EVOLUTION IS GUIDED AND CONTROLLED BY GOD
Bill McGinnis
Evolution Is Guided And Controlled By God
"Evolution" is defined as "a process of change in a certain
direction." This is the primary definition in my dictionary, Webster's
Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. Your dictionary probably says almost
the same thing.
Nobody can argue with this definition. Things change, they evolve in
certain directions. Automobiles have evolved from early simple
machines, as have airplanes and other manufactured items. Laws have
evolved, music has evolved. Almost everything created by man has
evolved from something similar to it which existed earlier. Man, as
creator of these things, has deliberately modified them over time to
meet new conditions and to include advances in technology.
In Nature too, we see evidence of evolution. God, as Creator of the
Universe, has developed many things progressively from similar things
which He created earlier. This is the way He works, bringing all
things into existence when He is ready for them to exist.
In Nature, the process of evolution is guided and controlled by God,
for His own purposes. It is not an accident, and it does not happen
according to any mechanistic process.
The Atheists believe that "random mutation" is the force behind
biological evolution. "Random mutation" coupled with "survival of the
fittest" is the algorithm they believe in. They are wrong. The
mutations are not random, they are are guided and controlled by God.
"Random mutations" could never account for the intricacy and
perfection of design we see in Nature. If mutations were random, how
many quadrillions of failed attempts would occur before the spots on
the fish are exactly the same as the markings on the rocks it lives
beside? The mathematics are prohibitive. Genetic mutations are quite
rare, usually the result of a mistake in copying the code from one
cell to another. And they are random, not related to any need of the
species. So, over a million years the fish might randomly grow bigger
fins and a smaller tail before it stumbled across some helpful change
in protective markings. Such a cumbersome, long-winded process could
never result in the timely development of needed protections. The
species would die out first!
No. God is the Creator of everything, just as it says in the Bible. He
uses evolution as one of His creative tools, and he guides it and
controls it every step of the way.
One more thing, a source of much confusion:
The Bible speaks of the "six days" of Creation. This does not mean
that everything was created in six literal twenty-four-hour days. The
"six days" is a figure of speech, meaning six periods of time.
Similarly, the Bible uses the phrase "the day of the Lord," in
twenty-seven different places. But nowhere does it mean one single
twenty-four-hour day. It means the entire period of time when God pays
back people for the evil they have done. The Bible uses poetical
figures of speech all the time. "Lake of fire" is a figure of speech.
So is the idea of Satan as a "roaring lion." There are many, many
others. It is a great mistake to take them literally.
So God accomplished His great work of Creation in six distinct stages,
or "days," ending with His creation of Man. Now, His major work is
done, but He continues to "fine tune" it in an evolutionary manner,
guiding and controlling this Himself.
So whenever an Atheist tries to tell you that you were created not by
God but by evolution, you can reply:
"YES, BUT EVOLUTION IS GUIDED AND CONTROLLED BY GOD."
--------------------------------------------------------------
Blessings to you in Jesus Christ our Lord,
Bill McGinnis <><
bmc...@patriot.net
http://www.patriot.net/users/bmcgin/ministries.html
"Teaching The Joyful Christian Life"
http://www.patriot.net/users/bmcgin/chapel.html
INTERNET DAILY CHAPEL
Dore Williamson
organism, huge dinosaurs were the first to evolve and in their estimation,
billions of years later, the small creatures come about and have stayed
small, monkeys are still monkeys. If man evolved from the ape, why aren't
all men apes and why didn't the ape disappear, after all they evolved didn't
they. Evolution makes no sense whatsoever. They still can't determine how
that first single cell organism popped into existence from nothing.
--
Sign up for my newsletter, on my website..
http://members.tripod.com/~spirit_of_prophecy/index.html
Dore
Bill McGinnis wrote in message ...
Michael Painter
Bill McGinnis <bmc...@patriot.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.10.990520...@adams.patriot.net...
>
> Evolution Is Guided And Controlled By God
> In Nature, the process of evolution is guided and controlled by God,
> for His own purposes. It is not an accident, and it does not happen
> according to any mechanistic process.
>
> The Atheists believe that "random mutation" is the force behind
> biological evolution. "Random mutation" coupled with "survival of the
> fittest" is the algorithm they believe in. They are wrong. The
> mutations are not random, they are are guided and controlled by God.
What a loving god you have. Man develops something to fight disease and the
loving god makes the disease immune. Isn't that special.
Now we know why the plauge devestated so much of the world.
Now we have proof that god loves the European white man and not the Native
American. If he didn't they, according to his plan would have been resistant
to the desease brought by the Europeans.
Since god loves all mankind I guess this means they are not really human.
I'm sure you make up an answer for this too.
<usual, expected and wrong probability argument cut>
>
> So God accomplished His great work of Creation in six distinct stages,
> or "days," ending with His creation of Man. Now, His major work is
> done, but He continues to "fine tune" it in an evolutionary manner,
> guiding and controlling this Himself.
While most fundies disagree that there are two separate stories of creation,
none of them disagree with that man was created before the animals.
>
> So whenever an Atheist tries to tell you that you were created not by
> God but by evolution, you can reply:
>
> "YES, BUT EVOLUTION IS GUIDED AND CONTROLLED BY GOD."
or the tooth fairy or the IPU or maeve the cat are also acceptable.
Erik Marksberry
>
> It's amazing to me, that evolutionists believe that from a single celled
> organism, huge dinosaurs were the first to evolve and in their estimation,
> billions of years later, the small creatures come about and have stayed
> small, monkeys are still monkeys.
Huge dinosaurs were not the first to evolve, and I can't think of
a single evolutionist who EVER proposed this. They existed from about 200
million to 65 million years ago. The first multicellular life appeared a
little under a billion years ago in the Cambrian.
> If man evolved from the ape,
We didn't. Apes and us had a common ancestor.
> why aren't all men apes and why didn't the
> ape disappear, after all they evolved didn't they.
You can have speciation and still maintain the parent species.
> Evolution makes no sense whatsoever.
Not when you get every single fact wrong. No offense, but it
doesn't sound like you understand evolution. www.talkorigins.org is an
excellent starting point if you want to learn more.
> They still can't determine how that first single cell
> organism popped into existence from nothing. --
That is the realm of abiogenesis. It is a long way
from being a proven fact of biology, but autocatalytic RNA, proteinoid
microspheres, and the experiments of Miller and Urey show great promise
that this is what actually happened.
> Sign up for my newsletter, on my website..
> http://members.tripod.com/~spirit_of_prophecy/index.html
> Dore
--
Erik Marksberry
yang hu
> It's amazing to me, that evolutionists believe that from a single celled
> organism, huge dinosaurs were the first to evolve and in their estimation,
> billions of years later, the small creatures come about and have stayed
> all men apes and why didn't the ape disappear, after all they evolved didn't
> that first single cell organism popped into existence from nothing.
It's amazing to me, that creationists hold such antiquated notion that
humans are "intellegently designed" as is.
But as I have said in another post, if these same creationists believe
in the "intellegent designed" nature of human being, then female
creationiss would refrain from shaving their legs, armpits and their
faces, since "God" intellegently "designed" haor to be there in the
first place, and shave them off is to disobey "God's" master plan.
Futhermore a significant proportion of Asian females do not have hair on
theor legs, which by your reconing means that they are more
"intellgently designed."
What a silly field of pseudo-science creationism is!
--
Yang
a.a.#28
EAC mole and other furry creatures
rev #-273.15, high priest of the most frigid church of Kelvin
"I don't see Star Wars as profoundly religious. I see Star Wars as
taking all the issues that religion represents and trying to
distill them down into a more modern and easily accessible construct
--that there is a greater mystery out there. I remember when I was
10 years old, I asked my mother, "If there's only one God, why are
there so many religions?" I've been pondering that question ever
since, and the conclusion I've come to is that all the religions
are true."
George Lucas, Time Magazine, 4/17/1999
Dean G.
Bill McGinnis <bmc...@patriot.net> wrote in article
<Pine.LNX.4.10.990520...@adams.patriot.net>...
>
> Evolution Is Guided And Controlled By God
>
> "Evolution" is defined as "a process of change in a certain
> direction." This is the primary definition in my dictionary, Webster's
> Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. Your dictionary probably says almost
> the same thing.
>
> Nobody can argue with this definition.
Why not ? I sure can. It is flawed, but in typical christian arogance, you
ignore that facts and state "Nobody can do x!". The definition would be
better to say "uncertain" instead of "certain". To improve things even more
we could change the definition to:
Evolution: Change brought about by the non-random survival or randomly
varying self-replicators.
> Things change, they evolve in
> certain directions.
