Science/Creation
O. C. Swimmer
Oct.1984
"Vital Articles on Science/Creation"
No. 136 - Evolution: The Changing Scene
By Duane T. Gish, Ph.D.
Prof. Derek Ager of the University at Swansea, Wales, in Proc.
Geol. Assoc. Vol. 87, p. 132 (1976) has stated
"It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I
learned as a student, from Trueman's Ostrea/Gryphea to
Carruther's Raphrentis delanouei, have now been 'debunked.'
Similarly, my own experience of more than twenty years looking
for evolutionary lineages among the Mesozoic Brachiopoda has
proved them equally elusive."
This admission by Prof. Ager (no friend of creationists) fits in
very well with the title of this article - a significant part of the
changing scene in evolutionary circles is the changing attitude
of evolutionists concerning the fossil record - more and more are
now admitting that the missing links are still missing, that they have
little or no evidence for gradual change in the fossil record.
In his article in Natural History 87:22 (1977) entitled "The
Return of Hopeful Monsters," Stephen J. Gould, leading
spokesman for evolutionists in the U.S. today, said that
"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support
for gradual change..."
"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious
little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major
groups are characteristically abrupt."
From an article published in Paleobiology, Vol 3 (1977) by
S.J. Gould and Niles Eldredge we find the following on p. 147
"At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic
morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble,
though it remains the 'official' position of most Western
evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Bauplane are
almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments;
there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record
(curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count)."
In his review of Steven Stanley's book Macroevolution by
D.S. Woodruff (Science 208:716 (1980)), Woodruff says
(I believe he is quoting Stanley):
"But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their
history and the record fails to contain a single example of a
significant transition."
The clatter has become so loud that even the popular press has
picked it up. Newsweek in an article entitled "Is Man a Subtle
Accident?" published Nov. 3, 1980, stated
"The missing link between man and the apes, whose absence
has comforted religious fundamentalists since the days of Darwin,
is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom
creatures... The more scientists have searched for the transitional
forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated."
Some evolutionists have come to realize that the fossil record is so
bad relative to evolution theory that they want to avoid it entirely as
support for evolution. Mark Ridley, a British evolutionist, tells us in
his article published in New Scientist 90:832 (1981) that
"No real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, used
the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution
as opposed to special creation."
One might immediately wonder, then , where does Ridley
believe we find all the marvelous evidence for the "fact of evolution?"
Why, from the "observed evolution of species, from biogeograghy,
and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy," Ridley tells us.
He apparently disagrees with his fellow evolutionist and the most
distinguished of all French zoologists, Pierre grasse, who states in
his book Evolution of Living Organisms (English translation,
Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 4)
"Naturalists must remember that the process of evolution is
revealed only through fossil forms. A knowledge of
paleontology is, therefore, a prerequisite; only paleontology
can provide them with the evidence of evolution and reveal its
course or mechanisms. Neither the examination of present
beings, nor imagination, nor theories can serve as a substitute
for paleontological documents."
What grasse says in his book is that biology offers us no help
in our attempt to understand the mechanism of evolution. He says
that evolution is a mystery about which little is, and perhaps can
be, known. He says certainly mutations and natural selection
cannot possibly provide that mechanism.
Many others in more recent times, in view of the growing
knowledge that the fossil record produces no evidence for gradual
change and that the gaps in the fossil record, particularly at the
level of the higher categories, are systematic and almost always
large, are now abandoning the neo-Darwinian theory of slow
gradual change. Gould has said that as a general principle,
neo-Darwinism is dead, although it is still textbook orthodoxy.
In his comments on a new mechanism for evolution postulated
by Edward Wiley and Daniel Brooks, Roger Lewin (Science
217:1239-1240, 1982) says
"Natural selection, a central feature of neo-Darwinism, is
allowed for in Brooks and Wiley's theory, but only as a minor
influence. 'It can affect survivorship' says Brooks. 'It can weed
out some of the complexity and so slow down the information
decay that results in speciation. It may have a stabilizing effect,
but it does not promote speciation. It is not a creative force as
many people have suggested.' "
Let me point out first of all that all of this sounds familiar-it is
the source that is astounding. The view just stated is precisely
what has been said by creationists ever since Edward Blyth in
1830. Natural selection is a stabilizing force. It is not a creative
force, the driving mechanism of evolution, which has been responsible
for the conversion of one organism into another, all the way from
amoeba to man. But now, notice who is saying this-evolutionists!
Even more, they are saying that natural selection is not only not
the mechanism for evolution, it actually retards the evolutionary
process. They say that natural selection slows down the information
decay that results in speciation. That statement is absolutely
astounding on two points.
First of all, their admission that natural selection not only is not
the mechanism of evolution but actually acts contrary to evolution
is most revealing. Secondly, that speciation, and thus evolution,
occurs by the decay of information. Now that is really startling!
We creationists have long pressed the point that the random
processes supposedly at work in evolution cannot possibly
account for the origin of new information required for increase in
complexity and the generation of new functions and organs required
by evolution. Evolutionists have, on the contrary, insisted that this
was possible.
Now Wiley and Brooks are claiming that all of us were wrong,
both creationists and evolutionists. Evolution, from the primordial
single-celled organisms to the millions of present-day organisms,
including man with his 30 trillion cells of over 200 varieties,
including a three-pound human brain with twelve billion brain cells
and 120 trillion connections, is the result of the decay of information!
Whatever anyone might think of that theory, certainly we can
all recognize that they are rejecting Darwinism. As I have said
earlier, many others are doing the same. Science Digest (Sept.-Oct
1980, p. 55) had an article entitled "Was Darwin Wrong?" The
British Broadcasting Company produced a television program a
year or two ago entitled "Did Darwin Get It Wrong?" Stephen J.
Gould, Niles Eldredge, Steven Stanley and others have abandoned
neo-Darwinism for what they call "punctuated equilibrium." They
suggest that what we see in the fossil record is that species abruptly
appear, fully-formed. They remain virtually unchanged for the
duration of their existence, up to ten million years of even more,
and they then abruptly disappear and are replaced by other
species that also abruptly appear fully formed with no evidence
of transitional forms.
They suggest that the evolutionary transitions occur somewhere
out in an isolated area on the periphery of the main population and
that the transitions occur very rapidly in small populations. The
change is so rapid and the numbers are so small, we are told, that
there are no opportunities for fossilization of the transitional forms.
Let me point out, first of all, that this notion of punctuated
equilibrium is no mechanism at all. It is simply a new scenario.
They are saying that since we don't find transitional forms, evolution
could not have occurred slowly and gradually, so obviously, then,
it must have occurred rapidly. How and why evolution occurs so
rapidly, no one knows. As a matter of fact, the idea that multiplied
millions of rapid bursts of evolution have occurred is contrary to
the science of modern genetics. The genetic apparatus of a lizard,
for example, is totally devoted to producing another lizard. The
idea that by some random evolutionary process the genetic apparatus
of a lizard could be rapidly reorganized to produce something really
significantly different is clearly contrary to everything we know.
Evolutionists simply have no mechanism for evolution.
Secondly, the notion of punctuated equilibrium doesn't solve
the really serious problem evolutionists have with the fossil record.
In fact, it doesn't even address that problem. The idea of
punctuated equilibrium was invented to explain the lack of
transitional forms between species. But that is not the real problem.
The really serious problem is the absence of transitional forms
between the higher categories, that is, between families, orders,
classes and phyla. The total absence, for example, of transitional
forms between invertebrates and the fishes, a vast gulf supposedly
spanning 100 million years. We have no transitional forms between
basic morphological designs, or what creationists call the created
kinds.
Evolutionists find themselves in a most embarrassing position
today. They can find neither the transitional forms in the fossil
record that their theory demands nor can they find a mechanism
to explain now the evolutionary process supposedly occurred.
I am reminded of what Owl said in the Pogo comic strip. He said,
"If we had some ham, we could have ham and eggs for breakfast-if
we had some eggs!"
Certainly we are witnessing a changing scene in evolutionary
circles today. They are finally admitting that the fossil record shows
little or no evidence for gradual change (which is precisely what we
must predict of the basis of creation). Many are now rejecting
Darwinism and are suggesting radical new theories concerning the
evolutionary process. But. almost all chorus in unison-evolution is
a fact!
Isn't that amazing! One hundred and twenty-years after Darwin
the missing links are still missing, and that wonderful, marvelous
Darwinian mechanism that was responsible for swinging the
majority of scientists over to evolution is now becoming rapidly
discredited. Yet, somehow, we are told, everyone knows that
evolution is a fact! Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the
British Museum of Natural History, said in a talk he gave at the
American Museum of Natural History, November 5, 1981, that
he now realizes that in accepting evolution he had moved from
science into faith. In a recent BBC program Dr. Patterson stated
that all we really have of the evolutionary phylogenetic tree are the
tips of the branches. All else-the filling in of the trunk and of the
branches-is simply story telling of one kind or another.
From: Institute For Creation Research
1984 All Rights Reserved
2100 Greenfield Dr., El Cajon, Ca 92021
Ricky
"O. C. Swimmer" <cag...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:9i1gpi$h8q$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
> IMPACT
> Oct.1984
> "Vital Articles on Science/Creation"
> No. 136 - Evolution: The Changing Scene
> By Duane T. Gish, Ph.D.
[...]
And folks here tell me that evolution is a proven thing. Careful and
thoughtful science will eventually prove, or confirm special creation. Yet
the cool thing is I don't need to wait for that event, before realising that
truth. Because the Bible teaches it.
Thanks for the post O.C.
Jon Fleming
>
>"O. C. Swimmer" <cag...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:9i1gpi$h8q$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
>> IMPACT
>> Oct.1984
>> "Vital Articles on Science/Creation"
>> No. 136 - Evolution: The Changing Scene
>> By Duane T. Gish, Ph.D.
>
>[...]
>
>And folks here tell me that evolution is a proven thing.
And we're right. One other thing of which we can be sure is that
_anything_ written by Duane Gish on the subject of evolution is a lie,
and any quote he presents is out of context. For examples see:
<http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/gish.html>
<http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/bullfrog.html>
>Careful and
>thoughtful science will eventually prove, or confirm special creation.
Unlikely ... and Gish is certainly incapable.
Did you notice the publication date on that article?
> Yet
>the cool thing is I don't need to wait for that event, before realising that
>truth. Because the Bible teaches it.
>
>Thanks for the post O.C.
--
Change "nospam" to "group" to email
Ricky
"Jon Fleming" <jo...@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:n8u8kt05v1ttsk7ek...@4ax.com...
> On 5 Jul 2001 08:02:18 -0400, "Ricky" <no...@ricky.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"O. C. Swimmer" <cag...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> >news:9i1gpi$h8q$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
> >> IMPACT
> >> Oct.1984
> >> "Vital Articles on Science/Creation"
> >> No. 136 - Evolution: The Changing Scene
> >> By Duane T. Gish, Ph.D.
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >And folks here tell me that evolution is a proven thing.
>
> And we're right. One other thing of which we can be sure is that
> _anything_ written by Duane Gish on the subject of evolution is a lie,
> and any quote he presents is out of context. For examples see:
>
> <http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/gish.html>
> <http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/bullfrog.html>
Thanks for the links.
> >Careful and
> >thoughtful science will eventually prove, or confirm special creation.
>
> Unlikely ... and Gish is certainly incapable.
>
> Did you notice the publication date on that article?
Well, yes I did. I wondered.
> > Yet
> >the cool thing is I don't need to wait for that event, before realising
that
> >truth. Because the Bible teaches it.
> >
> >Thanks for the post O.C.
My real source of beleif is in theological texts. Not scientifically
educated men.
pz
"Ricky" <no...@ricky.com> wrote:
[snip]
> My real source of beleif is in theological texts. Not scientifically
> educated men.
Yes, that much is obvious. The really sad thing, though, is that you are
proud of the fact.
--
pz
Pip R. Lagenta
pasted:
>IMPACT
>Oct.1984
>"Vital Articles on Science/Creation"
>No. 136 - Evolution: The Changing Scene
>By Duane T. Gish, Ph.D.
Do I have the time and energy to count (or discount) Gish's lies?
Sadly, no.
Therefore, I snip to the little bit I want to comment on...
[snip]
> Isn't that amazing! One hundred and twenty-years after Darwin
>the missing links are still missing, and that wonderful, marvelous
....Except for all the thousands of "missing links" that have been
found. Gish is playing the old creationist word game here: if it is
"found" then it is not "missing" and therefore can't be a "*missing*
link". If it is "found" then it is a "found link". Creations *never*
talk about "found links". Only those links that still remain missing
(which are fewer all the time) matter to the creationist.
>Darwinian mechanism that was responsible for swinging the
>majority of scientists over to evolution is now becoming rapidly
>discredited.
This is Gish's wishful thinking at best, and a bald-faced lie at most
likely.
>Yet, somehow, we are told, everyone knows that
>evolution is a fact!
Why did Gish need to make the above statement into a lie?
We *are* told that "evolution is a fact", because that is the truth.
We are not told that "everyone knows that" evolution is a fact!
Is there no truth in even the simplest thing Gish has to say?
>Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the
>British Museum of Natural History, said in a talk he gave at the
>American Museum of Natural History, November 5, 1981, that
>he now realizes that in accepting evolution he had moved from
>science into faith.
I see at
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html>
that Gish is continuing the deceit. Unfortunately, duplicity and
chicanery are Gish's *only* effective tools. It is disappointing to
me just how effective these tools are.
>In a recent BBC program Dr. Patterson stated
>that all we really have of the evolutionary phylogenetic tree are the
>tips of the branches. All else-the filling in of the trunk and of the
>branches-is simply story telling of one kind or another.
Given Gish's unrelenting history of lies, how could any decent person
ever believe anything Gish might put forward? The answer, sad as it
may be, is that sometimes even decent people are fools.
