adaptation" and the like - demonstrate the mechanics.
Exactly the point. An organisms can't be selected for an environment
that doesn't exist. This is reality. When the environment that it
*has* been selected for changes, the organisms is in *big* trouble.
It can't adapt and goes extinct. Not good for evolution.
>"Highly adaptated species are ubiquitous" coming from a creationist. A
>clear contestant for Most Unintentionally Ironic Statement. Now, if poorly
>adapted species were ubiquitous, but still survived for long periods,
>*that* would be an argument for creation...
Please explain how this would be an argument for creation. And please,
no circular arguments that rely on your own definitions of
"creation", "adaptation" and the like - demonstrate the mechanics.
>>As I discussed above, organisms adapt to
>>ever more precise environments until that environment disappears and
>>they go extinct. That it doesn't contradict evolution is where you make
>>the error. It specifically contradicts evolution.
>
>Actually, species becoming extinct when they are not well adapted to their
>environment - as may happen during a climatic shift - not only does not
>contradict natural selection and evolution, it is a prediction of same.
Please explain how this does not contradict evolution and is a
prediction of the same. And please, no circular arguments that rely
on your own definitions of "evolution", "adaptation" and the like -
demonstrate the mechanics.
>Organisms have trouble surviving to reproductive age, population count goes
>down, other critters fill the niche. Now, if the organisms somehow knew
>ahead of time that the climate would change, and were thus preadapted to
>it, *that* would be a challenge to evolution via natural selection. As I
>asked above, please explain how this could occur.
If organisms *were* able to 'preadapt', that would be evidence in *favor*
of evolution. The obviously would never go extinct and would be more
'fit'.
You obviously believe that what exists *must* support evolution, and
try to relate it no matter how contradictory it is.
James K Nelson
Excerpts from netnews.sci.skeptic: 29-Aug-97 Re: evolution is impossible
by Dan Hug...@aol.com
> mutations unless they exceed a 10% selective advantage. Below that,
> the 'beneficial' mutation is more likely to be overwhelmed by chance
> than it is to be added to the gene pool.
>
> BTW, 10% is a HUGE increase in selective advantage. It is almost never
> seen.
Uh, could you provide references for this? Where did you get this 10%
figure from?
-JKN
sregoR .M divaD
Dan Hughes wrote:
>
> In article <34061CA1...@Awburn.campus.mci.net>,
> mca...@Awburn.campus.mci.net says...
> >
> >Dan Hughes wrote:
> >>
> >> Specialization is not more 'efficient'. It places the organism at a
> >> higher risk of extinction. While this is what we observe, it should not
> >> be confused with being evidence in support of evolution.
> >
> >Evolution is not an intelligent being that plans ahead, saying "Hmm... I
> >better not specialize too much, because the in the long term, the
> >descendants of animals that do so are going to pay for it." Natural
> >selection can only operate with existing genomes in a current
> >environment.
>
> You are erroneously equating evolution and natural selection.
> Since neither *can* look ahead and avoid specialization, life
> *is* placed in untenable situations.
Ocaisionally, species are caught between a rock and a hard place. Life
as a totality has never experienced an environment change strong enough
to kill it (yet).
> The point is that evolution cannot produce life as we see it. Natural
> selection does not support evolution.
Then your point is in error. It can, it has, and it does.
> >Consequently, mass extinctions do occurr.
> >
> >It is just one more prediction that evolution makes, and is verified in
> >the fossil record (remember what happened to the dinosaurs when _their_
> >environment changed too quickly?)
>
> Evolution doesn't make any predictions. In the thread, 'Evolution and the
> God of Chance', evolution was shown to be a chaotic system that was
> unable to make reliable predictions.
It is unable to make SPECIFIC prediction, like whether an individual
species will go extinct, or evolve. But weathermen can't make specific
predictions either (30% chance of rain) and I don't see you arguing for
a God-controlled weather theory. However, evolution can make general
predictions, just as meteorologists can predict whether a hurrican will
hit Florida or not.
> >> My favorite argument from the evolutionists is when they call decline,
> >> 'change' and then assert that there is no qualitative direction
> >> inherent in 'change'.
> >
> >There is no inherent direction in any random occurance. And genetic
> >mutations are about as close to random as you can get.
>
> No they aren't. We keep getting the same mutations over and over.
We get a few simple mutations, such as Down's syndrome, much more
frequently than others, but we are obviously not getting the same ones
over and over. Viruses do not appear to be limited in the extent of
their mutations.
> DNA has a predisposition to mutate in certain ways.
What about RNA?
> The mutations
> that occur are overwhelmingly deleterious.