Ding ! Wrong again, and for a typicaly christian reason" you don't appeal
to facts or reason, you appeal to "authority." Unfortunately, your
authorities are frequently wrong, and since you ignore the facts, you'll
never improve.
> Automobiles have evolved from early simple
> machines, as have airplanes and other manufactured items. Laws have
> evolved, music has evolved. Almost everything created by man has
> evolved from something similar to it which existed earlier. Man, as
> creator of these things, has deliberately modified them over time to
> meet new conditions and to include advances in technology.
Again, completely incorrect. Cars do not evolve, people learn to build
better ones. Cars are inanimate objects, they neither replicate themselves
nor evolve.
>
> In Nature too, we see evidence of evolution.
I'll agree on this point.
> God, as Creator of the
> Universe, has developed many things progressively from similar things
> which He created earlier. This is the way He works, bringing all
> things into existence when He is ready for them to exist.
God must be lazy, as nothing completely new has appeared in 4 billion
years.
>
> In Nature, the process of evolution is guided and controlled by God,
That must be why so many mutations are dismal pathetic failures.
> for His own purposes. It is not an accident, and it does not happen
> according to any mechanistic process.
But it has already been shown to happen via a mechanical process. Study
genetics, and get back with us when you have at least a vague clue what you
are talking about.
>
> The Atheists believe that "random mutation" is the force behind
> biological evolution. "Random mutation" coupled with "survival of the
> fittest" is the algorithm they believe in. They are wrong. The
> mutations are not random, they are are guided and controlled by God.
A grandious statment without any evidence. My 6th grade teacher would give
that argument an "F".
>
> "Random mutations" could never account for the intricacy and
> perfection of design we see in Nature. If mutations were random, how
> many quadrillions of failed attempts would occur before the spots on
> the fish are exactly the same as the markings on the rocks it lives
> beside? The mathematics are prohibitive.
Ditto. Lots of talk and no evidence. You complain about the math, but offer
no mathematical evidence to the contrary. Maybe you mean to say the
mathematics are too prohibitive for you ? I'll tutor you if you need
assistance, and I'm not too expensive.
> Genetic mutations are quite
> rare, usually the result of a mistake in copying the code from one
> cell to another.
Genetic mutations are actually quite common. You probably have several
mutations from your parents genes. You also ignore the benefits of sexual
reproduction.
> And they are random, not related to any need of the
> species. So, over a million years the fish might randomly grow bigger
> fins and a smaller tail before it stumbled across some helpful change
> in protective markings.
This is correct. Most mutations, as mentioned earlier, are useless or
worse.
> Such a cumbersome, long-winded process could
> never result in the timely development of needed protections. The
> species would die out first!
If you had bothered to read up on the subject before spouting off, you
would know that most species do in fact become extinct. As for long winded,
there is and has been plenty of time.
>
> No. God is the Creator of everything, just as it says in the Bible. He
> uses evolution as one of His creative tools, and he guides it and
> controls it every step of the way.
Again, you repeat the same thing we've heard over and over without
evidence. I'll make an equaly valid statement : The man in the moon created
everything and controls evolution. I'll give the same ammount of evidence
that you offer : <this space intentionaly left blank> . (none.)
If you are correct god created nuclear weapons, and biological warfare, and
lets not forget crusades and jihads. One question, why is god such an
aweful inventor ? Why are so many of his creations dismals failures that
fail to pass their genes on to even a single child ? Why did he willfuly
create a world full of hate and killing in his name. Being omniscient and
omnipotent, he has no excuse. He also chose to have his word carried by a
most murderous and barbaric church. Thank god for atheists, his best
creation !
>
> One more thing, a source of much confusion:
>
> The Bible speaks of the "six days" of Creation. This does not mean
> that everything was created in six literal twenty-four-hour days. The
> "six days" is a figure of speech, meaning six periods of time.
This is a relatively new concept for the cristians, who until very recently
insisted that is was six literal days. Of course once something is proven
wrong, the christians simply say it is poetry after having executed people
for doubting its literal truth up until that point. What a wonderous
religion !
> Similarly, the Bible uses the phrase "the day of the Lord," in
> twenty-seven different places. But nowhere does it mean one single
> twenty-four-hour day. It means the entire period of time when God pays
> back people for the evil they have done. The Bible uses poetical
> figures of speech all the time. "Lake of fire" is a figure of speech.
> So is the idea of Satan as a "roaring lion." There are many, many
> others. It is a great mistake to take them literally.
It is a shame that there are so many other mistakes in the book, and that
the poetry is so vague and contradictory as to be completely useless.
>
> So God accomplished His great work of Creation in six distinct stages,
> or "days," ending with His creation of Man. Now, His major work is
> done, but He continues to "fine tune" it in an evolutionary manner,
> guiding and controlling this Himself.
Must be tough to do absolutely nothing.
>
> So whenever an Atheist tries to tell you that you were created not by
> God but by evolution, you can reply:
>
> "YES, BUT EVOLUTION IS GUIDED AND CONTROLLED BY GOD."
Note to christian fundamentalists: Whenever anything you claim is shown to
be false or illogical, say that this is what god wanted and say he works in
mysterious ways. This won't convince anyone, but will make you feel better.
Dean G.
Dean G.
claiming. No one said that dinosaurs were the first to evolve from single
celled organism. You also show a distinct ignorance of the evolutionary
theory you attack. Consider the ape disappearace question: If you
understood genetic theory, you would know that one creature would have a
mutation that was significant, and pass that on to his or her children.
Please explain to me how this affects the other apes ? It doesn't they
continue on as apes. The children of the mutant are a different story, as
they diverge from apes and go their own way. This is why we have many
similar species, as all of then have common ancestors, and they slowly
diverge because of mutation.
By your reasoning: Christianity makes no sense, as they still can't
determine how their god popped into existence from nothing.
Dean G.
Thanks for demonstrating yet again how ignorant theists really are.
Dore Williamson <hsp...@epix.net> wrote in article
<7i1fk6$i9q$1...@news1.epix.net>...
> It's amazing to me, that evolutionists believe that from a single celled
> organism, huge dinosaurs were the first to evolve and in their
estimation,
> billions of years later, the small creatures come about and have stayed
> small, monkeys are still monkeys. If man evolved from the ape, why aren't
> all men apes and why didn't the ape disappear, after all they evolved
didn't
> they. Evolution makes no sense whatsoever. They still can't determine how
> that first single cell organism popped into existence from nothing.
> --
>
Sam Lopez
: Dore Williamson wrote:
:
: > It's amazing to me, that evolutionists believe that from a single celled
: > organism, huge dinosaurs were the first to evolve and in their estimation,
: > billions of years later, the small creatures come about and have stayed
: > small, monkeys are still monkeys. If man evolved from the ape, why aren't
: > all men apes and why didn't the ape disappear, after all they evolved didn't
: > they. Evolution makes no sense whatsoever. They still can't determine how
: > that first single cell organism popped into existence from nothing.
: It's amazing to me, that creationists hold such antiquated notion that
: humans are "intellegently designed" as is.
*********************************************************************
Tell me Yangie, what are the odds of a Pentium III chip coming into
existence via mindless natural creation?
*********************************************************************
: But as I have said in another post, if these same creationists believe
: in the "intellegent designed" nature of human being, then female
: creationiss would refrain from shaving their legs, armpits and their
: faces, since "God" intellegently "designed" haor to be there in the
: first place, and shave them off is to disobey "God's" master plan.
: Futhermore a significant proportion of Asian females do not have hair on
: theor legs, which by your reconing means that they are more
: "intellgently designed."
: What a silly field of pseudo-science creationism is!
:
: --
: Yang
: a.a.#28
: EAC mole and other furry creatures
: rev #-273.15, high priest of the most frigid church of Kelvin
: "I don't see Star Wars as profoundly religious. I see Star Wars as
: taking all the issues that religion represents and trying to
: distill them down into a more modern and easily accessible construct
: --that there is a greater mystery out there. I remember when I was
: 10 years old, I asked my mother, "If there's only one God, why are
: there so many religions?" I've been pondering that question ever
: since, and the conclusion I've come to is that all the religions
: are true."
: George Lucas, Time Magazine, 4/17/1999
--
+*******************************************************+
ATHEISM IS A DISEASE OF THE SOUL
BEFORE IT BECOMES AN ERROR OF UNDERSTANDING
Plato
+*******************************************************+
yang hu
> *********************************************************************
> Tell me Yangie, what are the odds of a Pentium III chip coming into
> existence via mindless natural creation?
> *********************************************************************
No Samie, it came evolved through market focres, designed by people
have become more educated, unlike you.
Any other strawman you like me to konck down?