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
Paul Ruggeri
O. C. Swimmer <cag...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:9i1gpi$h8q$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
> IMPACT
Without going into detail, this is a classic case of many, many quotes being
taken out of context, half-truths of what the modern theories relly say, and
outright lies about the abscence of transitional forms. Is so full of so
many classic creationist logical blunders that (except for the size and
'sweep' of the article) it's almost beneath notice.
wf...@ptd.net
wonder if he thinks theologians invented his computer. if he believed
what he says, he'd turn his computer off and study the bible to learn
how to make computers.
wf...@ptd.net
how can something which is undefined be confirmed? creationism has no
mechanism. its pure magic. its like watching a magician onstage, and
pretending its reality.
Jon Fleming
wrote:
>On 5 Jul 2001 06:49:56 -0400, "O. C. Swimmer" <cag...@ix.netcom.com>
>pasted:
>>IMPACT
>>Oct.1984
>>"Vital Articles on Science/Creation"
>>No. 136 - Evolution: The Changing Scene
>>By Duane T. Gish, Ph.D.
<snip>
>>Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the
>>British Museum of Natural History, said in a talk he gave at the
>>American Museum of Natural History, November 5, 1981, that
>>he now realizes that in accepting evolution he had moved from
>>science into faith.
>
>I see at
><http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html>
>that Gish is continuing the deceit.
Notice the date of publication of the posted article (1984) and the
date on which Theunissen first heard of the quote (1993, from the
link you posted). What we see is that the ICR does not acknowledge
errors, but it is possible (though IMHO unlikely) that Gish is no
longer promulgating this lie.
> Unfortunately, duplicity and
>chicanery are Gish's *only* effective tools. It is disappointing to
>me just how effective these tools are.
Indeed.
>
>>In a recent BBC program Dr. Patterson stated
>>that all we really have of the evolutionary phylogenetic tree are the
>>tips of the branches. All else-the filling in of the trunk and of the
>>branches-is simply story telling of one kind or another.
>
>Given Gish's unrelenting history of lies, how could any decent person
>ever believe anything Gish might put forward? The answer, sad as it
>may be, is that sometimes even decent people are fools.
And that even decent people tend to believe what agrees with their
preconceptions without question. This is one reason for the structure
of scientific inquiry.
Of course, the information on Gish's duplicity is not as widely spread
as is the fruit of his duplicity.
>
>內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
> Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
>�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
>
> -- Pip R. Lagenta
>President for Life
>International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
>(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
--
Ricky
"pz" <my...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:myers-0CA2C5....@news.onvoy.net...
I'm not saying I'm blind to science. But on this issue, there are reasons
why a person in my position, chooses theology over science. Not least of
which is that I don't see science actually having proved evolution.
In fact I'm virtually, if not, actually, in the situation of not being able
to beleive in evolution. Because to do so I would have to deny what I see
as God's word. And what would be the consequences of that. But the thing
is, I really do beleive in God's word. I'm not hedging my bets or choosing
to beleive it for a hoped for reward. It is the truth as far as I am
concerned. I can only change my mind by dumping God's word, which I have
faith in. I personally would have to loose faith if I embraced evolution.
Either scriptures are true or evolution is true. In my peculiar
circumstances I cannot have both. God's word must prevail.
Jon Fleming
>IMPACT
>Oct.1984
>"Vital Articles on Science/Creation"
>No. 136 - Evolution: The Changing Scene
>By Duane T. Gish, Ph.D.
<snip>
A few links on creationist misquoting:
<http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/quotes.html>
<http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry/evobio/evc/sc_misq.html>
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/snrfab.html>
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/>
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-whoppers.html>
<http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/misquote.htm>
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/monkeyquote.html>
<http://home.mmcable.com/harlequin/evol/lies/index.html>
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html> (already posted in another mesage in this thread)
Dave Oldridge
news:9HY07.3634$Jk6.9...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com:
Would you care to set a time limit on when this will actually happen and then
bet real money on it? Or are you like the Baptist seminary student who
gravely informed me in 1965 that man would never be permitted by God to set
foot on the moon. He even had a number of Bible verses ready to support the
contention. *I* had a $1000. And he had a really memorable name (Bill
Smith, I think). I, on the other hand, am easy to find but, to my knowledge,
he has never ever looked.
First of all, it can be argued that the Bible teaches no such thing. You
arrive at this notion by reifying a metaphor (and losing it's intended
meaning in the process).
Second, although science may be wrong about many things, science works by
disproving things, not by proving them. Science has ALREADY disproven young-
earth creationism and it is highly unlikely that any new science will
resurrect the notion. Moreover, those claiming to HAVE such science are
invariably shown to be either sloppy workers or liars (or both).
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
=============================================================================
=================
Paradoxically, nearly all real events are highly improbable
--me, 2000AD
Mark VandeWettering
> I'm not saying I'm blind to science. But on this issue, there are reasons
> why a person in my position, chooses theology over science.
Ignorance?
Senility?
It makes you feel better?
Help me out here.
> Not least of
> which is that I don't see science actually having proved evolution.
>
> In fact I'm virtually, if not, actually, in the situation of not being able
> to beleive in evolution.
Of course you are. That's rather the point.
> Because to do so I would have to deny what I see as God's word.
So instead you are forced to deny that which you observe around you every
day. This kind of self delusion in itself is probably harmless, although
I suspect more often than not it merely sets one up for bigger and bigger
lies.
[ snippage ]
> I personally would have to loose faith if I embraced evolution.
Many people do. This is due in no small part due to the realization that
religion requires you to accept absurd things as true.
> Either scriptures are true or evolution is true. In my peculiar
> circumstances I cannot have both. God's word must prevail.
"La la la. I am not an ape. I can't hear you. La la la."
Mark
--
/* __ __ __ ____ __*/float m,a,r,k,v;main(i){for(;r<4;r+=.1){for(a=0;
/*| \/ |\ \ / /\ \ / /*/a<4;a+=.06){k=v=0;for(i=99;--i&&k*k+v*v<4;)m=k*k
/*| |\/| | \ V / \ \/\/ / */-v*v+a-2,v=2*k*v+r-2,k=m;putchar("X =."[i&3]);}
/*|_| |_ark\_/ande\_/\_/ettering <ma...@telescopemaking.org> */puts("");}}
ZenIsWhen
>IMPACT
>Oct.1984
>"Vital Articles on Science/Creation"
To what purpose would you create a large post from people we know, already, to
be liars, fools and frauds?
wf...@ptd.net
>
>"pz" <my...@mac.com> wrote in message
>news:myers-0CA2C5....@news.onvoy.net...
>> In article <qd%07.3869$Tv5.5...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
>> "Ricky" <no...@ricky.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > My real source of beleif is in theological texts. Not scientifically
>> > educated men.
>>
>> Yes, that much is obvious. The really sad thing, though, is that you are
>> proud of the fact.
>
>I'm not saying I'm blind to science. But on this issue, there are reasons
>why a person in my position, chooses theology over science. Not least of
>which is that I don't see science actually having proved evolution.
science doesnt have to prove evolution. its an observed fact in
nature. and we can duplicate it in the lab. we've seen speciation.
as to choosing theology over science, be my guest. astrologers do so
as well. so do ouija board players. you're just another crackpot.
>
>In fact I'm virtually, if not, actually, in the situation of not being able
>to beleive in evolution. Because to do so I would have to deny what I see
>as God's word.
your VIEW of god's word. there's no indication you're right, and every
indication you're wrong on your view of 'god's word'. you yourself
have stated most other christians are wrong. so other than your own
personal opinion, there's no reason why your belief is valid.
>
>Either scriptures are true or evolution is true. In my peculiar
>circumstances I cannot have both. God's word must prevail.
>
your view of gods word. which has no bearing on the bible itself.
none.
Adam Marczyk
news:EX%07.3987$Tv5.5...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
What are your "peculiar circumstances," and how do they differ from those of
the large majority of practicing Christians who do accept evolution and
don't see any conflict with their faith?
--
And I want to conquer the world,
give all the idiots a brand new religion,
put an end to poverty, uncleanliness and toil,
promote equality in all of my decisions...
--Bad Religion, "I Want to Conquer the World"
To send e-mail, change "excite" to "hotmail"
Adam Marczyk
news:9i1gpi$h8q$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
Allow me to demonstrate why Gish is an untrustworthy liar.
> IMPACT
> Oct.1984
> "Vital Articles on Science/Creation"
> No. 136 - Evolution: The Changing Scene
> By Duane T. Gish, Ph.D.
[snip]
> In his article in Natural History 87:22 (1977) entitled "The
> Return of Hopeful Monsters," Stephen J. Gould, leading
> spokesman for evolutionists in the U.S. today, said that
> "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support
> for gradual change..."
> "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious
> little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major
> groups are characteristically abrupt."
> From an article published in Paleobiology, Vol 3 (1977) by
> S.J. Gould and Niles Eldredge we find the following on p. 147
> "At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic
> morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble,
> though it remains the 'official' position of most Western
> evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Bauplane are
> almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments;
> there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record
> (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count)."
> In his review of Steven Stanley's book Macroevolution by
"Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of
their
own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress
their
rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am for I have become
a
major target of these practices.
We proposed the theory of punctuated equilibria largely to provide a
different
explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record. Trends, we argued,
cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages, but must
arise
from the differential success of certain kinds of species. A trend, we
argued,
is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuation and stasis) than
rolling
up an inclined plane.
Continuing the distortion, several creationists have equated the theory of
punctuated equilibrium with a caricature of the beliefs of Richard
Goldschmidt,
a great early geneticist.
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating
to
be quoted again and again by creationists, whether through design or
stupidity,
I do not know as admitting that the fossil record includes no
transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species
level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
-Stephen Jay Gould, _Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes_
[snip]
Sanjay
Ricky wrote:
"But the earth is not fixed as in the Predestine Bible. Either scriptures are
true or the earth moves is true In my peculiar circumstances I cannot have
both. God's word must prevail." ....rephrase
You seem to have both in your belief. What is the difference between
evolution and the earth being fixed? In fact, it says nothing about evolution
but does about the earth being the center and fixed.
Adam Marczyk
>
> "O. C. Swimmer" <cag...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:9i1gpi$h8q$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
> > IMPACT
> > Oct.1984
> > "Vital Articles on Science/Creation"
> > No. 136 - Evolution: The Changing Scene
> > By Duane T. Gish, Ph.D.
>
> [...]
>
> And folks here tell me that evolution is a proven thing. Careful and
> thoughtful science will eventually prove, or confirm special creation.
Sorry to be the bringer of bad news, but it's never going to happen.
Creationism _already_ had its day in the scientific mainstream -- a few
hundred years ago. Even before Darwin, _creationist_ geologists recognized
that the Genesis/flood interpretation simply could not be reconciled with
the evidence, but they still held to a theory of progressive creation. But
when evolution came along, even that was thrown out, because evolution
simply explains so many facts and so much evidence that creationism cannot.
> Yet
> the cool thing is I don't need to wait for that event, before realising
that
> truth. Because the Bible teaches it.
The Bible also teaches the earth is flat and covered by a solid firmament,
but I bet you don't believe that.
> Thanks for the post O.C.
Duane Gish is bearing false witness for God. I'm sure you don't want to
throw in with him.
O. C. Swimmer
I can here it now. Noah, your a liar,
fool and a fraud, BTW Noah, what's rain?
Ricky
"Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:9i27aq$13o0$1...@node21.cwnet.roc.gblx.net...
> Ricky <no...@ricky.com> wrote in message
> news:EX%07.3987$Tv5.5...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> >
> > "pz" <my...@mac.com> wrote in message
> > news:myers-0CA2C5....@news.onvoy.net...
> > > In article <qd%07.3869$Tv5.5...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
> > > "Ricky" <no...@ricky.com> wrote:
[...]
> > Either scriptures are true or evolution is true. In my peculiar
> > circumstances I cannot have both. God's word must prevail.
>
> What are your "peculiar circumstances," and how do they differ from those
of
> the large majority of practicing Christians who do accept evolution and
> don't see any conflict with their faith?
As most folks should understand by now I'm not working with the Bible only.
I'm working with other religious text that describes Adam blessing his
posterity, and there's information delineating a line of priesthood
authority from Moses back to Adam. Okay, taking this into consideration Adam
is clearly and without a doubt a real person. Which then tells me the
creation account in the Bible is literal.
Well, if I were to believe in evolution, then that means I have to discard
the text I'm reading. And if I do that then the whole thing is a sham. But
I "know" the text isn't a sham, so I cannot believe in evolution as well as
Adam. God's word must therefore prevail. I dont know evolution is true, in
fact I'd say I "know" evolution is false. I cannot know Adam is true and
evolution is true at the same time.
wf...@ptd.net
well at least he's honest to say he accept some arbitrary version of a
made up theology that is indefensible in place of what we can observe
in the world. astrologers, voodoo priests...creationists. cut from the
same cloth.
the problem is saying evolution is 'false'. he simply has no way to
test that. he just says it is. and thats it. he's applying a magical
test to a physical phenomenon. its bizarre, but i guess in his view of
mormonism, most other christians are just as crazy as scientists.
O. C. Swimmer
The Bible does not teach that. So you don't know what it means.
That's OK, you can learn.
>
>> Thanks for the post O.C.
>
>Duane Gish is bearing false witness for God. I'm sure you don't want to
>throw in with him.
>
>--
>And I want to conquer the world,
>give all the idiots a brand new religion,
>put an end to poverty, uncleanliness and toil,
>promote equality in all of my decisions...
> --Bad(evolutionism)Religion, "I Want to Conquer the World"
mel turner
no...@ricky.com [Ricky] wrote...
>"pz" <my...@mac.com> wrote in message
>news:myers-0CA2C5....@news.onvoy.net...
>> In article <qd%07.3869$Tv5.5...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
>> "Ricky" <no...@ricky.com> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>> > My real source of beleif is in theological texts. Not scientifically
>> > educated men.
>>
>> Yes, that much is obvious. The really sad thing, though, is that you are
>> proud of the fact.
>
>I'm not saying I'm blind to science.
You don't have to say it. It's rather obvious.
>But on this issue, there are reasons
>why a person in my position, chooses theology over science.
Yes, because the science in question contradicts your
own interpretation of the theology.