90% neutral, 5% deleterious, 5% advantageous.
> >> Under that assumption, Down's Syndrome is as valuable to mankind as is
> >> genius. Maybe they prefer that argument because so many of them are
> >> afflicted with it?
> >
> >Down's syndrome is common because the mutation which produces it is very
> >simple -- the replication of a single chromosome. I have never heard of
> >a person with Down's reproducing, so it plays no part in evolution.
>
> See what I mean. Not random and deleterious.
In short, irrelevant. Not all mutations play a part in evolution. A
mutation that prevented cells from functioning, for example, would kill
the organism before it even began to divide into a zygote.
> >> >Adaptation means making maximal use of your environment.
> >>
> >> Adaptation means trading fitness over a broad range of environments for
> >> fitness in a narrower range of environments.
> >
> >There is no reason for a Sahara insect to be adapted to a winter
> >environment, and evolutionary theory predicts that they won't display
> >such adaptations, because they are not naturally selected for.
>
> And when the next ice age appears, they go extinct. They can't adapt
> because the genetic code does not exist in their genome and won't be
> created by 'random mutation'.
Indeed, they will most likely go extinct, unless the ice age comes on
slowly enough. And if they do go extinct the extinctions will open new
niches, just like the extinction of the dinosaurs opened a place for
large mammals...
> >Another confirmation of evolution. You're really chalking them up.
>
> More evidence against evolution. You really don't get it do you?
You appear to have erected a strawman, although for what necessity of
belief, I know not.
> >> >could produce such. A species has no way of "knowing" what future
> >> >conditions might be like and pre-adapting.
> >>
> >> Which is why the tendency to adapt to particular environments is so
> >> devastating. Environmental changes (the next ice age) guarantee that
> >> the tropical species will be eliminated.
> >
> >And the surviving species will evolve and fill the newly available
> >niches, just like mammals did after the dinosaurs were wiped out.
>
> Again, a huge loss of biodiversity.
Which is quickly regained.
> >> Again, a huge loss of biodiversity.
> >
> >Which is quickly recovered.
>
> Wrong. How has the dino diversity been recovered? Where is it?
The diversity of life on this planet today equals diversity before the
ice ages. There just aren't any more dinosaurs, which if fine, because
there weren't any mammals for most of the time dinosaurs were on earth.
> >> No, this is what I observe in reality. That it doesn't support
> >> evolution is not my problem. It is a problem for evolution.
> >
> >You have yet to create a significant problem for evolution, try as you
> >might.
>
> As I have stated many times. There is no evidence that could create a
> problem for evolution. It is unfalsifiable.
And I have stated before, conclusive proof that sophisticated land
organisms existed before the cambrian would do it.
> >> It doesn't mean that He made a mistake. It means that He designed life
> >> *not* to look like evolution! You are the one arguing against what
> >> you believe in.
> >
> >Are you saying that specialization is not predicted by evolution?
>
> If evolution predicts specialization, it predicts a phenomena that is in
> contradiction to itself.
You mean, in contradiction with your strawman model.
> >> You are arguing that what we observe fits evolution. It doesn't, it
> >> supports creation. You aren't bright enough to realize the implications
> >> of what we really observe vs the theory of evolution.
> >
> >Then I guess I'm in the same boat with the entire biological, pale
> >ontological and anthropological community. Just a bunch of idiots all,
> >and you, a Usenet troll, smarter than all of us.
>
> I thought only creationists were insulting? Don't let Tedd see this.
Occasionally my temper gets the best of me.
> >> No, it would not require a fallible God. Just one who designed life
> >> *not* to look like it evolved. The ability of godless men to deceive
> >> themselves is unparalleled.
> >
> >So, apparently, is that magnificent deception of God's... the fossil
> >record.
>
> The fossil record supports creation. Ever heard of punctuated
> equilibrium? This sub-theory of evolution recognizes that fossils
> appear fully formed without ancestors, survive for long periods
> unchanged and then disappear into extinction. No support for evolution
> there.
No, it says that animals appear within a period of time short enough to
make fossilization unlikely. 500,000 years or so.
Is this in conflict with the record?
> The fossil record is an interpreted record. It does not appear
> consistently in the 'correct' order. Only about 1/3 of fossils are
> found in the 'correct' order.
I am hesitant to ask what you mean by correct order, but out of order
fossils are no suprise to geolgists, who undertand the processes which
result in inversions, and know what traces to look for.
> It's not God who has manufactured a deception, it is man.
So you admit God is an evolutionist?
> >> Perhaps you could explain why you think that extinctions contradict
> >> divine design?