> +*******************************************************+
> ATHEISM IS A DISEASE OF THE SOUL
> BEFORE IT BECOMES AN ERROR OF UNDERSTANDING
> Plato
> +*******************************************************+
"A God... is said to have been Zeus."
Plato, Laws I, Book I
that's Sammeeeeee, You are a Pagan.
Elf Sternberg
"Dore Williamson" <hsp...@epix.net> writes:
>It's amazing to me, that evolutionists believe that from a single celled
>organism, huge dinosaurs were the first to evolve and in their estimation,
>billions of years later, the small creatures come about and have stayed
>small, monkeys are still monkeys. If man evolved from the ape, why aren't
>all men apes and why didn't the ape disappear, after all they evolved didn't
>they. Evolution makes no sense whatsoever. They still can't determine how
>that first single cell organism popped into existence from nothing.
If that's what you "know" of evolution then you have no right
to any opinion on the subject at all. The first life emerged 4.5
BILLION years ago; the first dinosaurs appear only 245 million years
ago; they were hardly "first" and the first of them were hardly
"huge." While the big ones get all the attention, most dinosaurs were
actually the similar in size to mammals now; many were no larger than
a large dog. The smaller the animal, the less likely the bones would
last long enough to fossilize, so what we find, and what grabs the
mind as romantically fascinating, are the huge beasts. But there were
plenty of small animals roaming around the Earth with the dinosaurs.
The first primitive species that led to humanity, Ardipithecus
ramidus, appeard a modest 4.4 million years ago. They and apes all
branched away from a common ancestor; the reason we have apes,
chimpanzees, and mankind around today is that, until recently, we
didn't compete for the same resources. We each had our own niche and
there was no pressure on monkeys to become more manlike, or man to
become more monkeylike, for that matter.
Evolution makes sense if you understand it with any scientific
background. This is why all scientists accept it as fact. It's
undeniable that dinosaurs once walked the Earth (what's *your*
explanation for them, anyway?), and that both the genetic and atomic
makeup of their bodies and the ground in which they are found date
back millions and billions of years. You can dispute that, of course,
but if you do, remember that the science that proves this is the exact
same science that provides you with antibiotics and nuclear bombs.
Now, if you want to deny evolution, you have to prove that antibiotics
and nuclear bombs don't exist. Good luck.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, rational romantic mystic cynical idealist
If you're so smart, why aren't you naked?
A.A 1493 http://www.halcyon.com/elf/
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
>It's amazing to me, that evolutionists believe that from a single celled
>organism, huge dinosaurs were the first to evolve [snip]
<goggle>
>Sign up for my newsletter, on my website..
<visit>
Ah, an interesting filter, only somebody ignorant enough to think
your post made sense would think your web page makes sense.
Robert
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
> "Dore Williamson" writes: [nothing I care to propogate]
[elf's discussion of evolution deleted]
>undeniable that dinosaurs once walked the Earth (what's *your*
>explanation for them, anyway?),
God created them and then they all died in the flood (and 'cause
all dinosaurs are big they all sunk to the bottom... even the
ones who could swim...)
<gosh durn it, I can't find that blasted sarcasm flag!>
>and that both the genetic and atomic makeup of their bodies and
>the ground in which they are found date back millions and billions
>of years.
Errr, do we have any genetic material from that long ago?
(and it is hundreds of millions, not billions)
But yes the dating via radioactive decay and other methods do quite
clearly put them a looooooooooong time ago.
Robert
John Hattan
>Sam Lopez wrote:
>
>> ATHEISM IS A DISEASE OF THE SOUL
>> BEFORE IT BECOMES AN ERROR OF UNDERSTANDING
>> Plato
>
>"A God... is said to have been Zeus."
>
> Plato, Laws I, Book I
Interesting. I was always assuming that Lopez was a Christian. Go
figure.
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
john-...@bigfoot.com http://www.bitsmart.com/shatner
Sterling Crowe
Dore Williamson <hsp...@epix.net> wrote in message
news:7i1fk6$i9q$1...@news1.epix.net...
> It's amazing to me, that evolutionists believe that from a single celled
Cite *any* source from a proponent of evolution which even remotely supports
this ridiculous assertion.
> billions of years later,
Millions.
> the small creatures come about and have stayed
> small,
Tell it to a blue whale.
> monkeys are still monkeys.
Mostly because a 90 foot tall tree dweller wouldn't survive very well.
> If man evolved from the ape, why aren't
> all men apes and why didn't the ape disappear, after all they evolved
didn't
> they.
Yeah, and if Caucasian Americans are descended from Europeans, how come
there are still Europeans?
> Evolution makes no sense whatsoever.
Of course it doesn't when all your information comes from the ICR.
>They still can't determine how
> that first single cell organism popped into existence from nothing.
Well, get on with determining that and you will have a good case for
creationism.
Till then, I'll let the guys who are researching abiogenesis (which is *not*
evolution) continue trying to model the conditions which may have produced
the earliest life forms from non-living materials.
<snip>
--
Homo vult decipi; decipiatur,
Sterling Crowe
#1168, Knight of BAAWA
"I doubt it very much, but I would not be surprised to be surprised."
--Marvin Minsky
Trevor Zion Bauknight
Bill McGinnis <bmc...@patriot.net> wrote:
> "Evolution" is defined as "a process of change in a certain
> direction." This is the primary definition in my dictionary, Webster's
Your very first sentence renders the rest of your specious argument invalid.
Put a new dictionary on your shopping list. My dictionary actually uses
words like "phylogeny" and "ontogeny" in its definition. It says Webster
on it too, so it should meet your demanding specification. Webster's New
World Dictionary, 2nd Collegiate edition. Not a great edition, but a good
one.
Trev
Trevor Zion Bauknight
<hsp...@epix.net> wrote:
> It's amazing to me, that evolutionists believe that from a single celled
> organism, huge dinosaurs were the first to evolve and in their estimation,
> billions of years later, the small creatures come about and have stayed
*sigh*...sometimes I wonder how certain people are able to walk outside.
Trev
jason daniel powell
>background. This is why all scientists accept it as fact. It's
>makeup of their bodies and the ground in which they are found date
>but if you do, remember that the science that proves this is the exact
>same science that provides you with antibiotics and nuclear bombs.
>Now, if you want to deny evolution, you have to prove that antibiotics
>and nuclear bombs don't exist. Good luck.
I was curious what type of scientific background you are coming from, and
what definition of evolution you are using. My scientific background comes
from a B.S. in chemistry and most of a Ph.D. in inorganic and surface
chemistry, as well as other excursions into physics and biology. From my
perspective, several things are clear: First, microevolution (adaptation by
a species) is constantly occuring and is readily observable in the natural
world. Second, macroevolution (darwinian evolution, where species can come
from a common ancestor) does not occur and is not observable in the natural
world. Third, the "science" used to "prove" evolution uses highly circular
reasoning, and ignores the vast lack of evidence in favor of a few examples
of questionable evidence. Fourth, and finally (for now), the Biblical idea
of the Great Flood provides a better explaination for the observed fossil
record than any model of evolutionary thinking I have ever been exposed to.
I am extremely interested in continuing this conversation, but do not frequent
the newsgroups very often. Please reply by email if possible.
Thanks,
Jason Powell.
jdpo...@scs.uiuc.edu
xtmprs...@erols.com
>
> Dore Williamson wrote:
>
> > It's amazing to me, that evolutionists believe that from a single celled
> > organism, huge dinosaurs were the first to evolve and in their estimation,
> > billions of years later, the small creatures come about and have stayed
> > all men apes and why didn't the ape disappear, after all they evolved didn't
> > that first single cell organism popped into existence from nothing.
>
This post makes less sense than a duane gish book.
> It's amazing to me, that creationists hold such antiquated notion that
> humans are "intellegently designed" as is.
>
> But as I have said in another post, if these same creationists believe
> in the "intellegent designed" nature of human being, then female
> creationiss would refrain from shaving their legs, armpits and their
> faces, since "God" intellegently "designed" haor to be there in the
> first place, and shave them off is to disobey "God's" master plan.
>
> Futhermore a significant proportion of Asian females do not have hair on
> theor legs, which by your reconing means that they are more
> "intellgently designed."
>
> What a silly field of pseudo-science creationism is!
>
>
xtmprs...@erols.com
>
> On Thu, 20 May 1999, Dore Williamson wrote:
> >
> > It's amazing to me, that evolutionists believe that from a single celled
> > organism, huge dinosaurs were the first to evolve and in their estimation,
> > billions of years later, the small creatures come about and have stayed
> > small, monkeys are still monkeys.
>
> a single evolutionist who EVER proposed this. They existed from about 200
> million to 65 million years ago. The first multicellular life appeared a
> little under a billion years ago in the Cambrian.