>Not least of
>which is that I don't see science actually having proved evolution.
For that, you'd have to actually look at the scientific
evidence. It's overwhelming.
>In fact I'm virtually, if not, actually, in the situation of not being able
>to beleive in evolution. Because to do so I would have to deny what I see
>as God's word.
Or, you could simply change your interpretations of the
scriptures.
>And what would be the consequences of that. But the thing
>is, I really do beleive in God's word. I'm not hedging my bets or choosing
>to beleive it for a hoped for reward. It is the truth as far as I am
>concerned. I can only change my mind by dumping God's word, which I have
>faith in. I personally would have to loose faith if I embraced evolution.
>
>Either scriptures are true or evolution is true. In my peculiar
>circumstances I cannot have both. God's word must prevail.
[shrug] Fair enough, but many others might say that you are
forcing a conflict there, where a less literalistic interpretation
could avoid one.
cheers
O. C. Swimmer
I can hear it now. Noah, you're a liar, fool and a fraud.
Pip R. Lagenta
wrote:
>In article <9i27lg$sl2$1...@node21.cwnet.roc.gblx.net>,
> "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com> wrote:
>>The Bible also teaches the earth is flat and covered by a solid firmament,
>>but I bet you don't believe that.
>
>The Bible does not teach that. So you don't know what it means.
Say what? Did you just tell a fib?
Look in your Bible! Here is a path to the relevant parts:
<http://www.student.oulu.fi/~ktikkane/eU_LITT.html>
>That's OK, you can learn.
If *you* can learn, see:
<http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html>
Andrew Glasgow
"Ricky" <no...@ricky.com> wrote:
Then Adam is false in your conception of it, because the physical
evidence indicates that evolution is true, and the physical evidence is
a superior source of knowledge about the physical world than the Bible,
as has been shown repeatedly. I suggest you reevaluate your
interpretation of Genesis to fit physical reality. To do otherwise is
to make base superstition of your faith.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
Pip R. Lagenta
wrote:
>In article <tk94ers...@corp.supernews.com>,
> ZenI...@NOSPAMyahoo.com (ZenIsWhen) wrote:
>>In article <9i1gpi$h8q$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>, "O. C. Swimmer" <cag...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>IMPACT
>>>Oct.1984
>>>"Vital Articles on Science/Creation"
>>
>>To what purpose would you create a large post from people we know, already, to
>>be liars, fools and frauds?
>>
>>
>
>I can here it now. Noah, your a liar,
>fool and a fraud, BTW Noah, what's rain?
Do you want to talk about Noah? We can do that. Start with:
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html>
Or do you just not know Duane Gish?
<http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/science/creationism/gish.html>
rich hammett
> [...]
Mormon.
rich
--
-remove no from mail name and spam from domain to reply
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu
\ ..basketball [is] the paramount
/ synthesis in sport of intelligence, precision, courage,
\ audacity, anticipation, artifice, teamwork, elegance,
/ and grace. --Carl Sagan
Andrew Glasgow
<cag...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> In article <tk94ers...@corp.supernews.com>,
> ZenI...@NOSPAMyahoo.com (ZenIsWhen) wrote:
> >In article <9i1gpi$h8q$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>, "O. C. Swimmer"
> ><cag...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>IMPACT
> >>Oct.1984
> >>"Vital Articles on Science/Creation"
> >
> >To what purpose would you create a large post from people we know,
> >already, to
> >be liars, fools and frauds?
> >
> >
>
> I can here it now. Noah, your a liar,
> fool and a fraud, BTW Noah, what's rain?
>
>
Nothing about Noah. It's Gish who is a known liar.
rich hammett
No kidding. Even among mormon leaders, there is a long tradition of
supporting good science. Look into Henry Eyring (you can find a good bit
of info with a web search).
Of course, there is also a long tradition of reactionary leaders, such as
the current generation still supporting a ban on facial hair as a reaction
against hippies(!).
rich
> cheers
O. C. Swimmer
>wrote:
>>In article <9i27lg$sl2$1...@node21.cwnet.roc.gblx.net>,
>> "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com> wrote:
>[snip]
>>>The Bible also teaches the earth is flat and covered by a solid firmament,
>>>but I bet you don't believe that.
>>
>>The Bible does not teach that. So you don't know what it means.
>
>Say what? Did you just tell a fib?
>Look in your Bible! Here is a path to the relevant parts:
><http://www.student.oulu.fi/~ktikkane/eU_LITT.html>
OK, I checked it out.
Job 38:5 Who hath laid the measures thereof,
if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Are you saying that this means the Bible teaches a flat earth?
Are you saying that we can't stretch a line on a sphere?
Joe Cummings
wrote:
>IMPACT
>Oct.1984
>"Vital Articles on Science/Creation"
>No. 136 - Evolution: The Changing Scene
>By Duane T. Gish, Ph.D.
>Prof. Derek Ager of the University at Swansea, Wales, in Proc.
>Geol. Assoc. Vol. 87, p. 132 (1976) has stated
> "It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I
> learned as a student, from Trueman's Ostrea/Gryphea to
> Carruther's Raphrentis delanouei, have now been 'debunked.'
> Similarly, my own experience of more than twenty years looking
> for evolutionary lineages among the Mesozoic Brachiopoda has
> proved them equally elusive."
> This admission by Prof. Ager (no friend of creationists) fits in
>very well with the title of this article - a significant part of the
>changing scene in evolutionary circles is the changing attitude
>of evolutionists concerning the fossil record - more and more are
>now admitting that the missing links are still missing, that they have
>little or no evidence for gradual change in the fossil record.
> In his article in Natural History 87:22 (1977) entitled "The
>Return of Hopeful Monsters," Stephen J. Gould, leading
>spokesman for evolutionists in the U.S. today, said that
> "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support
> for gradual change..."
> "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious
> little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major
> groups are characteristically abrupt."
> From an article published in Paleobiology, Vol 3 (1977) by
>S.J. Gould and Niles Eldredge we find the following on p. 147
> "At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic
> morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble,
> though it remains the 'official' position of most Western
> evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Bauplane are
> almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments;
> there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record
> (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count)."
> In his review of Steven Stanley's book Macroevolution by
>D.S. Woodruff (Science 208:716 (1980)), Woodruff says
>(I believe he is quoting Stanley):
> "But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their
> history and the record fails to contain a single example of a
> significant transition."
> The clatter has become so loud that even the popular press has
>picked it up. Newsweek in an article entitled "Is Man a Subtle
>Accident?" published Nov. 3, 1980, stated
> "The missing link between man and the apes, whose absence
> has comforted religious fundamentalists since the days of Darwin,
> is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom
> creatures... The more scientists have searched for the transitional
> forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated."
> Some evolutionists have come to realize that the fossil record is so
>bad relative to evolution theory that they want to avoid it entirely as
>support for evolution. Mark Ridley, a British evolutionist, tells us in
>his article published in New Scientist 90:832 (1981) that
> "No real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, used
> the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution
> as opposed to special creation."
> One might immediately wonder, then , where does Ridley
>believe we find all the marvelous evidence for the "fact of evolution?"
>Why, from the "observed evolution of species, from biogeograghy,
>and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy," Ridley tells us.
>He apparently disagrees with his fellow evolutionist and the most
>distinguished of all French zoologists, Pierre grasse, who states in
>his book Evolution of Living Organisms (English translation,
>Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 4)
> "Naturalists must remember that the process of evolution is
> revealed only through fossil forms. A knowledge of
> paleontology is, therefore, a prerequisite; only paleontology
> can provide them with the evidence of evolution and reveal its
> course or mechanisms. Neither the examination of present
> beings, nor imagination, nor theories can serve as a substitute
> for paleontological documents."
> What grasse says in his book is that biology offers us no help
>in our attempt to understand the mechanism of evolution. He says
>that evolution is a mystery about which little is, and perhaps can
>be, known. He says certainly mutations and natural selection
>cannot possibly provide that mechanism.
> Many others in more recent times, in view of the growing
>knowledge that the fossil record produces no evidence for gradual
>change and that the gaps in the fossil record, particularly at the
>level of the higher categories, are systematic and almost always
>large, are now abandoning the neo-Darwinian theory of slow
>gradual change. Gould has said that as a general principle,
>neo-Darwinism is dead, although it is still textbook orthodoxy.
> In his comments on a new mechanism for evolution postulated
>by Edward Wiley and Daniel Brooks, Roger Lewin (Science
>217:1239-1240, 1982) says
> "Natural selection, a central feature of neo-Darwinism, is
> allowed for in Brooks and Wiley's theory, but only as a minor
> influence. 'It can affect survivorship' says Brooks. 'It can weed
> out some of the complexity and so slow down the information
> decay that results in speciation. It may have a stabilizing effect,
> but it does not promote speciation. It is not a creative force as
> many people have suggested.' "
> Let me point out first of all that all of this sounds familiar-it is
>the source that is astounding. The view just stated is precisely
>what has been said by creationists ever since Edward Blyth in
>1830. Natural selection is a stabilizing force. It is not a creative
>force, the driving mechanism of evolution, which has been responsible
>for the conversion of one organism into another, all the way from
>amoeba to man. But now, notice who is saying this-evolutionists!
> Even more, they are saying that natural selection is not only not
>the mechanism for evolution, it actually retards the evolutionary
>process. They say that natural selection slows down the information
>decay that results in speciation. That statement is absolutely
>astounding on two points.
> First of all, their admission that natural selection not only is not
>the mechanism of evolution but actually acts contrary to evolution
>is most revealing. Secondly, that speciation, and thus evolution,
>occurs by the decay of information. Now that is really startling!
>We creationists have long pressed the point that the random
>processes supposedly at work in evolution cannot possibly
>account for the origin of new information required for increase in
>complexity and the generation of new functions and organs required
>by evolution. Evolutionists have, on the contrary, insisted that this
>was possible.
> Now Wiley and Brooks are claiming that all of us were wrong,
>both creationists and evolutionists. Evolution, from the primordial
>single-celled organisms to the millions of present-day organisms,
>including man with his 30 trillion cells of over 200 varieties,
>including a three-pound human brain with twelve billion brain cells
>and 120 trillion connections, is the result of the decay of information!
> Whatever anyone might think of that theory, certainly we can
>all recognize that they are rejecting Darwinism. As I have said
>earlier, many others are doing the same. Science Digest (Sept.-Oct
>1980, p. 55) had an article entitled "Was Darwin Wrong?" The
>British Broadcasting Company produced a television program a
>year or two ago entitled "Did Darwin Get It Wrong?" Stephen J.
>Gould, Niles Eldredge, Steven Stanley and others have abandoned
>neo-Darwinism for what they call "punctuated equilibrium." They
>suggest that what we see in the fossil record is that species abruptly
>appear, fully-formed. They remain virtually unchanged for the
>duration of their existence, up to ten million years of even more,
>and they then abruptly disappear and are replaced by other
>species that also abruptly appear fully formed with no evidence
>of transitional forms.
> They suggest that the evolutionary transitions occur somewhere
>out in an isolated area on the periphery of the main population and
>that the transitions occur very rapidly in small populations. The
>change is so rapid and the numbers are so small, we are told, that
>there are no opportunities for fossilization of the transitional forms.
> Let me point out, first of all, that this notion of punctuated
>equilibrium is no mechanism at all. It is simply a new scenario.
>They are saying that since we don't find transitional forms, evolution
>could not have occurred slowly and gradually, so obviously, then,
>it must have occurred rapidly. How and why evolution occurs so
>rapidly, no one knows. As a matter of fact, the idea that multiplied
>millions of rapid bursts of evolution have occurred is contrary to
>the science of modern genetics. The genetic apparatus of a lizard,
>for example, is totally devoted to producing another lizard. The
>idea that by some random evolutionary process the genetic apparatus
>of a lizard could be rapidly reorganized to produce something really
>significantly different is clearly contrary to everything we know.
>Evolutionists simply have no mechanism for evolution.
> Secondly, the notion of punctuated equilibrium doesn't solve
>the really serious problem evolutionists have with the fossil record.
>In fact, it doesn't even address that problem. The idea of
>punctuated equilibrium was invented to explain the lack of
>transitional forms between species. But that is not the real problem.
>The really serious problem is the absence of transitional forms
>between the higher categories, that is, between families, orders,
>classes and phyla. The total absence, for example, of transitional
>forms between invertebrates and the fishes, a vast gulf supposedly
>spanning 100 million years. We have no transitional forms between
>basic morphological designs, or what creationists call the created
>kinds.
> Evolutionists find themselves in a most embarrassing position
>today. They can find neither the transitional forms in the fossil
>record that their theory demands nor can they find a mechanism
>to explain now the evolutionary process supposedly occurred.
>I am reminded of what Owl said in the Pogo comic strip. He said,
>"If we had some ham, we could have ham and eggs for breakfast-if
>we had some eggs!"
> Certainly we are witnessing a changing scene in evolutionary
>circles today. They are finally admitting that the fossil record shows
>little or no evidence for gradual change (which is precisely what we
>must predict of the basis of creation). Many are now rejecting
>Darwinism and are suggesting radical new theories concerning the
>evolutionary process. But. almost all chorus in unison-evolution is
>a fact!
> Isn't that amazing! One hundred and twenty-years after Darwin
>the missing links are still missing, and that wonderful, marvelous
>Darwinian mechanism that was responsible for swinging the
>majority of scientists over to evolution is now becoming rapidly
>discredited. Yet, somehow, we are told, everyone knows that
>evolution is a fact! Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the
>British Museum of Natural History, said in a talk he gave at the
>American Museum of Natural History, November 5, 1981, that
>he now realizes that in accepting evolution he had moved from
>science into faith. In a recent BBC program Dr. Patterson stated
>that all we really have of the evolutionary phylogenetic tree are the
>tips of the branches. All else-the filling in of the trunk and of the
>branches-is simply story telling of one kind or another.
>
>From: Institute For Creation Research
>1984 All Rights Reserved
>2100 Greenfield Dr., El Cajon, Ca 92021
>
Going from the date, I wonder if this article could be
classified as a creationist fossil?