> >
> >God is perfect therefore His designs are perfect. No animals are
> >perfect, therefore no animals are designs of God. Extinction is proof
> >of imperfection.
>
> God does not create perfection because He would be creating Himself.
> He creates animals in the image of the heavenly zoa.
>
> Extinction is proof of creation.
Your above statements have no theological or scientific backing.
William
On 29 Aug 1997 13:25:44 GMT, mer...@wangfed.com (Jim Meritt) wrote:
>In article <33f5c5fe...@news.clara.net>, ta...@mail.clara.net says...
>
>>Some christians are creationists; others strongly oppose them.
>>Some creationists accept evolution; others strongly oppose it.
>>Some christians who are creationists and who accept evolution also
>>accept the genesis account; others strongly oppose that, saying that
>>it has to be taken as a poetry . . . . .and so on.
>
>
>Concerning your "and so on". Are you aware of any non-christian creatonists?
>If so, could you enlighten us?
Ah . . . interesting.
But I would think it quite possible. Some of the militant
creationists I have had to endure (a small minority only) have played
a part in putting me (and many others) off the whole idea of
christianity. I can only assume, therefore, that they are in it for
the creationism and not the christianity.
William
Bud
Dan Hughes <DanH...@aol.com> wrote in article
<5u6m01$cgu$2...@ionews.ionet.net>...
says...
<snipped>
> An organisms can't be selected for an environment
> that doesn't exist. This is reality. When the environment that it
> *has* been selected for changes, the organisms is in *big* trouble.
>
> It can't adapt and goes extinct. Not good for evolution.
>
No. Not good for the organism, but a point for evolution since the
organism was no longer "suited" for the environment. This is just the type
of situation that evolution would predict would happen.
> Please explain how this does not contradict evolution and is a
> prediction of the same. And please, no circular arguments that rely
> on your own definitions of "evolution", "adaptation" and the like -
> demonstrate the mechanics.
>
The fact that the genetic material of many organisms has "changed" or
evolved over time is well documented. The mechanics of how this happens is
still a subject of theory. Scientists have uncovered many factors that
contribute to these "changes", but most will agree that there is still
much to learn before anyone can fully explain how and why organisms change.
The fact that no one currently ability to prove the mechanics of evolution
does not mean that evolution does not exist. The early Babylonians didn't
have to understand the "mechanics" of the solar system and the stars above
to accurately predict such things as eclipses.
>
> If organisms *were* able to 'preadapt', that would be evidence in *favor*
> of evolution. The obviously would never go extinct and would be more
> 'fit'.
>
Evolution doesn't say this. Actually, if organisms "were" able to
preadapt, wouldn't THIS be proof the Creationism is the "correct" approach?
Since God is suppose to be all-knowing, he would know what is going to
happen and let selected organisms "preadapt."
> You obviously believe that what exists *must* support evolution, and
> try to relate it no matter how contradictory it is.
>
You have it backwards. Evolution (much like the Babylonians' "ability" to
predict things like eclipses) was built on observing and gathering
evidence. Our understanding of the concepts like gravity were built on
similar measures. Men like Newton and Gallieo observed, gathered evidence
and tested different theories on gravity.
BJ
Carrie Laben
com> <Pine.A41.3.95.970813...@green.weeg.uiowa.edu> <01bca989$dbd64e40$a365...@Corinthian.netaccess.co.nz> <33f59491...@crc-news.doc.ca> <33F5A6...@direct.ca> <33f5c5fe...@news.clara.net> <5u6iko$h...@elf.wang.com> <34071d72...@news.clara.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cu-dialup-0001.cit.cornell.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I)
Xref: cornellcs alt.atheism:570607 sci.skeptic:331916 talk.atheism:111747
It would seem to me that any religion that has a creation story could
produce 'creationists'... those who believe that humans were literally
produce by the Raven from a seedpod or whatever... I haven't run into
many of those though.
- Cassandra
wf...@enter.netxx
On 26 Aug 1997 13:35:04 GMT, DanH...@aol.com (Dan Hughes) wrote:
>Survival of the 'lucky' and of the 'helped and cared for' is included in
>'survival of the fittest' when it suits the evolutionist agenda.
as i say, this is one reason its futile to argue science with
creationists: they just make stuff up to support their religious
agenda.
what does his sentence above mean? where is the proof? other than
being mere propaganda, of what value is it?