>
>
>
> > ape disappear, after all they evolved didn't they.
>
>
>
> doesn't sound like you understand evolution. www.talkorigins.org is an
> excellent starting point if you want to learn more.
>
>
> That is the realm of abiogenesis. It is a long way
> from being a proven fact of biology, but autocatalytic RNA, proteinoid
> microspheres, and the experiments of Miller and Urey show great promise
> that this is what actually happened.
>
understand what you just wrote?
> > Sign up for my newsletter, on my website..
xtmprs...@erols.com
research
you are compromising with satan.
Bill McGinnis wrote:
>
> Evolution Is Guided And Controlled By God
>
> "Evolution" is defined as "a process of change in a certain
> direction." This is the primary definition in my dictionary, Webster's
> Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. Your dictionary probably says almost
> the same thing.
>
> Nobody can argue with this definition. Things change, they evolve in
> certain directions. Automobiles have evolved from early simple
> machines, as have airplanes and other manufactured items. Laws have
> evolved, music has evolved. Almost everything created by man has
> evolved from something similar to it which existed earlier. Man, as
> creator of these things, has deliberately modified them over time to
> meet new conditions and to include advances in technology.
>
> In Nature too, we see evidence of evolution. God, as Creator of the
> Universe, has developed many things progressively from similar things
> which He created earlier. This is the way He works, bringing all
> things into existence when He is ready for them to exist.
>
> In Nature, the process of evolution is guided and controlled by God,
> for His own purposes. It is not an accident, and it does not happen
> according to any mechanistic process.
>
> The Atheists believe that "random mutation" is the force behind
> biological evolution. "Random mutation" coupled with "survival of the
> fittest" is the algorithm they believe in. They are wrong. The
> mutations are not random, they are are guided and controlled by God.
>
> "Random mutations" could never account for the intricacy and
> perfection of design we see in Nature. If mutations were random, how
> many quadrillions of failed attempts would occur before the spots on
> the fish are exactly the same as the markings on the rocks it lives
> beside? The mathematics are prohibitive. Genetic mutations are quite
> rare, usually the result of a mistake in copying the code from one
> cell to another. And they are random, not related to any need of the
> species. So, over a million years the fish might randomly grow bigger
> fins and a smaller tail before it stumbled across some helpful change
> in protective markings. Such a cumbersome, long-winded process could
> never result in the timely development of needed protections. The
> species would die out first!
>
> No. God is the Creator of everything, just as it says in the Bible. He
> uses evolution as one of His creative tools, and he guides it and
> controls it every step of the way.
>
> One more thing, a source of much confusion:
>
> The Bible speaks of the "six days" of Creation. This does not mean
> that everything was created in six literal twenty-four-hour days. The
> "six days" is a figure of speech, meaning six periods of time.
> Similarly, the Bible uses the phrase "the day of the Lord," in
> twenty-seven different places. But nowhere does it mean one single
> twenty-four-hour day. It means the entire period of time when God pays
> back people for the evil they have done. The Bible uses poetical
> figures of speech all the time. "Lake of fire" is a figure of speech.
> So is the idea of Satan as a "roaring lion." There are many, many
> others. It is a great mistake to take them literally.
>
> So God accomplished His great work of Creation in six distinct stages,
> or "days," ending with His creation of Man. Now, His major work is
> done, but He continues to "fine tune" it in an evolutionary manner,
> guiding and controlling this Himself.
>
> So whenever an Atheist tries to tell you that you were created not by
> God but by evolution, you can reply:
>
> "YES, BUT EVOLUTION IS GUIDED AND CONTROLLED BY GOD."
>
Erik Marksberry
>
> > Evolution makes sense if you understand it with any scientific
> >background. This is why all scientists accept it as fact. It's
> >undeniable that dinosaurs once walked the Earth (what's *your*
> >explanation for them, anyway?), and that both the genetic and atomic
> >makeup of their bodies and the ground in which they are found date
> >back millions and billions of years. You can dispute that, of course,
> >but if you do, remember that the science that proves this is the exact
> >same science that provides you with antibiotics and nuclear bombs.
> >Now, if you want to deny evolution, you have to prove that antibiotics
> >and nuclear bombs don't exist. Good luck.
>
> I was curious what type of scientific background you are coming from, and
> what definition of evolution you are using. My scientific background comes
> from a B.S. in chemistry and most of a Ph.D. in inorganic and surface
> chemistry, as well as other excursions into physics and biology.
In the end, the argument determines its own merits. If someone
says to take their word for it, yeah, educational background is nice to
know. Otherwise, the content of one's argument is all that's important,
IMHO.
> From my
> perspective, several things are clear: First, microevolution (adaptation by
> a species) is constantly occuring and is readily observable in the natural
> world.
Evolution is evolution. Micro and macro are just terms to cop out
and say evolution does and does not happen. But yes, adaptation within a
species is observed daily.
> Second, macroevolution (darwinian evolution, where species can come
> from a common ancestor) does not occur and is not observable in the natural
> world.
We've directly observed speciation. That alone demonstrates
macroevolution. Genetic comparisons, the fossil record, and reproduction
of evolution in the lab are supporting evidences.
> Third, the "science" used to "prove" evolution uses highly circular
> reasoning, and ignores the vast lack of evidence in favor of a few examples
> of questionable evidence.
Evolution is an observation of nature, one with an infinite
number of examples. Circular reasoning never even enters the playfield.
> Fourth, and finally (for now), the Biblical idea
> of the Great Flood provides a better explaination for the observed fossil
> record than any model of evolutionary thinking I have ever been exposed to.
Maybe you should have majored in Geology. No offense to your
educational background, but if the 3000 year old plagarized pagan fairy
tale is more plausible than any evolutionary thinking you've been exposed
to, methinks you've never been exposed to evolutionary thinking.
For starters, consider this. From time to time, paleontologists
find footprints preserved in some strata of the geologic column. Now,
lets play make believe and imagine a Global Flood laid down all the
sediment in the world. How was the footprint formed? In this torrent of
rain and flood, was there a T. rex tromping around under miles of sediment
making this footprint? And if there was, how would the footprint be
preserved if there was tons of more sludge being piled on top of it? And
if the footprint was in one of the upper layers of the column (towards the
end of the flood, presumably), how did the animal survive that long?
After that, consider why we find wind-swept sand dunes in the
column, how Noah would have brought the human-specific diseases on the
ark, where the heat from all the igneous intrusions dispersed to without
melting off the flood, where Noah could have kept all the animals, how
Noah could have cared for all the animals, etcetcetcetcetcetcetcetc....
....or, you could look at the world around you, accept evolution,
and move on with your life. :)
> I am extremely interested in continuing this conversation, but do not frequent
> the newsgroups very often. Please reply by email if possible.
--
Erik Marksberry
Erik Marksberry
Maybe not, but that's his problem, not mine. ;) Sometimes it all
starts with someone willing to find out what in the heck his opponent just
said, going to the library, and learning. And learning. And learning...
--
Erik Marksberry
yang hu
> I was curious what type of scientific background you are coming from, and
> what definition of evolution you are using. My scientific background comes
> from a B.S. in chemistry and most of a Ph.D.
Throwing degree arounds aren't we? well, I got my BA in history
and I'm telling you your Bible is a work of fiction.
Indcidentally your Bible says locusts have 4 legs.
Guess your "god" flunked his bio class didn't he?
But then again the bible is full these holes, what
with talking donkeys and all.
mike
>
> It's amazing to me, that evolutionists believe that from a single celled
> organism, huge dinosaurs were the first to evolve and in their estimation,
> billions of years later, the small creatures come about and have stayed
> all men apes and why didn't the ape disappear, after all they evolved didn't
> that first single cell organism popped into existence from nothing.
Wake up to the past 50 years of research.
Evolution of the earth, fifth ED.: 195-221 R. H. Dott, D. R.
Prothero
You may have to read the whole book judging by your level of
scientific knowledge.
By the way, I think you may just be thinking that since an idea
sounds bad, it therefore must be. Well, if I told you penicillin
comes from fungus (actually, it can be made artificially) are you
going to accept treatment if ou ever suffer a horrible desease?
Of course you will. Even though it sounds bad. You are just being
finicky about what you want to be real.
-Mike#1375
Treelo
> It's amazing to me, that evolutionists believe that from a single celled
> organism, huge dinosaurs were the first to evolve and in their estimation,
> billions of years later, the small creatures come about and have stayed
> small, monkeys are still monkeys. If man evolved from the ape, why aren't
> all men apes and why didn't the ape disappear, after all they evolved didn't
> they. Evolution makes no sense whatsoever. They still can't determine how
> that first single cell organism popped into existence from nothing.