Have fun,
Joe Cummings
Louann Miller
>In fact I'm virtually, if not, actually, in the situation of not being able
>to beleive in evolution. Because to do so I would have to deny what I see
>as God's word. And what would be the consequences of that.
This double-bind is purely self-inflicted. And you do right to be
afraid of it, but not for the reason you think. In the position you've
put yourself in, in plain language, you're going to have to constantly
lie to yourself. At least by omission. You're going to have to
actively avoid learning anything about biology, because the facts are
against you.
> But the thing
>is, I really do beleive in God's word. I'm not hedging my bets or choosing
>to beleive it for a hoped for reward. It is the truth as far as I am
>concerned. I can only change my mind by dumping God's word, which I have
>faith in. I personally would have to loose faith if I embraced evolution.
The thing you're missing is that the conflict isn't God's word vs.
God's physical evidence. It's _your interpretation_ of God's word vs.
God's physical evidence. (As previously noted, there are plenty of
good Christians who are able to look without flinching at both sets of
evidence; the problem and its solution goes back at least as far as
Augustine around 400 AD.)
It's not God's infallibility that's challenged by evolutionary
biology. It's your own PERSONAL infallibility as an interpreter of
God's text. I'm afraid that I can't be of much help with that, except
to note that the medievals were onto something when they named Pride
as the source of all other sins and Humility as one of the cardinal
virtues.
Louann
Louann Miller
<hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu> wrote:
>Ricky <no...@ricky.com> is alleged to have said:
>>> > Either scriptures are true or evolution is true. In my peculiar
>>> > circumstances I cannot have both. God's word must prevail.
>>>
>>> What are your "peculiar circumstances," and how do they differ from those
>> of
>>> the large majority of practicing Christians who do accept evolution and
>>> don't see any conflict with their faith?
>
>> As most folks should understand by now I'm not working with the Bible only.
>> I'm working with other religious text that describes Adam blessing his
>> posterity, and there's information delineating a line of priesthood
>> authority from Moses back to Adam. Okay, taking this into consideration Adam
>> is clearly and without a doubt a real person. Which then tells me the
>> creation account in the Bible is literal.
>
>> Well, if I were to believe in evolution, then that means I have to discard
>> the text I'm reading. And if I do that then the whole thing is a sham. But
>> I "know" the text isn't a sham, so I cannot believe in evolution as well as
>> Adam. God's word must therefore prevail. I dont know evolution is true, in
>> fact I'd say I "know" evolution is false. I cannot know Adam is true and
>> evolution is true at the same time.
>
>Mormon.
Most Mormons aren't YECs any more. It's always a risk, of course, but
it's not official church doctrine as such.
I'm wondering about "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," myself. Or
maybe something with Templars in.
Louann
Tom
<9i2f5m$tp9$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>, "O. stated..."
The people who wrote the Bible probably didn't think too much
about the shape of the earth. They just assumed that it was as
it looks ... mostly flat with the dome of the sky over it. Whether
the Bible "teaches" every assumption that the writers had, that's
for you to decide. But there is less about "fixity of kinds
(species)" or "evolution is false" in the Bible than there is about
a flat earth.
No, you can't stretch a straight line on a sphere. (I will
concede that that "proof text" is weaker than others, but it is
consistent with a flat earth. You can't do as well with any
"evolution is false" "proof text".)
Tom
Pip R. Lagenta
wrote:
>In article <3b44b100.18969672@news>,
> morbiu...@home.com (Pip R. Lagenta) wrote:
>>On 5 Jul 2001 14:13:07 -0400, "O. C. Swimmer" <cag...@ix.netcom.com>
>>wrote:
>>>In article <9i27lg$sl2$1...@node21.cwnet.roc.gblx.net>,
>>> "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com> wrote:
>>[snip]
>>>>The Bible also teaches the earth is flat and covered by a solid firmament,
>>>>but I bet you don't believe that.
>>>
>>>The Bible does not teach that. So you don't know what it means.
>>
>>Say what? Did you just tell a fib?
>>Look in your Bible! Here is a path to the relevant parts:
>><http://www.student.oulu.fi/~ktikkane/eU_LITT.html>
>
>OK, I checked it out.
>
>Job 38:5 Who hath laid the measures thereof,
>if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
>
>Are you saying that this means the Bible teaches a flat earth?
Yup.
>Are you saying that we can't stretch a line on a sphere?
What "sphere" is that? Please quote chapter and verse for that word
"sphere". In the meantime, this:
<http://web2.airmail.net/capella/aguide/errors.htm>
<http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html>
<http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/tcont.htm>
(BigDiscusser)
I am an 80 year old Christian lady. I am interested in a wide variety of
topics and am a retired RN.
http://community.webtv.net/JOJOYD/BigDiscusser
Jesus loves you.
Morgoth's Cat
scribed:
Then you can too be lumped in with the fools, frauds and liars...
Best Regards,
Dave
--
**************************************************************
* Supernovae, Supernova Remnants and Young-Earth Creationism *
* http://www.valinor.freeserve.co.uk/supernova.html *
**************************************************************
PredawnJessica
>IMPACT
>Oct.1984
>"Vital Articles on Science/Creation"
>No. 136 - Evolution: The Changing Scene
>By Duane T. Gish, Ph.D.
[snip]
People used to believe some silly things back in those days.
Jess
.... A confident manner is important. Computers can sense this.
rossum
wrote:
>"Ricky" <no...@ricky.com> wrote in
>news:9HY07.3634$Jk6.9...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com:
>
>>
>> "O. C. Swimmer" <cag...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> news:9i1gpi$h8q$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
>>> IMPACT
>>> Oct.1984
>>> "Vital Articles on Science/Creation"
>>> No. 136 - Evolution: The Changing Scene
>>> By Duane T. Gish, Ph.D.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> And folks here tell me that evolution is a proven thing. Careful and
>> thoughtful science will eventually prove, or confirm special creation.
>> Yet the cool thing is I don't need to wait for that event, before
>> realising that truth. Because the Bible teaches it.
>
>Would you care to set a time limit on when this will actually happen and then
>bet real money on it? Or are you like the Baptist seminary student who
>gravely informed me in 1965 that man would never be permitted by God to set
>foot on the moon. He even had a number of Bible verses ready to support the
>contention. *I* had a $1000. And he had a really memorable name (Bill
>Smith, I think). I, on the other hand, am easy to find but, to my knowledge,
>he has never ever looked.
>
>First of all, it can be argued that the Bible teaches no such thing. You
>arrive at this notion by reifying a metaphor (and losing it's intended
>meaning in the process).
>
>Second, although science may be wrong about many things, science works by
>disproving things, not by proving them. Science has ALREADY disproven young-
>earth creationism and it is highly unlikely that any new science will
>resurrect the notion. Moreover, those claiming to HAVE such science are
>invariably shown to be either sloppy workers or liars (or both).
>
>--
>Dave Oldridge
>ICQ 1800667
>=============================================================================
>=================
>Paradoxically, nearly all real events are highly improbable
> --me, 2000AD
>
>
>
Thanks Dave. I haven't seen "reifying" in a n.g. for a long time.
rossum
Gen2Rev
> The clatter has become so loud that even the popular press has
> picked it up. Newsweek in an article entitled "Is Man a Subtle
> Accident?" published Nov. 3, 1980, stated
> "The missing link between man and the apes, whose absence
> has comforted religious fundamentalists since the days of Darwin,
> is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom
> creatures... The more scientists have searched for the transitional
> forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated."
I actually have a copy of this article! The authors don't seem to be
that familiar with evolutionary concepts, but as a public service, I've
scanned it in. In most cases like this I'd just post the sentences
surrounding the quoted section, but it this case the general idea can
only be conveyed by the whole article.
------------------
Is Man a Subtle Accident?
The missing link between man and the apes, whose absence has comforted
religious fundamentalists since the days of Darwin, is merely the most
glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil
record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed
as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly
as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the
transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated.
Paleontologist Patricia Kelley has traced a burrowing mollusk-Anadara
staminea-over 2 million years of the Miocene Epoch, during which time
the position of one muscle gradually shifted by 1.5 millimeters.
Abruptly, A. staminea disappears, to be succeeded by the closely related
species. A. chesapeakensa-in which the muscle has suddenly shifted by
1.5 millimeters in the opposite direction. What kind of evolution is
this, which seems to stand on its head the notion of gradual progress
from primitive to more advanced species?
Seventy years after quantum theory revolutionized physics, an oddly
analogous change has occurred in the theory of evolution-and it is just
beginning to filter down to public understanding. Evidence from fossils
now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most
Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of
existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of
which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment.
Increasingly, scientists now believe that species change little for
millions of years and then evolve quickly, in a kind of quantum leap-not
necessarily in a direction that represents an obvious improvement in
fitness. The theory is still being worked out. Among other points of
contention, it is uncertain whether the leap takes place in a few
generations or over tens of thousands of years. But at a conference in
mid-October at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History, the majority
of 160 of the world's top paleontologists, anatomists, evolutionary
geneticists and developmental biologists supported some form of this
theory of "punctuated equilibria."
'Apples': While the scientists have been refining the theory of
evolution in the past decade, some nonscientists have been spreading
anew the gospel of creationism-and the coincidence has confused many
laymen, including Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan. At a
fundamentalist meeting in Dallas, Reagan urged teaching the Biblical
version of creation along with evolution, which he said "is not believed
in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was." Having
opposed Darwin for 120 years, fundamentalists tend to seize on any
criticism of his theories as vindication. The notion of species that
come into being very quickly, and then appear to be relatively stable
for long periods, appeals to those who believe the earth was populated
according to God's design. But the new theories are intended to explain
how evolution came about-not to supplant it as a principle. Says
Harvard's Stephen Jay Gould, who along with Niles Eldredge of the
American Museum of Natural History proposed the punctuated-equilibria
theory in 1972: "Evolution is a fact, like apples
falling out of trees."
The new theory, according to paleontologist Steven Stanley of Johns
Hopkins draws a crucial distinction between two kinds of evolution:
gradual, small changes within a species ("microevolution") and sudden,
gross changes that mark the emergence of a new species
("macroevolution"). The former is a specialized case of Darwin's theory
of natural selection. Bugs hide deeper in the bark, and woodpeckers
evolve longer beaks to hunt them out. But where Darwin, from
observations begun in the Galapagos Islands, concluded that enough small
changes would eventually create a new species, the revised theory holds
that a new species arises by some different mechanism-perhaps even a
gross random mutation in a single generation.
This is the theory of "hopeful monsters," a point of bitter contention
among geneticists and biologists. To some geneticists, all monsters are
hopeless. Such a major change in structure can only be the result of
gross chromosome rearrangements. So many other delicate systems would be
set awry as a result that the organism could not survive. Not so, says
biologist Pedro Alberch of Harvard. A new species may require no more
than a mutation in a single gene-there are thousands of genes on most
chromosomes-if the gene controls a crucial developmental pathway. He
points to a race of salamanders which have a cluster of six unique
characteristics, including webbed feet and fused tarsal bones. The
identical mutation has appeared at least six different times in the
evolution of salamanders, suggesting that only a single small genetic
change is involved.
Embryo: Hopeful monsters may seem to be generated at random, but in fact
they appear to be subject to the complex laws of development biology.
For example, the cellular changes that will lead on the one hand to the
development of teeth and hair, and on the other to scales and feathers,
are fixed early in the life of the embryo. Therefore, says George Oster
of Berkeley, it is unlikely that a furred animal could evolve into one
with feathers.
But the significance of hopeful monsters, if they exist, is that they
seem to flout the law of natural selection. They are subject to it in a
general sense: better monsters will, over the long run, drive out weaker
ones. But the mutation need not represent an advance in fitness; a
mutant gene can spread throughout the population even if it carries no
particular survival value, as long as it is not markedly harmful. The
web-footed salamanders have no obvious advantage over their digited
relatives, but they evolved right along anyway. Among hyenas, a mutation
has given rise to a species in which the female develops a useless set
of male sexual organs. The iron law of Darwinism-that each new species
represents an advance in fitness over its predecessor-seems to have been
breached.
Some scientists are still fighting a rearguard action on behalf of
Darwinism. A few paleontologists maintain that fossils actually do show
gradual evolution over time. Even if fossils don't change, argues Tom
Schopf of the University of Chicago, the organisms might have been
evolving. Only the hard parts of animals are preserved in the fossil
record; species may have undergone considerable evolution in their soft
parts and biochemistry without altering their skeletons. Evidence along
this line comes from paleobotanist Karl Niklas of Cornell, who has found
perfectly preserved leaves from the Miocene Epoch which look exactly
like the leaves of modern chestnuts, oaks and maples-but are quite
different in their biochemistry.
The paleontologists who have been in the forefront of the new theory
don't necessarily believe in hopeful monsters. When they say that new
species evolved rapidly, they are speaking in geologic terms. A single
generation or 50,000 years is all the same to them. Either would be too
short an interval for the intermediate organisms to appear in the fossil
record. To the geneticists, this highhandedness about thousands of years
has been puzzling, and at the Chicago conference the two disciplines
found little common ground. Darwin's great advantage, it now seems
clear, was that he lived before the age of specialization, when great
syntheses in of ideas were still possible.
It is no wonder that scientists part reluctantly with Darwin. His theory
of natural selection was beautiful in its simplicity, and it has served
well for over a century. To tamper with it is to raise a host of
questions for which there are no answers. The new theory also raises the
troubling question of whether man himself is less a product of 3 billion
years of competition than a quantum leap into the dark-just another
hopeful monster whose star was more benevolent than most.
JERRY ADLER with JOHN CAREY in Chicago
Ricky
"Louann Miller" <loua...@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:7kg9ktg0pf7l877mv...@4ax.com...
> On 5 Jul 2001 11:44:45 -0400, "Ricky" <no...@ricky.com> wrote:
>
> The thing you're missing is that the conflict isn't God's word vs.
> God's physical evidence. It's _your interpretation_ of God's word vs.
> God's physical evidence
Well, I was looking at other peoples statements, not relying on my
personal interpretations.