>
wf...@enter.netxx
On 28 Aug 1997 21:44:16 GMT, DanH...@aol.com (Dan Hughes) wrote:
>
>Specialization is not more 'efficient'. It places the organism at a
>higher risk of extinction.
wrong. since the organism survives your argument is incorrect. there
are organisms that live inside rocks...thats highly specialized. but
they survive. and thats evolution
>My favorite argument from the evolutionists is when they call decline,
>'change' and then assert that there is no qualitative direction
>inherent in 'change'.
as i say, creationists dont understand science. the sentence above is
incoherent babbling. creattionism is religion, not science. no
scientific theory requires gods existence. none.
>
>Under that assumption, Down's Syndrome is as valuable to mankind as is
>genius. Maybe they prefer that argument because so many of them are
>afflicted with it?
ah, the ad hominem when an argument fails
>
>
>Which is why the tendency to adapt to particular environments is so
>devastating. Environmental changes (the next ice age) guarantee that
>the tropical species will be eliminated.
so what? the organism survives. if the next ice age is 10,000 yrs away
and each generation in an organisms life is 10 days...well even a
creationist can work out the math.
and yes, species DO go extinct when the next ice age comes. a
geologist at Cal Tech has just discovered a recent shift in the
earth's land masses which may have caused a mass extinction millions
of years ago. evolution in action.
>No, this is what I observe in reality. That it doesn't support
>evolution is not my problem. It is a problem for evolution.
so you say. its not what scientists say. as i said, you dont
understand science so you make stuff up.
>
>
wf...@enter.netxx
On 27 Aug 1997 14:55:14 GMT, DanH...@aol.com (Dan Hughes) wrote:
>Bacteria that develop resistance to antibiotics do so at a cost.
they survive...thats a cost?
There
>are fitness losses associated with the deleterious mutation that confers
>antibiotic resistance. This is documented.
and they survive. your point?
>
That it confers resistance is
>unfortunate for us, but it does so at an absolute cost to the fitness
>of the organism.
if that were true they wouldnt get a chance to become resistant
because theyd die. so you are wrong.
>
>This is actually evidence of a created genome in a state of 2LoT decline.
golly when i did my graduate work in thermo i saw nothing about
evolution vs SLOT. as i say, creationists make stuff up to support
their religious ideology. its a lie in defense of religion. bad
science...bad religion
wf...@enter.netxx
On 29 Aug 1997 13:38:37 GMT, DanH...@aol.com (Dan Hughes) wrote:
Natural disasters and genetic drift have
>a far greater impact on populations than 'natural selection'.
and this is one reason there are various theories on HOW not IF
evolution takes place. we scientists accept evolution as fact. only
those whose religious bias interferes with their objectivity dont.
>
wf...@enter.netxx
On 27 Aug 1997 18:17:09 GMT, DanH...@aol.com (Dan Hughes) wrote:
>You do need to study up a bit though. Antibiotic resistance is the
>result of mutations, naturally occurring ones that are normally
>deleterious because they reduce the fitness of the organism.
>
well since the bacteria survive in the presence of antibiotics it
seems you are wrong.
>>(Yes, they may not have been as "fit"
>>as the bacteria that "A" killed, but it doesn't matter since there is less
>>competion.
>
yep, because the ones that were less fit died. a nice confirmation of
evolution in action
>
wf...@enter.netxx
On 29 Aug 1997 13:25:44 GMT, mer...@wangfed.com (Jim Meritt) wrote:
>
>Concerning your "and so on". Are you aware of any non-christian creatonists?
>If so, could you enlighten us?
>
>--
there are some orthodox jews who also hold to biblical literalism. i
think a more valid question is 'is there any creationist who is not a
biblical literalist'
assuming we are, of course talking about YEC's.
Andreas Jonson
In article <01bcb4d5$4b084c40$79933dcf@notebook>, "Jennifer "
<pi...@efni.com> wrote:
> Do you believe that God exists?
Which god?
Ax.
--
- I used to be indecisive; now I'm not so sure. -
Jonathan Rosenberg
Having grown up in a Jewish family, I can factually say that the orthodox
Jews still beleive in creationionism, most of the modern Jews don't.
--
Jonathan Rosenberg
Rosenb...@osu.edu*
ruff...@email.msn.com*
Jim Meritt wrote in message <5u6iko$h...@elf.wang.com>...
>In article <33f5c5fe...@news.clara.net>, ta...@mail.clara.net says...
>
>>Some christians are creationists; others strongly oppose them.
>>Some creationists accept evolution; others strongly oppose it.
>>Some christians who are creationists and who accept evolution also
>>accept the genesis account; others strongly oppose that, saying that
>>it has to be taken as a poetry . . . . .and so on.
>
>
>Concerning your "and so on". Are you aware of any non-christian
creatonists?
>If so, could you enlighten us?
>
>--