Ugh.....ignorance never was an excuse. Get an education. Your ignorance on the
subject is laughable.
-Treelo
Atheist #1399
Chief Justice
EAC Appellate Court
>
> --
>
> Sign up for my newsletter, on my website..
> http://members.tripod.com/~spirit_of_prophecy/index.html
> Dore
> Bill McGinnis wrote in message ...
> >
Michael Painter
Trevor Zion Bauknight <tr...@sc.edu> wrote in message
news:trev-20059...@nas-p6.usc.net...
>
> > It's amazing to me, that evolutionists believe that from a single celled
> > organism, huge dinosaurs were the first to evolve and in their
estimation,
> > billions of years later, the small creatures come about and have stayed
>
>
> Trev
Walk into a wall, bounce off. "That's not it.
Walk into a wall, bounce off. "That's not it.
.
.
.
Walk into a wall, bounce off. "That's not it.
Walk through the door. "That's it.
A friend of mine, very drunk at the time spent 20 minutes in a bathroom
doing that. Others came in and walked out. He "reasoned" if they could he
could and would push on a wall. His wife sent someone to get him.
Trevor Zion Bauknight
<mpai...@inreach.com> wrote:
> A friend of mine, very drunk at the time spent 20 minutes in a bathroom
> doing that. Others came in and walked out. He "reasoned" if they could he
> could and would push on a wall. His wife sent someone to get him.
His WIFE?
Trev (I'm doing something wrong...)
Jay Cole
wrote:
>
>Evolution Is Guided And Controlled By God
>
> "Evolution" is defined as "a process of change in a certain
> direction." This is the primary definition in my dictionary, Webster's
> Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. Your dictionary probably says almost
> the same thing.
>
> Nobody can argue with this definition. Things change, they evolve in
> certain directions. Automobiles have evolved from early simple
> machines, as have airplanes and other manufactured items. Laws have
> evolved, music has evolved. Almost everything created by man has
> evolved from something similar to it which existed earlier. Man, as
> creator of these things, has deliberately modified them over time to
> meet new conditions and to include advances in technology.
Observations
> In Nature too, we see evidence of evolution. God, as Creator of the
> Universe, has developed many things progressively from similar things
> which He created earlier. This is the way He works, bringing all
> things into existence when He is ready for them to exist.
Assertion
> In Nature, the process of evolution is guided and controlled by God,
> for His own purposes. It is not an accident, and it does not happen
> according to any mechanistic process.
Assertion
> The Atheists believe that "random mutation" is the force behind
> biological evolution. "Random mutation" coupled with "survival of the
> fittest" is the algorithm they believe in. They are wrong. The
> mutations are not random, they are are guided and controlled by God.
Misunderstanding, followed by assertion.
> "Random mutations" could never account for the intricacy and
> perfection of design we see in Nature. If mutations were random, how
Assertion.
> many quadrillions of failed attempts would occur before the spots on
> the fish are exactly the same as the markings on the rocks it lives
> beside? The mathematics are prohibitive. Genetic mutations are quite
(with survival at stake and reproduction, high), assertion.
> rare, usually the result of a mistake in copying the code from one
> cell to another. And they are random, not related to any need of the
> species. So, over a million years the fish might randomly grow bigger
> fins and a smaller tail before it stumbled across some helpful change
> in protective markings. Such a cumbersome, long-winded process could
> never result in the timely development of needed protections. The
> species would die out first!
Lack of knowledge and assertion
>
> No. God is the Creator of everything, just as it says in the Bible. He
> uses evolution as one of His creative tools, and he guides it and
> controls it every step of the way.
Assertion.
> One more thing, a source of much confusion:
>
> The Bible speaks of the "six days" of Creation. This does not mean
> that everything was created in six literal twenty-four-hour days. The
> "six days" is a figure of speech, meaning six periods of time.
> Similarly, the Bible uses the phrase "the day of the Lord," in
> twenty-seven different places. But nowhere does it mean one single
> twenty-four-hour day. It means the entire period of time when God pays
> back people for the evil they have done. The Bible uses poetical
> figures of speech all the time. "Lake of fire" is a figure of speech.
> So is the idea of Satan as a "roaring lion." There are many, many
> others. It is a great mistake to take them literally.
Excuses and irrational reasoning.
> So God accomplished His great work of Creation in six distinct stages,
> or "days," ending with His creation of Man. Now, His major work is
> done, but He continues to "fine tune" it in an evolutionary manner,
> guiding and controlling this Himself.
Assertion.
>
> So whenever an Atheist tries to tell you that you were created not by
> God but by evolution, you can reply:
>
> "YES, BUT EVOLUTION IS GUIDED AND CONTROLLED BY GOD."
all-mighty conclusion based on asserting the conclusion in the above
text.
Very impressive stuff, no formal logic what-so-ever. No evidence,
just a few observations, misunderstandings and assertions and we
arrive here.
Thanks for the humor Bill.
Henrik Jonsson
>
> In article <7i1fk6$i9q$1...@news1.epix.net>, "Dore Williamson"
> <hsp...@epix.net> wrote:
>
> > It's amazing to me, that evolutionists believe that from a single celled
> > organism, huge dinosaurs were the first to evolve and in their estimation,
> > billions of years later, the small creatures come about and have stayed
>
> *sigh*...sometimes I wonder how certain people are able to walk outside.
In the same way as a marble ball don't need to know about gravitation,
humans don't need to understand the process of walking. Such a requirement
would seriously cut down on shoe sales, I can tell you that.
/Henrik
--
To post or not to post, that is the question...Whether 'tis nobler on the 'net
to suffer, the flames from outrageous loonies or to press 'F' against a sea of
slander and by opposing end them? To send KILL signal; to sleep(1); No more...
**** d1...@dtek.chalmers.se **** h...@ticnet.com **** h...@cd.chalmers.se ****
Charlie the tuna
Sam Lopez wrote:
<snip>
>
> *********************************************************************
> Tell me Yangie, what are the odds of a Pentium III chip coming into
> existence via mindless natural creation?
> *********************************************************************
>
100%
Run on down to your local computer retailer if you don't believe me.
Cheers!
Charlie the Tuna
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The skeptic does not mean him who doubts, but him who investigates or
researches, as opposed to
him who asserts and thinks that he has found.
-- Miguel de Unamuno. Essays and Soliloquies, "My Religion" (1924), from
The Columbia Dictionary of
Quotations
Miguel de Unamuno (1864-1936)
Spanish philosophical writer
Matt Silberstein
<bmc...@patriot.net>:
>
>Evolution Is Guided And Controlled By God
>
> "Evolution" is defined as "a process of change in a certain
> direction." This is the primary definition in my dictionary, Webster's
> Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. Your dictionary probably says almost
> the same thing.
>
Ok, but this "evolution" has little to do with what biologists call
evolution.
> Nobody can argue with this definition. Things change, they evolve in
> certain directions. Automobiles have evolved from early simple
> machines, as have airplanes and other manufactured items. Laws have
> evolved, music has evolved. Almost everything created by man has
> evolved from something similar to it which existed earlier. Man, as
> creator of these things, has deliberately modified them over time to
> meet new conditions and to include advances in technology.
>
> In Nature too, we see evidence of evolution. God, as Creator of the
> Universe, has developed many things progressively from similar things
> which He created earlier. This is the way He works, bringing all
> things into existence when He is ready for them to exist.
>
Nice assertion. Useless, but nice.
> In Nature, the process of evolution is guided and controlled by God,
> for His own purposes. It is not an accident, and it does not happen
> according to any mechanistic process.
>
Usually when someone writes an essay like this they make some attempt
to provide some reasoning and/or evidence to support their thesis. All
you seem to have done is assert it.
> The Atheists believe that "random mutation" is the force behind
> biological evolution.
*A* force, not *the* force. And mutations are observed. And "random"
here means what it does in all other science: we have no way of
predicting the mutations. They could come from God, but so could the
result of a dice roll. And I notice that you now speak of "biological
evolution", that does not mean what you called evolution above.
> "Random mutation" coupled with "survival of the
> fittest" is the algorithm they believe in.
Not a question of belief and "survival of the fittest" is a poor way
to put it. Try "differential reproductive success".
> They are wrong. The
> mutations are not random, they are are guided and controlled by God.
>
How nice, a repeat of the assertion. Ok, so they are guided by God.
Can you use that knowledge to tell us anything about future mutations?
> "Random mutations" could never account for the intricacy and
> perfection of design we see in Nature.
And you know this because of what?
> If mutations were random, how
> many quadrillions of failed attempts would occur before the spots on
> the fish are exactly the same as the markings on the rocks it lives
> beside? The mathematics are prohibitive. Genetic mutations are quite
> rare,
How rare? Each person has about 6, btw.