I've just been looking at LDS *official* comments on the subject and they
are remarkably open in SOME respects. So much so that it's seems
possible, or the door is open, in some context or other, to allowing
evolution to play a part.
I must be withdraw now, but leave saying some things may not be quite as
back and white as I imagined. It needs further contemplation.
I remain committed to Adam being the primal parent of our race.
Cheerio.
Ricky.
Rodjk
> "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:9i27aq$13o0$1...@node21.cwnet.roc.gblx.net...
> > Ricky <no...@ricky.com> wrote in message
> > news:EX%07.3987$Tv5.5...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> > >
> > > "pz" <my...@mac.com> wrote in message
> > > news:myers-0CA2C5....@news.onvoy.net...
> > > > In article <qd%07.3869$Tv5.5...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
> > > > "Ricky" <no...@ricky.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > Either scriptures are true or evolution is true. In my peculiar
> > > circumstances I cannot have both. God's word must prevail.
> >
> > What are your "peculiar circumstances," and how do they differ from those
> of
> > the large majority of practicing Christians who do accept evolution and
> > don't see any conflict with their faith?
>
> As most folks should understand by now I'm not working with the Bible only.
> I'm working with other religious text that describes Adam blessing his
> posterity, and there's information delineating a line of priesthood
> authority from Moses back to Adam. Okay, taking this into consideration Adam
> is clearly and without a doubt a real person. Which then tells me the
> creation account in the Bible is literal.
>
> Well, if I were to believe in evolution, then that means I have to discard
> the text I'm reading. And if I do that then the whole thing is a sham. But
> I "know" the text isn't a sham,
How do you know it isn't a sham? Any evidence?
>so I cannot believe in evolution as well as
> Adam. God's word must therefore prevail. I dont know evolution is true, in
> fact I'd say I "know" evolution is false.
How do you know that?
Rodjk#613
rich hammett
That is the official LDS position. However, if you examine the role of Adam in LDS
theology and practice, I think you'll find that it is very symbolic, and does not
require an actual person to have been the sole male parent of all humans.
rich
> Cheerio.
> Ricky.
1Adam12
Bigdakine
>From: Louann Miller loua...@yahoo.net
>Date: 7/5/01 10:04 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <gnh9ktsqipm2amjfu...@4ax.com>
Gee, how about Foucalt's Pendulum..
THat has everybody in it..
Stuart
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to really foul things up
requires a creationist"
Andrew Glasgow
wrote:
> <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
*Grrrrr*
Turn off the HTML *NOW*, before I hire a hit man to shoot your dog,
trample your tulips and smash your computer into bitty bits.
Gah. Netscape. Now I have to go brush my teeth to get the bad taste
out of my mouth.
wilkins
Is THAT why the bloody thing turns around? All that jostling of everyone
inside. The earth doesn't turn, then. Aristotle was right after all...
Greg
> "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:9i27aq$13o0$1...@node21.cwnet.roc.gblx.net...
> > Ricky <no...@ricky.com> wrote in message
> > news:EX%07.3987$Tv5.5...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> > >
> > > "pz" <my...@mac.com> wrote in message
> > > news:myers-0CA2C5....@news.onvoy.net...
> > > > In article <qd%07.3869$Tv5.5...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
> > > > "Ricky" <no...@ricky.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > circumstances I cannot have both. God's word must prevail.
> >
> > What are your "peculiar circumstances," and how do they differ from those
> of
> > the large majority of practicing Christians who do accept evolution and
> > don't see any conflict with their faith?
>
> As most folks should understand by now I'm not working with the Bible only.
> I'm working with other religious text that describes Adam blessing his
> posterity, and there's information delineating a line of priesthood
> authority from Moses back to Adam. Okay, taking this into consideration Adam
> is clearly and without a doubt a real person. Which then tells me the
> creation account in the Bible is literal.
>
> Well, if I were to believe in evolution, then that means I have to discard
> the text I'm reading. And if I do that then the whole thing is a sham. But
> I "know" the text isn't a sham, so I cannot believe in evolution as well as
> Adam. God's word must therefore prevail. I dont know evolution is true, in
> fact I'd say I "know" evolution is false. I cannot know Adam is true and
> evolution is true at the same time.
You seem like an intelligent, honest person who can't reconcile
science and religion. I've been there, too. Please visit Glenn
Morton's pages at
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/person.htm.
Mr. Morton wrote over 20 articles for the Creation Research Society
Quarterly. He has posted testimonies of former Creationists who work
as geologists. Through their work, they came to realize that the
creationist explanations were just not true. Some were able to
reconcile faith with knowledge, just not as creationists.
It takes courage to open your mind. You may lose your religion
completely. I did and it relieved me of intellectual conflicts and
personal guilt.
Greg
--
Liberty don't work as good in practice as it does in speeches. --Will
Rogers
O. C. Swimmer
Where does it say straight line?
O. C. Swimmer
morbiu...@home.com (Pip R. Lagenta) wrote:
>On 5 Jul 2001 15:28:57 -0400, "O. C. Swimmer" <cag...@ix.netcom.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <3b44b100.18969672@news>,
>> morbiu...@home.com (Pip R. Lagenta) wrote:
>>>On 5 Jul 2001 14:13:07 -0400, "O. C. Swimmer" <cag...@ix.netcom.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>>In article <9i27lg$sl2$1...@node21.cwnet.roc.gblx.net>,
>>>> "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com> wrote:
>>>[snip]
>>>>>The Bible also teaches the earth is flat and covered by a solid firmament,
>>>>>but I bet you don't believe that.
>>>>
>>>>The Bible does not teach that. So you don't know what it means.
>>>
>>>Say what? Did you just tell a fib?
>>>Look in your Bible! Here is a path to the relevant parts:
>>><http://www.student.oulu.fi/~ktikkane/eU_LITT.html>
>>
>>OK, I checked it out.
>>
>>Job 38:5 Who hath laid the measures thereof,
>>if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
>>
>>Are you saying that this means the Bible teaches a flat earth?
>
>Yup.
>
>>Are you saying that we can't stretch a line on a sphere?
>
>What "sphere" is that? Please quote chapter and verse for that word
>"sphere". In the meantime, this:
What I'm asking is are you saying that because there is a
measuring line, that it is saying the earth is flat?
And if so are you saying that a line cannot be stretched
on a sphere?
Eros
"O. C. Swimmer" <cag...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:9i1gpi$h8q$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
> IMPACT
> Oct.1984
> "Vital Articles on Science/Creation"
> By Duane T. Gish, Ph.D.
You mean the same Rev. Duane T. Gish who said the following;-
"We do not know how the Creator created, what processes he used, for he used
processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This
is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by
scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the
Creator."
[Duane Gish, "Evolution: The Fossils Say No!" as quoted in "Origins" by
Robert Shapiro pp. 262-263]
It is obvious the Reverend Gish does not believe that scientific
investigation is useful in confirming the religious notion of Creation, yet
he attempts to use science to denegrate the scientifically-robust theory of
evolution.... as if that would somehow automatically "prove" Divine
Creation. Seems like there's far more faith involved in Gish's arguments
than science.
--
EROS.
"Most religious leaders disapprove of creation-science primarily because of
what they perceive to be, at best, its religious inadequacies and
oversimplifications. Judged by the standards of accepted Jewish and
Christian understandings of the Bible and of belief, the creationist
conception seems to be warped in various degrees, like images reflected in a
broken mirror or even in a mirror made to show puzzling images, distorting
the reality it supposedly reflects. Such mirrors represent some truth, but
the total effect is a deformed and misleading vision."
[Pope Paul II, in "Is God a Creationist? The Religious Case Against
Creation-Science", ed Roland Mushat Frye, Charles Scribner's Sons, New York,
1983, p141.]
Johnny Bravo
>In fact I'm virtually, if not, actually, in the situation of not being able
>to beleive in evolution. Because to do so I would have to deny what I see
>as God's word. And what would be the consequences of that. But the thing
>is, I really do beleive in God's word.
Where did God say he could not use evolution as a tool? I thought that God
wasn't supposed to have puny limitations like that.
-
Best Wishes,
Johnny Bravo
BAAWA Knight, EAC - Temporal Adjustments Division
Ordained Minister - Universal Life Church
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - HP Lovecraft
Johnny Bravo
>>I'm wondering about "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," myself. Or
>>maybe something with Templars in.
>
>Gee, how about Foucalt's Pendulum..
>
>THat has everybody in it..
Heh, good book. Would be kind of interesting to see how it would have worked
out if the meeting took place as planned. :)
Johnny Bravo
>As most folks should understand by now I'm not working with the Bible only.
>I'm working with other religious text that describes Adam blessing his
>posterity, and there's information delineating a line of priesthood
>authority from Moses back to Adam. Okay, taking this into consideration Adam
>is clearly and without a doubt a real person.
Every religion has such a line, going right back to the God in question.
Taking that into consideration every religion is clearly and without a doubt the
"one true religion".
O. C. Swimmer
"Eros" <Eros_Tal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"O. C. Swimmer" <cag...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:9i1gpi$h8q$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
>> IMPACT
>> Oct.1984
>> "Vital Articles on Science/Creation"
>> No. 136 - Evolution: The Changing Scene
>> By Duane T. Gish, Ph.D.
>
>You mean the same Rev. Duane T. Gish who said the following;-
>
>"We do not know how the Creator created, what processes he used, for he used
>processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This
>is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by
>scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the
>Creator."
>
Do you know who agrees with this?
Eros
>
> "O. C. Swimmer" <cag...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:9i1gpi$h8q$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
> > IMPACT
> > Oct.1984
> > "Vital Articles on Science/Creation"
> > No. 136 - Evolution: The Changing Scene
> > By Duane T. Gish, Ph.D.
>
>
> And folks here tell me that evolution is a proven thing. Careful and
> thoughtful science will eventually prove, or confirm special creation.
Rev. Gish doesn't think so... as I've already shown;-
"We do not know how the Creator created, what processes he used, for he used
processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This
is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by
scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the
Creator."
[Duane Gish, "Evolution: The Fossils Say No!" as quoted in "Origins" by
Robert Shapiro pp. 262-263]
--
EROS.
"The American creationist movement has entirely bypassed the scientific
forum and has concentrated instead on political lobbying and on taking its
case to a fair-minded electorate... The reason for this strategy is
overwhelmingly apparent: no scientific case can be made for the theories
they advance."
[Kenneth R. Miller, "Scientific Creationism versus Evolution"
Science and Creationism, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984),p.22]
Johnny Bravo
>> Isn't that amazing! One hundred and twenty-years after Darwin
>>the missing links are still missing, and that wonderful, marvelous
>
>....Except for all the thousands of "missing links" that have been
>found. Gish is playing the old creationist word game here: if it is
>"found" then it is not "missing" and therefore can't be a "*missing*
>link". If it is "found" then it is a "found link". Creations *never*
>talk about "found links". Only those links that still remain missing
>(which are fewer all the time) matter to the creationist.
Don't forget the other game. Lets say you have fossil "A" and fossil "E" and
you are looking for the link inbetween them. After a few years "C" pops up and
you now have your link. Then the creationist says, "So, where is B and D?" No
matter how many you find, there will always be gaps due to the rarity of fossil
formation. Creationists don't understand that fossils are rare things, not
something that happens to anything that died a long time ago.
We actually had a creationist pop in here and demand for us to show him every
fossil of every single species that ever lived in order to "prove" evolution to
him.
Eros
already, to
> >be liars, fools and frauds?
> >
> >
> I can hear it now. Noah, you're a liar, fool and a fraud.
> BTW Noah, what's rain?
What has your lame little tale about a fictional Bible character got to do
with the fact that Duane T. Gish is a proven liar and fraud?
--
EROS.
"Notice that whenever scientific tests contradict their religious beliefs,
creation "scientists" never concede that their religious beliefs may be
erroneous. It's always the scientific tests that are wrong. Despite their
haughty charade, creation 'cientists'are thus religionists to the core,
blindly dismissing any science which 'rieves the Holy Ghost.'"
[David Mills]
Eros
Exactly what it says... science cannot be used to prove Creation. What does
it mean to you?
> Do you know who agrees with this?
Most "educated" Creationists and everybody at the Institute for Creation
Research... including Duane T. Gish, obviously!
--
EROS.
"Gish said that attempts to reconcile Genesis with geology lead to numerous
contradictions, even if one rejects evolution. Some of the questions Gish
said must be answered are as follows. If the rock strata constitute the
record of hundreds of millions of years, where is the record of the Biblical
Flood? If man is several million years old, why was it that post-flood man
developed agriculture and animal husbandry only a few thousand years ago
when, according to Genesis, these skills were known from the very
beginning?"
["Impact", No. 65, 1978, Institute for Creation Research.]
O. C. Swimmer
What a bunch of hot air. Lots of words saying nothing.
Generic454381810
>From: "Ricky" no...@ricky.com
>
>
>"Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com> wrote in message
>news:9i27aq$13o0$1...@node21.cwnet.roc.gblx.net...
>> Ricky <no...@ricky.com> wrote in message
>> news:EX%07.3987$Tv5.5...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>> >
>> > "pz" <my...@mac.com> wrote in message
>> > news:myers-0CA2C5....@news.onvoy.net...
>> > > In article <qd%07.3869$Tv5.5...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
>> > > "Ricky" <no...@ricky.com> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> > Either scriptures are true or evolution is true. In my peculiar
>> > circumstances I cannot have both. God's word must prevail.
>>
>> What are your "peculiar circumstances," and how do they differ from those
>of
>> the large majority of practicing Christians who do accept evolution and
>> don't see any conflict with their faith?
>
>As most folks should understand by now I'm not working with the Bible only.
>I'm working with other religious text that describes Adam blessing his
>posterity, and there's information delineating a line of priesthood
>authority from Moses back to Adam. Okay, taking this into consideration Adam
>is clearly and without a doubt a real person. Which then tells me the
>creation account in the Bible is literal.