> usually the result of a mistake in copying the code from one
> cell to another. And they are random, not related to any need of the
> species.
I thought you said they were not random. To avoid such obvious
contradictions.
> So, over a million years the fish might randomly grow bigger
> fins and a smaller tail before it stumbled across some helpful change
> in protective markings. Such a cumbersome, long-winded process could
> never result in the timely development of needed protections. The
> species would die out first!
>
Why? And what do you have to say about *observed* mutations and
*observed* effects of them?
> No. God is the Creator of everything, just as it says in the Bible. He
> uses evolution as one of His creative tools, and he guides it and
> controls it every step of the way.
>
> One more thing, a source of much confusion:
>
> The Bible speaks of the "six days" of Creation. This does not mean
> that everything was created in six literal twenty-four-hour days. The
> "six days" is a figure of speech, meaning six periods of time.
Fine, the order does not fit with what we see. And the order changes
from Genesis 1 to Genesis 2.
[snip]
>
Matt Silberstein
=============================================
Because the night belongs to lovers
Because the night belongs to us
Because the night belongs to lovers
Becuase the night belongs to love
P.S. and B.S. (This is the P.S. version)
Stephen Knight
wrote:
>
>Evolution Is Guided And Controlled By God
Bill, buddy. C'mon. Last time, you wanted atheism destroyed. Now you
associate evolution with atheism in an attempt to co-exist science
with superstition. First, evolution has nothing to do with atheism.
Second, atheism is not a science.
You should be making stuff up about abiogenesis. Not that mutation
stuff. If you are going to screw around with "Let's Pretend", start in
the right place. Let me help. God made the spark of life on the planet
Earth. Because "insert gibberish here" and evolution started. Then you
can say something like, "Of all the trillions of planets in the
universe, god likes us the most, err.....because of the dead son
thing." (It's always important to keep perspective when speaking to
the superstitious. But you know that.)
Thing is, Billy, you seem to flip flop quite a bit. You show an
amazing lack of education. Towing the party line, saying the same
tired excuses, building your argument on sand (and I think any 3 year
old atheist would agree) is a bad idea.
Let's talk about you problem with assertions. You are quite
obsessed with bleating, "THIS IS WHAT IS TRUE!!" without providing any
proof, a valid argument or even debating anyone on a personal basis.
You just stand alone in your delusion, shout down, screeching bible
interpretations like you were the first to figure it out. Then you
quote some bible verse like it was true. Hey, think circular. ( Stay
with me here, I'm trying to help. ) Just because it "says so" in some
really (really) old book, doesn't mean it's true. There is not one
single word about evolution in the myth book, yet you drag an
assertion out, make up all sorts of gobble-dy-gook about god this and
god that and since evolution is fact, it must be "Goddit" (tm) Lame,
buddy, lame. Here's the atheist question, "Prove your god is in
control of evolution." Don't just assert, prove it. This is where the
word, gotcha, is used.
Don't you just hate atheists? I know, it's a bitch being stuck in
rationality, logic and scientific facts and not a robot being
programmed by worthless parasites looking for stature in their
pathetic lives, but someone has to do it.
Holy Jeesus Turds! I made a long post! Must be the beer.
Bill, you are, without a clue, the best advocate in favor of
atheism I've seen in a long time. Cool.
Steve Knight #855
Knight of BAAWA
Evan Thompson
wrote:
> *********************************************************************
> Tell me Yangie, what are the odds of a Pentium III chip coming into
> existence via mindless natural creation?
> *********************************************************************
That question is false.
John Ings
wrote:
>
>Evolution Is Guided And Controlled By God
>
> "Evolution" is defined as "a process of change in a certain
> direction." This is the primary definition in my dictionary, Webster's
> Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. Your dictionary probably says almost
> the same thing.
No it doesn't. My Webster's says no such thing.
> Nobody can argue with this definition.
I can. Evolution does not involve direction, just change.
> Things change, they evolve in
> certain directions. Automobiles have evolved from early simple
> machines, as have airplanes and other manufactured items. Laws have
> evolved, music has evolved. Almost everything created by man has
> evolved from something similar to it which existed earlier. Man, as
> creator of these things, has deliberately modified them over time to
> meet new conditions and to include advances in technology.
Wheras the evolution of species shows no such change with a goal in
mind.
> In Nature too, we see evidence of evolution.
And what I suppose you would call devolution. And evolution involving
neither improvement or the opposite, but merely change.
> God, as Creator of the
> Universe, has developed many things progressively from similar things
> which He created earlier. This is the way He works, bringing all
> things into existence when He is ready for them to exist.
Then why is he such a crummy designer?
Why does he "progress" thousands of species into extinction?
> In Nature, the process of evolution is guided and controlled by God,
> for His own purposes. It is not an accident, and it does not happen
> according to any mechanistic process.
But it obviously does. I am prepared to entertain the idea that God
might have put the evolutionary process in place and let it run free
to see what happened. If God guided evolution to produce the species
that it has, he's an idiot.
> The Atheists believe that "random mutation" is the force behind
> biological evolution. "Random mutation" coupled with "survival of the
> fittest" is the algorithm they believe in. They are wrong. The
> mutations are not random, they are are guided and controlled by God.
Explain why he guides in such stupid directions then. Why are your
entrails attached to your spine like those of a quadruped? Why are
your breathing passages involved with your alimentary canal? Both
constructs are as practical as an ejection seat in a helicopter.
> "Random mutations" could never account for the intricacy and
> perfection of design we see in Nature. If mutations were random, how
> many quadrillions of failed attempts would occur before the spots on
> the fish are exactly the same as the markings on the rocks it lives
> beside?
Just a few million, not quadrillions, but even if the number were that
large, figure out how many fish can be hatched every year over the
span of millions of years.
> The mathematics are prohibitive.
Only when Creationists are doing the math.
> Genetic mutations are quite
> rare, usually the result of a mistake in copying the code from one
> cell to another.
Actually they're quite common. Beneficial mutations are rather rare,
which is just as well or we'd have new species every week.
> And they are random, not related to any need of the
> species.
Which is why your entrails are attached to your spine.
> So, over a million years
Or a week . . .
> the fish might randomly grow bigger
> fins and a smaller tail before it stumbled across some helpful change
> in protective markings. Such a cumbersome, long-winded process could
> never result in the timely development of needed protections. The
> species would die out first!
You haven't the vaguest idea what you're talking about have you?
A species can carry a mutation for millions of years before it turns
out to be of benefit. There is no need for a "timely" evolution.
> No. God is the Creator of everything, just as it says in the Bible. He
> uses evolution as one of His creative tools, and he guides it and
> controls it every step of the way.
Then he's a nincompoop! No human engineer would design a biped with
it's entrails hung from it's spine. That's like hanging a chandelier
on a chain from a wall instead of the ceiling.
> One more thing, a source of much confusion:
>
> The Bible speaks of the "six days" of Creation. This does not mean
> that everything was created in six literal twenty-four-hour days. The
> "six days" is a figure of speech, meaning six periods of time.
It also says God created trees at the same time as flowering plants
and grass. Grass evolved only recently, less than 100 million years
ago, and trees existed long before flowering plants. Fish existed long
before trees and birds too, but Genesis says the opposite. It matters
not how long those "days" were, Genesis is still wrong.
> So God accomplished His great work of Creation in six distinct stages,
> or "days," ending with His creation of Man. Now, His major work is
> done,
What a conceit! Man is the pinacle of God's handiwork!
Heck, if triangles had a god he would have three sides.
God didn't create us in his image, we imagine gods in OUR image.
> So whenever an Atheist tries to tell you that you were created not by
> God but by evolution, you can reply:
>
> "YES, BUT EVOLUTION IS GUIDED AND CONTROLLED BY GOD."
And God is stupid?
No, if there is a god, he's smarter than that.
##Shall God govern by the laws of nature,
## or priests by fictitious miracles?
Evan Thompson
> *********************************************************************
> Tell me Yangie, what are the odds of a Pentium III chip coming into
> existence via mindless natural creation?
> *********************************************************************
*********************************************************************
Tell me Spammy, if you are walking down the street in your canoe, how many
pancakes does it take to fill a dog house?
*********************************************************************
Matt Silberstein
[snip]
>
>I was curious what type of scientific background you are coming from, and
>what definition of evolution you are using. My scientific background comes
>from a B.S. in chemistry and most of a Ph.D. in inorganic and surface
>chemistry, as well as other excursions into physics and biology. From my
>perspective, several things are clear: First, microevolution (adaptation by
>a species) is constantly occuring and is readily observable in the natural
>world. Second, macroevolution (darwinian evolution, where species can come
>from a common ancestor) does not occur and is not observable in the natural
>world.