>
>Well, if I were to believe in evolution, then that means I have to discard
>the text I'm reading. And if I do that then the whole thing is a sham. But
>I "know" the text isn't a sham, so I cannot believe in evolution as well as
>Adam. God's word must therefore prevail. I dont know evolution is true, in
>fact I'd say I "know" evolution is false. I cannot know Adam is true and
>evolution is true at the same time.
>
This rant reminds of a bit in The Princess Bride. The scene where the little
sicilian is tying himself in mental knots trying to outwit the masked pirate.
You should end this exhausting monologue with, "never match wits with a
sicilian, when DEATH is on the line",. then accidently drink the poisin wine
and die.
Dave Oldridge
news:2quakt0m90t0qjuqm...@4ax.com:
> On 5 Jul 2001 11:09:34 -0400, morbiu...@home.com (Pip R. Lagenta)
> wrote:
>
>>> Isn't that amazing! One hundred and twenty-years after Darwin
>>>the missing links are still missing, and that wonderful, marvelous
>>
>>....Except for all the thousands of "missing links" that have been
>>found. Gish is playing the old creationist word game here: if it is
>>"found" then it is not "missing" and therefore can't be a "*missing*
>>link". If it is "found" then it is a "found link". Creations *never*
>>talk about "found links". Only those links that still remain missing
>>(which are fewer all the time) matter to the creationist.
>
> Don't forget the other game. Lets say you have fossil "A" and fossil
> "E" and
> you are looking for the link inbetween them. After a few years "C" pops
> up and you now have your link. Then the creationist says, "So, where is
> B and D?" No matter how many you find, there will always be gaps due to
> the rarity of fossil formation. Creationists don't understand that
> fossils are rare things, not something that happens to anything that died
> a long time ago.
>
> We actually had a creationist pop in here and demand for us to show him
> every
> fossil of every single species that ever lived in order to "prove"
> evolution to him.
No doubt he has in hand his own pedigree all the way back to Adam complete
with affidavits? Or was willing to relinquish his claim to being human?
Pat James
(in message <9i29eo$sv1$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net>):
> In article <tk94ers...@corp.supernews.com>,
> ZenI...@NOSPAMyahoo.com (ZenIsWhen) wrote:
>> In article <9i1gpi$h8q$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>, "O. C. Swimmer"
>> <cag...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>> IMPACT
>>> Oct.1984
>>> "Vital Articles on Science/Creation"
>>
>> To what purpose would you create a large post from people we know,
>> already, to
>> be liars, fools and frauds?
>>
>>
>
> I can here it now. Noah, your a liar,
> fool and a fraud, BTW Noah, what's rain?
>
>
Should I really repost 'Torpedo ye Arke!' yet again?
--
Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive ignorance with
incredible arrogance.
Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A person
incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible true believer.
Louann Miller
>I've just been looking at LDS *official* comments on the subject and they
>are remarkably open in SOME respects. So much so that it's seems
>possible, or the door is open, in some context or other, to allowing
>evolution to play a part.
I suppose that getting him to admit to his real denomination (why do
they insist on hiding?) before he scarpered must be accounted some
kind of moral victory.
>I must be withdraw now, but leave saying some things may not be quite as
>back and white as I imagined. It needs further contemplation.
Louann
Tom
<9i3rhi$n0g$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net>, "O. stated..."
>
>In article <9i2ic...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> Tom <Tom_m...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>"On 5 Jul 2001 15:28:57 -0400, in article
>><9i2f5m$tp9$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>, "O. stated..."
>>>
>>>In article <3b44b100.18969672@news>,
>>> morbiu...@home.com (Pip R. Lagenta) wrote:
>>>>Look in your Bible! Here is a path to the relevant parts:
>>>><http://www.student.oulu.fi/~ktikkane/eU_LITT.html>
>>>
>>>OK, I checked it out.
>>>
>>>Job 38:5 Who hath laid the measures thereof,
>>>if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
>>>
>>>Are you saying that this means the Bible teaches a flat earth?
>>>Are you saying that we can't stretch a line on a sphere?
>>>
>>
>> The people who wrote the Bible probably didn't think too much
>>about the shape of the earth. They just assumed that it was as
>>it looks ... mostly flat with the dome of the sky over it. Whether
>>the Bible "teaches" every assumption that the writers had, that's
>>for you to decide. But there is less about "fixity of kinds
>>(species)" or "evolution is false" in the Bible than there is about
>>a flat earth.
>>
>> No, you can't stretch a straight line on a sphere. (I will
>>concede that that "proof text" is weaker than others, but it is
>>consistent with a flat earth. You can't do as well with any
>>"evolution is false" "proof text".)
>>
>> Tom
>What do you mean by straight line?
>Where does it say straight line?
Where does it say "sphere"?
I agree that this passage Job is not definitive.
Let's even agree that the accumulation of all the "proof texts"
that "Pip" references do not amount to "the Bible teaches that the
earth is flat."
In that case, I ask you to give "proof texts" that "the Bible
teaches that evolution is false". Using the same rules of evidence
that we "agreed" to on the flat earth.
If you agree that the Bible does *not* teach that evolution is
false, then I have no desire to continue.
Tom
Ricky
Aw come on, I was'nt deliberatly trying to hide my denomination, I just felt
there was no particular reason to. My denomination was'nt important, just
the concept's or issues raised. I felt, by the things I was saying, that
my denomination would in all likelihood be established very quickly, and
that did'nt bother me. When I saw evidence that folks had clicked then I
just felt went ahead and allowed myself to indicate my denomination. A case
of folks don't need to know my denomination so I'll not mention it, but if
and when they do get to know, and they cannot fail to cotton-on then I'll
acknowledge it. Nothing odd here.
If I really wanted to hide my denomination I would have revealed a lot less
than I did, beleive me. For instance, God having a body as tangible as
Man's. Heck, I don't know anyone else who believes that.
Ronald Okimoto
"O. C. Swimmer" wrote:
There are fundamentalist Christians in this country (USA) that believe the Bible
tells them that the world is flat. They believe that the spherical earth theory
is as bogus as you think the theory of biological evolution is. You have to argue
with the Christian flat-earthers. You would think that these people would have
changed their minds once we were able to take pictures of our planet from space,
but they are still going strong. Their patriarch died recently so maybe the
belief may fade away, but the spokesman for their church that I've seen looks
pretty young so I wouldn't count on it. There seems to always be someone willing
to pick up the torch. Just think what kind of lies and misconceptions that these
people have to live with. Compare them to the young earth creationists like
Gish. Were you able to confirm anything that he wrote in the pamphlet that you
posted? Young earth creationists have to live with lies and misconceptions in
order to continue to believe what they do. They are no better off in this regard
than flat-earthers.
Write down what you think that Gish is telling you in this pamphlet and then look
up some scientific sources to cross check the validity of his assertions. Most of
what he tells you in this pamphlet will be shown to be lies or misdirections (he
isn't talking about what you think that he is talking about). I'd find another
source of information.
Ron Okimoto
Floyd
O. C. Swimmer <cag...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<9i1gpi$h8q$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>...
> IMPACT
> Oct.1984
> "Vital Articles on Science/Creation"
> No. 136 - Evolution: The Changing Scene
> By Duane T. Gish, Ph.D.
> Prof. Derek Ager of the University at Swansea, Wales, in Proc.
> Geol. Assoc. Vol. 87, p. 132 (1976) has stated
I smell troll.
-Floyd
Anti Fundies
> "pz" <my...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:myers-0CA2C5....@news.onvoy.net...
> > In article <qd%07.3869$Tv5.5...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
> > "Ricky" <no...@ricky.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > My real source of beleif is in theological texts. Not scientifically
> > > educated men.
> >
> > Yes, that much is obvious. The really sad thing, though, is that you are
> > proud of the fact.
>
> I'm not saying I'm blind to science. But on this issue, there are reasons
> why a person in my position, chooses theology over science. Not least of
> which is that I don't see science actually having proved evolution.
>
You might not be blind to science, but you apparently are blind to
biology. What you don't see is seen by the majority of scientists.
> In fact I'm virtually, if not, actually, in the situation of not being able
> to beleive in evolution. Because to do so I would have to deny what I see
> as God's word. And what would be the consequences of that. But the thing
> is, I really do beleive in God's word. I'm not hedging my bets or choosing
> to beleive it for a hoped for reward. It is the truth as far as I am
> concerned. I can only change my mind by dumping God's word, which I have
> faith in. I personally would have to loose faith if I embraced evolution.
>
Bingo...., you have just nullified your first paragraph by the
second....
> Either scriptures are true or evolution is true. In my peculiar
> circumstances I cannot have both. God's word must prevail.
Since I'm not in your peculiar circumstances, I can have both..... and
God's word still prevails.
Anti Fundies
> In article <9i1gpi$h8q$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>, "O. C. Swimmer" <cag...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >IMPACT
> >Oct.1984
> >"Vital Articles on Science/Creation"
>
> be liars, fools and frauds?
To mislead those who don't know?
1Adam12
"Eros" <Eros_Tal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Uif17.49528$Rr4....@ozemail.com.au...
What about these guys?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html
Ricky
> I've just been looking at LDS *official* comments on the subject and they
> are remarkably open in SOME respects. So much so that it's seems
> possible, or the door is open, in some context or other, to allowing
> evolution to play a part.
>
> I must be withdraw now, but leave saying some things may not be quite as
> back and white as I imagined. It needs further contemplation.
>
> I remain committed to Adam being the primal parent of our race.
Note the above sentence.
If evolution has played a part it's *very* restrictive in my view.
So really, I have hardly moved my position. I still believe in special
creation. But - I've only begun my investigations. There may be hope for me
yet, eh!!!
Interesting thought:
"An understanding of the sealing authority with its binding of the
generations into eternal families cannot admit to ancestral blood
lines to beasts."
P.S. Please don't expect any futher responses. Chances are this is really my
last post.
Louann Miller
A general-interest footnote, then; it's overly optimistic to expect
that the average person on the (non-Utah) street will be able to
correctly identify Mormon beliefs from a few key words. (Discussed in
a previous post of his which I carelessly did not save to quote from.)
The average person has _maybe_ as many as six pieces of data in
his/her memory banks under "Mormon"
1. Polygamy.
2. Utah.
3. Mormon Tabernacle Choir
4. (if over 35) Osmonds
5. (if over 35 and somewhat liberal) opposed ERA, excommunicated some
women for same.
6. (if into true crime stories) the White Salamander Letters and
associated bombings.
Plus one other, filed under "urgent, action item"
1. If two very sincere, very young clean-cut white guys wearing suits
and carrying Bibles appear at your apartment complex and you find out
in time, don't answer the doorbell. Unless you have a really good idea
for a practical joke, like the "we pretended to be sacrificing a naked
virgin, and this one guy was able to sneak in a goat" gag that all
stoners claim definitely happened to a friend of their college
roommate's brother.
All of which greatly oversimplifies a remarkable if slightly alien
culture, leaving out everything from the underwear to the
Masonic-style rituals. It's not that the other stuff isn't there, it's
just that it goes right under the average Joe Sixpack's or even Joe
College's radar.
Louann
Clfranck01
>From: Sanjay San...@mindspring.com
>Date: 7/5/01 1:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>"But the earth is not fixed as in the Predestine Bible. Either scriptures
>are
>true or the earth moves is true In my peculiar circumstances I cannot >have
>both. God's word must prevail." ....rephrase
I think the Bible could be literally true on the flat Earth
issue if you consider that most mytho-poetic language
tends to be quite phenomenological and subjective in
nature. When someone says "the sun is sinking into
the ocean" most people take that to mean a sunset
over water, rather than an astronomical absurdity.
Craig Franck
clfra...@aol.com
Dover, NH
Joseph A. Knapka
>
> "Ricky" <no...@ricky.com> wrote in message news:<0P117.4286$Tv5.6...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>...
> > "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com> wrote in message
> > news:9i27aq$13o0$1...@node21.cwnet.roc.gblx.net...
> > > >
> > > > "pz" <my...@mac.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:myers-0CA2C5....@news.onvoy.net...
> > > > > In article <qd%07.3869$Tv5.5...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
> > > > > "Ricky" <no...@ricky.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > Either scriptures are true or evolution is true. In my peculiar
> > > > circumstances I cannot have both. God's word must prevail.
> > >
> > of
> > > the large majority of practicing Christians who do accept evolution and
> > > don't see any conflict with their faith?
> >
> > As most folks should understand by now I'm not working with the Bible only.
> > I'm working with other religious text that describes Adam blessing his
> > posterity, and there's information delineating a line of priesthood
> > authority from Moses back to Adam. Okay, taking this into consideration Adam
> > is clearly and without a doubt a real person. Which then tells me the
> > creation account in the Bible is literal.
> >
> > Well, if I were to believe in evolution, then that means I have to discard
> > the text I'm reading. And if I do that then the whole thing is a sham. But
> > I "know" the text isn't a sham, so I cannot believe in evolution as well as
> > Adam. God's word must therefore prevail. I dont know evolution is true, in
> > fact I'd say I "know" evolution is false. I cannot know Adam is true and
> > evolution is true at the same time.
>
> science and religion. I've been there, too. Please visit Glenn
> Morton's pages at
> http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/person.htm.
>
> Mr. Morton wrote over 20 articles for the Creation Research Society
> Quarterly. He has posted testimonies of former Creationists who work
> as geologists. Through their work, they came to realize that the
> creationist explanations were just not true. Some were able to
> reconcile faith with knowledge, just not as creationists.
>
> It takes courage to open your mind. You may lose your religion
> completely. I did and it relieved me of intellectual conflicts and
> personal guilt.
And how can you know how strong your faith is, unless you test
it by exposing yourself to alternative views? Surely
if your faith is strong, it will remain so in the face
of an honest investigation of the "naturalist" explanations.