Look at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq%2Dspeciation.html and
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
You will find scores of peer reviewed cases of speciation occurring
both in the lab and in the wild. Now that you have seen this you can
go back and try to figure out what was wrong with your sources that
claimed otherwise.
> Third, the "science" used to "prove" evolution uses highly circular
>reasoning,
Minor point: do you really "prove" things in chemistry? I am not
familiar with any scientist doing that. Proof is for mathematicians
and drunks. Major point: please explain where you think biology uses
circular reasoning. I strongly suspect your claim is based on your
lack of understanding of the subject.
> and ignores the vast lack of evidence in favor of a few examples
>of questionable evidence.
So what about all that stuff published in the Journal of Evolutionary
Biology? Do you really claim that the referees are doing that bad a
job? Is it incompetence or dishonesty?
> Fourth, and finally (for now), the Biblical idea
>of the Great Flood provides a better explaination for the observed fossil
>record than any model of evolutionary thinking I have ever been exposed to.
>
How does the Biblical idea explain the lack of large mammals mixed
with dinosaur bones? How does it explain the lack of clams mixed with
trilobites? How does it explain the relationship between the position
of a fossil in a layer and the relative radiometric dating of that
layer?
Since you are at school I suggest you check with a local biology
professor. Ask them your questions and see what response you get.
>I am extremely interested in continuing this conversation, but do not frequent
>the newsgroups very often. Please reply by email if possible.
Somehow I expect we won't be seeing much of you if any.
Matt Silberstein
-----------------------------
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the
protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our
Live, Our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
T.J.
Bill McGinnis
Rersponding . . .
On Fri, 21 May 1999, John Ings wrote:
> On Thu, 20 May 1999 12:52:27 -0400, Bill McGinnis <bmc...@patriot.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Evolution Is Guided And Controlled By God
> >
> > "Evolution" is defined as "a process of change in a certain
> > direction." This is the primary definition in my dictionary, Webster's
> > Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. Your dictionary probably says almost
> > the same thing.
>
> No it doesn't. My Webster's says no such thing.
>
I bet you didn't even look it up! What DOES your dictionary say?
> > Nobody can argue with this definition.
>
> I can. Evolution does not involve direction, just change.
>
No. Change without direction is called "adaptation" not evolution.
Species adapt, and they evolve. But this issue is not important, I
don't think. The important thing is that the adaptation/evolution is
controlled by "Higher Intelligence," by which we mean God.
> > Things change, they evolve in
> > certain directions. Automobiles have evolved from early simple
> > machines, as have airplanes and other manufactured items. Laws have
> > evolved, music has evolved. Almost everything created by man has
> > evolved from something similar to it which existed earlier. Man, as
> > creator of these things, has deliberately modified them over time to
> > meet new conditions and to include advances in technology.
>
> Wheras the evolution of species shows no such change with a goal in
> mind.
>
> > In Nature too, we see evidence of evolution.
>
> And what I suppose you would call devolution. And evolution involving
> neither improvement or the opposite, but merely change.
>
I will concede, and in fact agree, that "improvement" is not
necessarily the object. Mere change, under direction of God, is
sufficient.
> > God, as Creator of the
> > Universe, has developed many things progressively from similar things
> > which He created earlier. This is the way He works, bringing all
> > things into existence when He is ready for them to exist.
>
> Then why is he such a crummy designer?
> Why does he "progress" thousands of species into extinction?
>
What are you talking about, "Crummy Designer?" God is "The Great
Engineer," to those who really study the matter. He likes
engineering so much that He shares a love for it with us, who are
created in His image. Our efforts are "shadows" of His desire to
create. That's what He does: He creates, then interacts with His
Creation. When little boys build model forts and have battles with
plastic coyboys and Indians, that's a "shadow" of how God deals
with His Creation. It's all for His pleasure, not ours, although
He gives GREAT pleasure to those who love Him.
"Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power:
for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are
and were created." (Revelation 4:11 KJV)
> > In Nature, the process of evolution is guided and controlled by God,
> > for His own purposes. It is not an accident, and it does not happen
> > according to any mechanistic process.
>
> But it obviously does. I am prepared to entertain the idea that God
> might have put the evolutionary process in place and let it run free
> to see what happened. If God guided evolution to produce the species
> that it has, he's an idiot.
We might not be too far apart on this question. At least you are
recognizing God. But He's not an idiot. He may be extremely curious,
however. I keep coming back to the notion that God is at play,
enjoying Himself in His Creation. All the "bad things" that happen
to men are not really bad if we understand them from His point of
view. And He DOES offer all of us the opportunity to enjoy blissful
life with Him forever. Yes, the world is sometimes tough. We all die,
don't we? So for each of us the worldly ending is a foregone
conclusion. We know how the worldly game comes out: WE LOSE!
But if we have Jesus as Lord, WE WIN! We get eternal life, like this:
"And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and
there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying,
neither shall there be any more pain: for the former
things are passed away." (Revelation 21:4 KJV)
> > The Atheists believe that "random mutation" is the force behind
> > biological evolution. "Random mutation" coupled with "survival of the
> > fittest" is the algorithm they believe in. They are wrong. The
> > mutations are not random, they are are guided and controlled by God.
>
> Explain why he guides in such stupid directions then. Why are your
> entrails attached to your spine like those of a quadruped? Why are
> your breathing passages involved with your alimentary canal? Both
> constructs are as practical as an ejection seat in a helicopter.
What's wrong with either of these two things?
And horizontal ejection from helicopters might not be such a bad
idea, if it were perfected.
>
> > "Random mutations" could never account for the intricacy and
> > perfection of design we see in Nature. If mutations were random, how
> > many quadrillions of failed attempts would occur before the spots on
> > the fish are exactly the same as the markings on the rocks it lives
> > beside?
>
> Just a few million, not quadrillions, but even if the number were that
> large, figure out how many fish can be hatched every year over the
> span of millions of years.
Yes, and an infinite number of monkeys, pounding away at an infinite
number of keyboards, would, over an infinite amount of time,
eventually write the Encyclopedia Britannica.
But that's not how Britannica actually got written. It was a
deliberate creation, guided and controlled by intelligence.
Likewise, biological evolution.
>
> > The mathematics are prohibitive.
>
> Only when Creationists are doing the math.
> > Genetic mutations are quite
> > rare, usually the result of a mistake in copying the code from one
> > cell to another.
>
> Actually they're quite common. Beneficial mutations are rather rare,
> which is just as well or we'd have new species every week.
>
> > And they are random, not related to any need of the
> > species.
>
> Which is why your entrails are attached to your spine.
>
What's wrong with that? It keeps them properly oriented, so
digestive waste doesn't run out our mouths. (Although . . . )
> > So, over a million years
>
> Or a week . . .
>
> > the fish might randomly grow bigger
> > fins and a smaller tail before it stumbled across some helpful change
> > in protective markings. Such a cumbersome, long-winded process could
> > never result in the timely development of needed protections. The
> > species would die out first!
>
> You haven't the vaguest idea what you're talking about have you?
> A species can carry a mutation for millions of years before it turns
> out to be of benefit. There is no need for a "timely" evolution.
>
Of course there is, sometimes. And when it is needed in a timely
manner, evolution (God-controlled evolution) provides it. The classic
example of "timely evolution" is the change in color of moths in
England to match the gray background of the industrial age. This took
only afew years, not millions.
> > No. God is the Creator of everything, just as it says in the Bible. He
> > uses evolution as one of His creative tools, and he guides it and
> > controls it every step of the way.
>
> Then he's a nincompoop! No human engineer would design a biped with
> it's entrails hung from it's spine. That's like hanging a chandelier
> on a chain from a wall instead of the ceiling.
What's wrong with that? It keeps them properly oriented, so
digestive waste doesn't run out our mouths. (Although . . . )
>
> > One more thing, a source of much confusion:
> >
> > The Bible speaks of the "six days" of Creation. This does not mean
> > that everything was created in six literal twenty-four-hour days. The
> > "six days" is a figure of speech, meaning six periods of time.
>
> It also says God created trees at the same time as flowering plants
> and grass. Grass evolved only recently, less than 100 million years
> ago, and trees existed long before flowering plants. Fish existed long
> before trees and birds too, but Genesis says the opposite. It matters
> not how long those "days" were, Genesis is still wrong.
Genesis is poetry, not a textbook. If you were writing it,
how would you have explained God's Creation to pre-scientific
people?
>
> > So God accomplished His great work of Creation in six distinct stages,
> > or "days," ending with His creation of Man. Now, His major work is
> > done,
>
> What a conceit! Man is the pinacle of God's handiwork!