>
> Greg
> --
> Liberty don't work as good in practice as it does in speeches. --Will
> Rogers
-- Joe Knapka
"You know how many remote castles there are along the gorges? You
can't MOVE for remote castles!" -- Lu Tze re. Uberwald
// Linux MM Documentation in progress:
// http://home.earthlink.net/~jknapka/linux-mm/vmoutline.html
* Evolution is an "unproven theory" in the same sense that gravity is. *
Eros
No, a lot of words saying that Creation "science" is a self-contradictory
term used to describe a bunch of fundamentalist Christians whose
"scientific" method is to start with an irrefutable conclusion (Creation)
and then look for "facts" that support it. Real science examines the facts
and draws logical and rational conclusions. The strong superstitious beliefs
of Creationists, who are generally ignorant and gullible individuals,
prevent them from doing that.
Eros
"1Adam12" <adamm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9i596d$ebe$1...@laurel.tc.umn.edu...
What about them? Fake or questionable credentials are common for Cretinists,
whose dishonesty is legendary... as the FAQ you mention points out. That's
why I referred to them as "educated" Creationists. (notice the inverted
commas.)
--
EROS.
"I'm genuinely afraid that, unless we start teaching some real science in
our miserable public schools, we may find that 21st-century America suffers
an intellectual climate resembling that of the Dark Ages. We tend to believe
that, once knowledge has been acquired and technology developed by man, the
future will only build upon these past achievements. But history argues
forcefully against such an optimistic assumption. The ancient Greeks and
Egyptians, for example, made amazing scientific discoveries and wrote
detailed scientific analyses that the Christian Church destroyed and
suppressed for centuries. "
[David Mills]
Ricky
Now you know I'm LDS you mind sidetracks and you begin to take shots on
other issues. Hmph. Never mind.
Anyhow, what I appeared to find out about was that Henry Eyring seems to go
for this evolution stuff, in some context. That's his personal view. But
others don't go down the evolution route. Because the church does'nt appear
to have explicitly ruled out evolution in official statements, it looks like
evolution might be a possibility. That's the conclusion I'd come to. So,
that's why I said things are maybe not black and white as I imagined, and
that evolution may have played some part. But I now wonder if you can
honestly mix evolotion with the official statements. I kinda doubt it
myself.
I read a powerful article by Boyd K Packer, an apostle, in which it is his
personal view, nay his conviction, that evolution is incorrect. I do take
a lead from folks like this, and I don't think that's necessarily unswise,
in fact quite the opposite.
If you know anything about LDS theology you will know that we bind or seal
individuals together in families. What we are doing is binding in heaven
that was bound on earth. That's to do with marriage and stuff.
Anyhow, Elder Packer makes the point:
> >"An understanding of the sealing authority with its binding of the
> >generations into eternal families cannot admit to ancestral blood
> >lines to beasts."
If this binding is true, (say) then, how would it be possible for Adam to be
bound to his progenitors who would, the further and futher down the chain
you got, be increasingly unsophisticated beasts. Eventually we would be
sealing to ameoba!!
Probably cuts no dice with you, but is a powerful argument against evolution
for LDS folks.
Louann Miller
>
>"Louann Miller" <loua...@yahoo.net> wrote in message
>> A general-interest footnote, then; it's overly optimistic to expect
>> that the average person on the (non-Utah) street will be able to
>> correctly identify Mormon beliefs from a few key words. (Discussed in
>> a previous post of his which I carelessly did not save to quote from.)
>> The average person has _maybe_ as many as six pieces of data in
>> his/her memory banks under "Mormon"
>Now you know I'm LDS you mind sidetracks and you begin to take shots on
>other issues. Hmph. Never mind.
No, I really DO mean that the average person outside Utah has that
simplistic a view of Mormons. The only reason I know more details is
largely accidental factors like reading Orson Scott Card novels and
having a best friend in college who was from Salt Lake City.
(Charismatic Southern Baptist -- major chip on his shoulder.) I'll
admit that my manner was flippant, but that's how I live my entire
life.
It would be a good mental note, honestly, that the average person is
not going to realize you're a Mormon because you use the term "sealed"
or talk about God having a physical body. On just the same grounds, I
don't use "Kobiyashi Maru" as a metaphor for a hopeless situation
unless I'm fairly sure that the person I'm addressing is into Star
Trek.
Louann
O. C. Swimmer
O. C. Swimmer
"The evolutionism movement has entirely bypassed
the scientific forum and has concentrated instead
on political lobbying and on taking its case to a
fair-minded electorate... The reason for this
strategy is overwhelmingly apparent: no scientific
case can be made for the theories they advance."
Evolution "science" is a self-contradictory term
used to describe a bunch of name calling atheists
whose "scientific" method is to start with a
conclusion (evolution)and then look for "facts"
that support it. Real science examines the facts
and draws logical and rational conclusions. The
strong superstitious beliefs of evolutionists,
who are generally ignorant and gullible
individuals, prevent them from doing that.
In his 1974 commencement speech at the California Institute of
Technology physicist Richard Feynman told the graduating
students to cultivate
...a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that
corresponds to a kind of utter honesty-a kind of leaning over
backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you
should report everything that you think might make it invalid-not
only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly
explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated
by some other experiment, and how they worked-to make sure the
other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.... In summary, the
idea is to try to give all the information to help others to judge the
value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to
judgment in one particular direction or another.
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself-and you are
the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that.
After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists.
You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.
I would like to add something that's not essential to the science,
but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the
laymen when you're talking as a scientists.... I'm talking about a
specific, extra type of integrity that is [more than] not lying, but
bending over backwards to show how you're maybe wrong, that
you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our
responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think
to laymen."
O. C. Swimmer
I don't know what rules you agreed to with someone else, but
I'm looking at Genesis
1:11 after his kind, whose seed is in itself,
1:21 after their kind,... after his kind,
1:24 after his kind,... after his kind,
1:25 after his kind,... after their kind,... after his kind:
Thoughts?
ReidRover
Ok weve heard all this baloney before from creationists time to put up or shut
up.
Some simple questions how does a Creation "Scientist" do science as hes
already decided the outcome?
Why does Mr Gish et all, at the ICR force 'scientists" to sign an oath
saying they cannot go against Literal genesis? How is this science?
I expect just a bunch of babble and cut and paste..though it would be a nice
surprise to get a straight answer.
And another question could you please give us all on here the Theory of
Creation?, weve been waiting for years.
Pat James
(in message <9i805f$nmu$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>):
I have accurately described creationists; you have confirmed my opinion. BTW,
you are now creationist #46 this year who doesn't like my sig. Congrats.
O. C. Swimmer
If you have answers, let's hear them.
If you want to call names, I don't have time for you.
Steven J.
urge you, if you want to make a strong case, to find passages from
other parts of the Bible. As for this passage itself:
If "kind" means "species," then it is as surely false as the assertion
(whether the Bible makes it or not) that the Earth is flat.
Speciation has been observed in the lab, in farmer's fields, and in
nature. One species can evolve into another. If "kind" means some
group larger than species, where do you draw the line? Lions and
tigers are the same "kind" -- pantherines. Lions and housecats are
the same "kind" -- felids. Lions and dogs are the same "kind" --
carnivores. Lions and humans are the same "kind" -- mammals. If
"kind" can be any group which obviously shared a common ancestor, then
how large a "kind" can be depends on how much you've studied the
evidence, and what's obvious to you.
It should be noted that Darwinism and its successor theories do indeed
hold that everything reproduces "after its kind." Some plant species
have arisen in a single generation (by chromosome doubling), but
animals evolve by small, succesive steps, so that no animal is a
distinctively different species from its parents. It may, however, be
a different species than its many-times-great grandparents. Even a
new plant species produced by chromosome doubling is obviously very
similar to (the same "kind" as) its parent. In this sense, nothing in
the modern theory of evolution denies that organisms produce offspring
"after their kind." It is merely that "kinds" get a bit fuzzy, and
then *very* fuzzy and large, given enough time.
-- Steven J.
Eros
[snip]
> >"The American creationist movement has entirely bypassed the scientific
> >forum and has concentrated instead on political lobbying and on taking
its
> >case to a fair-minded electorate... The reason for this strategy is
> >overwhelmingly apparent: no scientific case can be made for the theories
> >they advance."
> >
> >[Kenneth R. Miller, "Scientific Creationism versus Evolution" Science
and
> >Creationism, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984),p.22]
> >
> >
> >
> It sounds like you're talking about yourself.
Don't be a child!
This is good advice.... advice which the vast majority of scientists follow
every day. That's why Creation "scientists" represent such a tiny fraction
of the world's scientists... and why there is a scientific theory of
evolution, but there is NO scientific theory of creation.
Creationism simply cannot follow the scientific method. In fact, the
"hypothesis" of Divine Creation is not even a hypothesis, because in science
a hypothesis must be able to be disproven.
Creation "science" is not science, nor can it ever possibly be... as long as
its adherents choose the scientific facts they wish to believe and discard
the rest. Creationists who attempt to "prove" Divine Creation through
science specifically ignore Richard Feynman's advice. I suggest you post it
to the ICR ( who insist that their "scientists" sign a pledge to only accept
facts that confirm Genesis) and see what sort of response you get.
Can you provide any scientific evdidence that DIRECTLY supports the notion
of Divine Creation? Conversely, what sort of evidence would be required to
falsify a "scientific" theory of Creationism?
If you can't answer these questions, then it is clear to anyone that
Creation "science" is just a joke!
--
EROS.
"The entire creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical
attempt to falsify evolution by presenting supposed contradictions among its
supporters. Their brand of creationism, they claim, is 'scientific' because
it follows the Popperian model in trying to demolish evolution. Yet Popper's
argument must apply in both directions. One does not become a scientist by
the simple act of trying to falsify a rival and truly scientific system..."
[Prof. Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory", Discover, May
1981.]
RepackRider
*snip*
>Anyhow, Elder Packer makes the point:
>
>> >"An understanding of the sealing authority with its binding of the
>> >generations into eternal families cannot admit to ancestral blood
>> >lines to beasts."
>
>If this binding is true, (say) then, how would it be possible for Adam to be
>bound to his progenitors who would, the further and futher down the chain
>you got, be increasingly unsophisticated beasts. Eventually we would be
>sealing to ameoba!!
>
>Probably cuts no dice with you, but is a powerful argument against evolution
>for LDS folks.
*That* is a "powerful argument" against mountains of physical evidence?
If that's all you have, you might consider joining the real world.
~~ Repack Rider ~~
|| Due to overwhelming spam, the address at the ||
|| top of this post is one I only use for newsgroups. ||
|| No e-mail sent to this address is opened. ||
Pat James
(in message <9i8i40$kga$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>):
So here's 'Torpedo Ye Arke!'. Yet again. Creationists never learn.
begin included text:
____________________
O-kay... my problem with _anyone_ who takes creationism seriously is that it
simply doesn't add up. Let's take my fav example, Ye Arke.
So, depending on what you use for a cubit, Ye Arke is about 450 feet long, 75
wide, and 45 tall, right? I work best in metres, so lets do a bit of
conversion: that's 137.16 by 22.86 by 13.716 metres, right? For ease of
calculation, let's call it 140 x 23 x 14. This give you 45.080e+3 cubic
metres. One cubic metre of pure water is one metric tonne. Salt water is a
bit more dense. Be nice, add another thousand tonnes or so... Ye Arke
displaces 46,000 tonnes. Maybe 46,400 at max. And I'm being generous. (The
reader who knows something about ship-building will also spot a certain minor
problem with the above figures. No creationist has ever seen it... in part
'cause if it's corrected, things get worse for Ye Arke.)
Problem 1: The sheer size. HMS _Victory_, still preserved at Portsmouth, was
186 feet long on the gundeck. HMS _Victoria_, the last full-rigged 1st rate
ship of the line to serve as flag of the Channel Fleet, built in 1859, was
250 feet long on the gundeck. And she had a steel frame because the RN had
found that building wooden ships much bigger than 225 feet long was not a
good idea because they tended to straddle or to hog on being launched; that
is, they tended to bend, their bows and sterns to stick up out of the water
at an angle, (thatąs straddling) or to bend the other way, the bows and
sterns supported by waves but the midships sections out of the water (or at
least not as well supported) (thatąs hogging) and either way their keels
tended to crack under the strain. Even with steel frames, wooden ships bigger
than 250 feet long tended to hog or straddle. Don't take my word for it, look
it up for yourself. One possible source: _The Wooden Fighting Ship In the
Royal Navy, 897-1860_, EHH Archibald, Blandford Press, London. Sorry, my copy
was published back before ISBNs. Edward Archibald was at the time of writing
the curator of the National Maritime Museum, Portsmouth, England. Or build a
wooden boat 250 feet long and see what happens. Ye Arke was the size of _two_
1st rate line of battleships, laid end-to-end. Noah was a shepherd. He knew
better than the shipwrights at Chatham who built the ships with which the RN
dominated the world for 150 years? If I'm wrong, and it is possible to build
a 450 foot wooden vessel, by all means demonstrate it. I'll even put up some
of the money... so long as I get to record the launch of said vessel. And so
long as those who say that such a craft would be safe are willing to stay on
it while it's being launched. Me, I figure that I'd get some _great_ pix.
Problem 2: Even though it's too big to work, Ye Arke is _too small_ to do its
job. Noah was at sea for a year. The Bible explicitly states that he carried
food for himself, his family, and the animals... where did he put it? John
Woodmorappe (who is, BTW, a creationist) in his book _Noahąs Ark: A
Feasibility Study_, published by the Institute for Creation Research, El
Cajon, California, (the ICR is not merely creationist; it _requires_ that all
who work there take an oath that they feel that the Bible is inerrant, as
demonstrated on their web site) calculates that Noah's ark carried 5.5
million kilos by weight of animals. (I disagree with this figure, as itąs
much too low, but for purposes of argument Iąll use it.) He also estimates
that each animal, on average, ate one thirtieth of its body weight per day.
Let's see... 5.5 million kilos is 5,500 tonnes. Divide by 30, multiply by
365... 66.917e+3. (Ye Arke was at sea for over a year, according to Gen 7 and
8. Iąll just use one year to keep things simple and to give Woody as much
slack as possible. Wouldnąt want anyone to say that I was railroading him.)
Hmm. 67 thousand tonnes of food, by Woody's own figures. But... if you
remember, we calculated that Ye Arke could displace a max of 46,000 tonnes,
or 46,400 if we were being generous. And that included the mass of the boat
itself, and the animals. (Archimedesą Principle, you know) Looks like y'all
need two Arkes just to carry the food, depending on what percentage of the
boat's displacement is taken up by internal structure. (Most wooden ships use
10-15% of their displacement in their structure. Any less and they break up
under the stress of wind and wave. Don't take my word for it, check it out
for yourself.) I once tried to work out just how big an Arke would have had
to have been to carry the assorted animals and their food and have space for
proper cages and exercise areas so that the animals' muscles don't atrophy...
after I got to 900,000 tonnes displacement and still hadn't accounted for all
the good stuff, I stopped. That's _three times the size of a supertanker_. Or
_nine times the size of a nuke aircraft carrier_. There's simply no way that
a wooden vessel could ever be that big. No way at all.
Problem 3: In order to get the mass of the animals down, Woody pared things
down. He tried to define 'kind' so as to have, say, one pair of cat-like
whatevers, and have all present day cats, from house cats to lions,
descendants of that pair. Nice... except that doing it that way _requires_
evolution on a scale so massive and rapid that _no_ evolutionary biologist
would dare suggest it. And Woody does that with _all_ animals... It's the
only way he could get 'em to fit.
Problem 4: Even after he pares down the list (he posits 15,754 'kinds') he
has a problem. In order for there to be physically enough space inside Ye
Arke, Woody uses the _median_ to work out the size of cages. He says that if
you have hippos, elephants, rats, and dogs, you can use the _median_ size
animal and build cages for 'em, and they'll all fit. The median size,
according to Woody, that of a sheep. Using that, he can shoehorn enough cages
into Ye Arke to hold his 15,754 kinds... but only just. And the cages would
be sized so that an animal in it would be able to stand up, but not move
about... which means it gets no exercise, and its muscles will atrophy. And
it won't live to see the end of the voyage. Unfortunately, Woody can't think
of any other way to fit 'em all in.
Problem 5: Remember that 67,000 tonnes of food? What goes in must come out...
Noah and his crew (all eight of 'em) are gonna be kinda busy moving that
67,000 tonnes in one end, and removing the whatever amount of tonnes of waste
products out the other. _Each_ member of the crew would have about 2,000
'kinds' of animals to feed every day... and remember, some of those, the
clean ones, would be in sevens, and the others in pairs. Let's see. 15,754
divided by eight is a tad over 1,969. Number of seconds/day is 86,400. Noah &
Co. had 43.875 _seconds_ per 'kind' per day if they worked continously 24/7
for the year they were at sea to feed and clean 'em. Must've been trailing
bloody Cherenkov radiation as they ran about the boat, or at least sonic
booms. And, of course, if there were more 'kinds' than Woody's 15,754, Noah &
Co. would have had less time per 'kind', while if there were less 'kinds',
the hyperevolution problem would be worse.
Problem 6: Ye Floode itself. It covered the 'high hills and mountains'.
Hmm... Some creationists say that there was massive amounts of mountain
building post-Floode, which is why Everest, for example, is as tall as it is.
For the purposes of argument, I'll take 'em at their word. How tall _were_
the 'high hills and mountains', though? 100 feet? 1000 feet? 2000 feet? Well,
they'd better have been less than 250 feet, 'cause if you put that much water
above coral reefs, the reefs die. (You can check it for yourself.) Every
coral reef in the world should be dead... unless Noah carried a few corals
with him on Ye Arke, which gives him some extra problems. And which is not
supported by the Bible, anyway. It's easy to work out how much water would be
required for a Floode that size. Now, divide by 24 by 40, and you see how
much fell per hour in the 40 days and 40 nights... and that's one hell of a
lot of water, even if you restrict it to 250 feet extra. I've been in two
hurricanes. They didn't dump anywhere _near_ that kind of water. Not even
within three orders of magnitude. No way a wooden boat's gonna survive that.
None. I won't bother go into varves, sandstones, and salt domes...
Problem 7: Plants. Not only would Noah have had to carry food for all the
animals (and, if predators such as tigers were then carnivores, this would
include extra animals to furnish food for said predators, while if they were
vegetarians, this would require extra fodder and an explanation as to when
and why they changed...) but heąs gonna have to carry all the various plants
as well. All of them. Land plants donąt care for major floods, and would all
die. Fresh-water plants donąt like too much salt, and would all die. Marine
plants donąt like too little salt and would all die. Estuary plants, who
donąt care about the salt content, do care about water pressure... and would
all die long before the corals (see above) would. After Ye Floode would come
Ye Dust Storm, as the wind dries up the mud and blows away the topsoil
because thereąs no ground cover left to preserve it, itąs all dead in Ye
Floode.
Problem 8: Aquatic life. Gen 7-8 simply does not mention aquatic life,
animals or plant. Perhaps fish donąt have Śthe breath of lifeą, as they donąt
breath air, but whales and seals and such do. Did Noah carry whales on Ye
Arke, too, and if so were they clean or unclean? The vast majority of marine
animals donąt like it if thereąs too little salt, or too much water pressure,
or both; a Floode that could reach above Everest would kill them all. (Some
marine life _loves_ pressure, and die if thereąs too little, which creates a
different problem, see below) The vast majority of fresh-water animals donąt
like it if thereąs too much salt, and are far less pressure-resistant than
marine life (how deep can you go in a lake, anyway?) so Ye Floode would kill
them, too. Worse, the Bible expressly states that all creatures not on board
Ye Arke died in Ye Floode. Noah now has to have large aquaria on his wooden
barge... Iąm kinda curious as to how Noah kept the pressure on the tanks
containing the deep-ocean life, so that they wouldnąt die from decompression.
Problem 9: Disease/parasites. Tapeworm, AIDs, leprosy, etc, theyąre all
living creatures too. If they were not on Ye Arke, they died. Some of them
_require_ a _living_ host. Which one or ones of Noahąs crew carried herpes,
which hookworm, which Ebola? How about ticks, fleas, lice?
There's more, but this has gotten too long already. If you _really_ want to
see why I use that sig, check out the t.o FAQs and run the calcs for
yourself. It's not difficult to do. It's simple. Anyone who takes Ye Arke
seriously either hasn't done the math or can't add.
____________
end included text
Pat James
(in message <9i8i40$kga$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>):
So here's 'Torpedo Ye Arke!'. Yet again. Creationists never learn.
begin included text:
____________________
Problem #10: Latent heat of vaporisation. Do you know how much heat water
releases when it turns from vapour to liquid? Ever have a steam burn? 1g of
steam condenses to 1g of liquid water plus 2261 joules! A cubic meter of
water is a million grams and the surface of the Earth is 5.09 x 10^8 km2 or
5.09 x1014 m2. Thus, if we drop a measely meter of water a day for 40 days,
the amount of energy released is 2261 joules/g * 1,000,000 g/m3 * 5.09*10^14
m3 per day or 1.15 * 10^24 joules a day or 249,300,000 megatonnes/day! The
pentagon would envy such an arsenal.
Put another way, for every m of water level increase, we have to release
2.261 billion joules/m2. At a rate of 1 m/day, this comes to 2.261 billion
joules/day/m2 or a radiance of 26 kilowatts/m2, roughly 20 times the
brightness of the sun! Result: The atmosphere rapidly turns into incandescent
plasma incinerating Noah and the Ark. Nothing survives, the oceans boil and
the land is baked into pottery.
There's more, but this has gotten too long already. If you _really_ want to
see why I use that sig, check out the t.o FAQs and run the calcs for
yourself. It's not difficult to do. It's simple. Anyone who takes Ye Arke
seriously either hasn't done the math or can't add.
____________
end included text
--
Pat James
(in message <01HW.B76DB2870...@enews.newsguy.com>):
[snip]
Oops. That one escaped from the lab before it should have. Ignore.
Jon Fleming
wrote:
>In article <9i4bh...@drn.newsguy.com>,
Yeah. What's a kind? Please provide an operational definition, not
just examples, so we can apply it.
--
Change "nospam" to "group" to email
Jon Fleming
wrote:
<snip>
Definitely words to live by. Many (sadly, not all) scientists do live
by them. Creationists do not.
Tom
<9i82r3$lgm$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>, "O. stated..."
[...snip...]
>I'm short on time so I'll get back to you on the sphere thing.
>I don't know what rules you agreed to with someone else, but
>I'm looking at Genesis
>1:11 after his kind, whose seed is in itself,
>1:21 after their kind,... after his kind,
>1:24 after his kind,... after his kind,
>1:25 after his kind,... after their kind,... after his kind:
>Thoughts?
>
"After his kind". Is this supposed to be the word that says
"evolution is false"? This is far, far less than anything about
the world being flat, capped by a dome, and fixed.
Tom
Louann Miller
wrote:
>Ricky" no...@ricky.com writes:
>
>*snip*
>
>>Anyhow, Elder Packer makes the point:
>>
>>> >"An understanding of the sealing authority with its binding of the
>>> >generations into eternal families cannot admit to ancestral blood
>>> >lines to beasts."
>>
>>If this binding is true, (say) then, how would it be possible for Adam to be
>>bound to his progenitors who would, the further and futher down the chain
>>you got, be increasingly unsophisticated beasts. Eventually we would be
>>sealing to ameoba!!
>>
>>Probably cuts no dice with you, but is a powerful argument against evolution
>>for LDS folks.
>
>*That* is a "powerful argument" against mountains of physical evidence?
>
>If that's all you have, you might consider joining the real world.
Ricky is in an unusual position compared to the average creationist
that we get here. Usually we're dealing with some variant of
protestantism, often from the baptist edge of the movement, where the
basic unit of worship is the believer. A church, under those
conditions, is just a collection of believers with a common set of
beliefs (usually biblical literalism). But for Ricky, if I understood
him correctly, the basic unit of worship is the Church. The
organization itself. The Bible is true (plus associated
Mormon-specific scriptures) because the Church says it's true, and God
exists not by direct revelation but because the Church and the Bible
agree on the subject. It's much more like Roman Catholicism, where the
administrative infrastructure is a necessary precondition for worship,
than like a protestant who can be a church unto himself just by owning
or even memorizing a copy of the Bible.
Louann
Johnny Bravo
>No doubt he has in hand his own pedigree all the way back to Adam complete
>with affidavits? Or was willing to relinquish his claim to being human?
Being a theist he wasn't interested in our observation that he couldn't even
prove he had great-grandparents because he didn't have any bodies to show for
it. The burden of proof is on the non-theist to prove him wrong, not vice
versa. At least that's what thiests are taught to say. :)
-
Best Wishes,
Johnny Bravo
BAAWA Knight, EAC - Temporal Adjustments Division
Ordained Minister - Universal Life Church
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - HP Lovecraft
Douglas Cox
Lagenta) wrote:
>On 5 Jul 2001 14:13:07 -0400, "O. C. Swimmer" <cag...@ix.netcom.com>
>wrote:
>>In article <9i27lg$sl2$1...@node21.cwnet.roc.gblx.net>,
>> "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com> wrote:
>[snip]
>>>The Bible also teaches the earth is flat and covered by a solid firmament,
>>>but I bet you don't believe that.
>>
>>The Bible does not teach that. So you don't know what it means.
>
>Say what? Did you just tell a fib?
>Look in your Bible! Here is a path to the relevant parts:
><http://www.student.oulu.fi/~ktikkane/eU_LITT.html>
The site mentioned has pictures of two models of the earth and
universe, which are alleged to be supported in scripture. In both
drawings, the earth is represented as flat and disk shaped, and
covered by a transparent dome or firmament. The sun is shown outside
of the dome, apparently orbiting around the earth once a day. This
seems to be a flaw, as Genesis 1 [in the KJV] has the sun and moon set
*in* the firmament on day 4.
In one drawing, there are four pillars holding up the earth, which
therefore looks something like a round table, covered by a dome. The
dome or firmament rests upon the perimeter of the table top, so
presumably, if one were to walk towards the earth's perimeter he would
come to the boundary where the firmament rested upon the edge of the
earth. Perhaps it would keep him from dropping off into the void.
I wonder, what was the floor that held up those pillars? The drawing
shows them connected to a rectangular base, and perhaps the artist
figured the lower floor would need no other support.
The second drawing has the earth floating like a disk on a
block-shaped body of water, which again seems rather implausible,
since water would not take such a shape unless it was in some kind of
container. What was the container of this ocean, and what supported
it? And where is the container for the primeval ocean mentioned in the
Bible? On what day was it made?
The site attempts to interpret the cosmology of the Bible, but I
suggest that in any such presentation, it would be appropriate to
acknowledge the influence of pagan thinking about cosmology that was
introduced into the Bible through corruptions. In particular,
geocentric ideas of the Greeks were incorporated into the cosmology of
the Bible by Antiochus IV during the second century BC, as foretold by
the prophet Daniel.
This revision of biblical cosmology gave rise to the idea of a rigid
heavenly firmament in which the sun and moon were set. Antiochus
accomplished this by changing Genesis 1:8. The words "And God called
the firmament Heaven" in Genesis 1:8 (or their Greek and Hebrew
equivalents) were added. Before, the 喪aqia' or firmament referred to
the earth's crust, made in the midst of the waters on day 2.
The changes to the cosmology of the Bible in the second century BC and
following centuries have resulted in centuries of confusion. Because
of the information provided in Daniel's prophecies, we can be
confident that initially there was no rigid heavenly sphere in the
cosmology of Genesis, which represented the earth as having two water
levels, the upper one being the oceans and seas, and the lower one
being the subterranean waters. These subterranean waters gave rise to
the flood when the "fountains of the deep" broke up, as mentioned in
Genesis 7:11. Changes during the hellenistic era made the Genesis
cosmology appear to teach three water levels, the uppermost one being
the "waters above the firmament" which puzzled philosophers and
theologians for centuries. If course no such waters exist, and there
is no rigid shell rotating around the earth, carrying the stars.
Unfortunately, Mr. Kari A. Tikkanen, the author of the web site
referred to above, appears to be one of the victims of the fraud
initiated by Antiochus IV.
--
Douglas Cox
http://www.sentex.net/~tcc