> Heck, if triangles had a god he would have three sides.
> God didn't create us in his image, we imagine gods in OUR image.
>
NO! We ARE the pinacle! That's the great thing! He created us in His
image and gave us control ("dominion") over all the earth.
Here's the whole idea, in context: (See verse 28 for our
authorization)
GENESIS 1,2:1-3 (RSV)
_____________________________________________________________
The Creation
Genesis 1
1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2
The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon
the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving
over the face of the waters.
3
And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
4
And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the
light from the darkness.
5
God called the light Day, and the darkness he called
Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one
day.
6
And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of
the waters, and let it separate the waters from the
waters."
7
And God made the firmament and separated the waters which
were under the firmament from the waters which were above
the firmament. And it was so.
8
And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening
and there was morning, a second day.
9
And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be
gathered together into one place, and let the dry land
appear." And it was so.
10
God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were
gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was
good.
11
And God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants
yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is
their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth."
And it was so.
12
The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed
according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in
which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God
saw that it was good.
13
And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.
14
And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the
heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them
be for signs and for seasons and for days and years,
15
and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to
give light upon the earth." And it was so.
16
And God made the two great lights, the greater light to
rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he
made the stars also.
17
And God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give
light upon the earth,
18
to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate
the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.
19
And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
20
And God said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living
creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the
firmament of the heavens."
21
So God created the great sea monsters and every living
creature that moves, with which the waters swarm,
according to their kinds, and every winged bird according
to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
22
And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply
and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on
the earth."
23
And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
24
And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures
according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and
beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was
so.
25
And God made the beasts of the earth according to their
kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and
everything that creeps upon the ground according to its
kind. And God saw that it was good.
26
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our
likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the
sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle,
and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that
creeps upon the earth."
27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God
he created him; male and female he created them.
28
And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful
and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have
dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of
the air and over every living thing that moves upon the
earth."
29
And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant
yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and
every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for
food.
30
And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the
air, and to everything that creeps on the earth,
everything that has the breath of life, I have given every
green plant for food." And it was so.
31
And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it
was very good. And there was evening and there was
morning, a sixth day.
_____________________________________________________________
Genesis 2
1
Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the
host of them.
2
And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had
done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work
which he had done.
3
So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on
it God rested from all his work which he had done in
creation.
_____________________________________________________________
> > So whenever an Atheist tries to tell you that you were created not by
> > God but by evolution, you can reply:
> >
> > "YES, BUT EVOLUTION IS GUIDED AND CONTROLLED BY GOD."
>
> And God is stupid?
>
> No, if there is a god, he's smarter than that.
>
>
>
>
> ##Shall God govern by the laws of nature,
> ## or priests by fictitious miracles?
>
> john...@ottawa.com
-----------------------------------------------
Matt Silberstein
<bmc...@patriot.net>:
>Hello again John,
>
> Rersponding . . .
>
>On Fri, 21 May 1999, John Ings wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 20 May 1999 12:52:27 -0400, Bill McGinnis <bmc...@patriot.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Evolution Is Guided And Controlled By God
>> >
>> > "Evolution" is defined as "a process of change in a certain
>> > direction." This is the primary definition in my dictionary, Webster's
>> > Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. Your dictionary probably says almost
>> > the same thing.
>>
>> No it doesn't. My Webster's says no such thing.
>>
> I bet you didn't even look it up! What DOES your dictionary say?
>
>> > Nobody can argue with this definition.
>>
>> I can. Evolution does not involve direction, just change.
>>
> No. Change without direction is called "adaptation" not evolution.
Not in biology.
> Species adapt, and they evolve. But this issue is not important, I
> don't think. The important thing is that the adaptation/evolution is
> controlled by "Higher Intelligence," by which we mean God.
>
Yes, you have asserted that. Do you stand by the implications? That
God makes better malaria and hiv and TB to do a better job at killing
people?
>
>
[snip]
>> > God, as Creator of the
>> > Universe, has developed many things progressively from similar things
>> > which He created earlier. This is the way He works, bringing all
>> > things into existence when He is ready for them to exist.
>>
>> Then why is he such a crummy designer?
>> Why does he "progress" thousands of species into extinction?
>>
> What are you talking about, "Crummy Designer?" God is "The Great
> Engineer," to those who really study the matter. He likes
> engineering so much that He shares a love for it with us, who are
> created in His image. Our efforts are "shadows" of His desire to
> create. That's what He does: He creates, then interacts with His
> Creation. When little boys build model forts and have battles with
> plastic coyboys and Indians, that's a "shadow" of how God deals
> with His Creation. It's all for His pleasure, not ours, although
> He gives GREAT pleasure to those who love Him.
>
IOW you have no evidence so you assert your position.
>
[snip]
>> > In Nature, the process of evolution is guided and controlled by God,
>> > for His own purposes. It is not an accident, and it does not happen
>> > according to any mechanistic process.
>>
>> But it obviously does. I am prepared to entertain the idea that God
>> might have put the evolutionary process in place and let it run free
>> to see what happened. If God guided evolution to produce the species
>> that it has, he's an idiot.
>
> We might not be too far apart on this question. At least you are
> recognizing God. But He's not an idiot. He may be extremely curious,
> however. I keep coming back to the notion that God is at play,
> enjoying Himself in His Creation. All the "bad things" that happen
> to men are not really bad if we understand them from His point of
> view.
Ah, the Marquis De Sade school of theology.
[snip]
>> > "Random mutations" could never account for the intricacy and
>> > perfection of design we see in Nature. If mutations were random, how
>> > many quadrillions of failed attempts would occur before the spots on
>> > the fish are exactly the same as the markings on the rocks it lives
>> > beside?
>>
>> Just a few million, not quadrillions, but even if the number were that
>> large, figure out how many fish can be hatched every year over the
>> span of millions of years.
>
> Yes, and an infinite number of monkeys, pounding away at an infinite
> number of keyboards, would, over an infinite amount of time,
> eventually write the Encyclopedia Britannica.
>
> But that's not how Britannica actually got written. It was a
> deliberate creation, guided and controlled by intelligence.
> Likewise, biological evolution.
>
So you, once again, assert while providing neither logic nor evidence.
[snip]
>> > So, over a million years
>>
>> Or a week . . .
>>
>> > the fish might randomly grow bigger
>> > fins and a smaller tail before it stumbled across some helpful change
>> > in protective markings. Such a cumbersome, long-winded process could
>> > never result in the timely development of needed protections. The
>> > species would die out first!
>>
>> You haven't the vaguest idea what you're talking about have you?
>> A species can carry a mutation for millions of years before it turns
>> out to be of benefit. There is no need for a "timely" evolution.
>>
> Of course there is, sometimes. And when it is needed in a timely
> manner, evolution (God-controlled evolution) provides it. The classic
> example of "timely evolution" is the change in color of moths in
> England to match the gray background of the industrial age. This took
> only afew years, not millions.
>
The dark moth is the result of a well understood mutation. A rather
common one, but until the pollution, a detrimental one.
[snip]
cz...@ecn.ab.ca
: It's amazing to me, that evolutionists believe that from a single celled
: organism, huge dinosaurs were the first to evolve
It's amazing to me that you're so ill-educated. Or maybe you're just a
willful liar, in which case it isn't amazing, just something to be
expected from those of your brand of xtianity.
: If man evolved from the ape, why aren't all men apes and why didn't the
: ape disappear, after all they evolved didn't they.
And, as has been explained to you before (I *know* you are being willfully
ignnorant and deliberately misleading here), man did not "evolve from"
apes, man shared a common ancestor with apes.
: Evolution makes no sense whatsoever.
Now, Dore, would it not be prudent to actually learn about evolution
before you go around saying so? Or does the commandment about not
bearing false witness not apply to you?
--
*************************************************************
In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a
degree that it would be perverse to withold provisional
assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise
tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time
in physics classrooms.
-Stephen Jay Gould
*************************************************************
cz...@ecn.ab.ca
: Evolution Is Guided And Controlled By God
: "Evolution" is defined as "a process of change in a certain
: direction." This is the primary definition in my dictionary, Webster's
: Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. Your dictionary probably says almost
: the same thing.
:
: Nobody can argue with this definition.
Except a biologist, or anyone with a modicum of knowledge of biology.
David G Dick
Bill McGinnis wrote in message ...
> Species adapt, and they evolve. But this issue is not important, I
> don't think. The important thing is that the adaptation/evolution is
> controlled by "Higher Intelligence," by which we mean God.
You have it the wrong way round. Change with direction is adaptation.
Change without direction is evolution. You have heard the phrase "adapt to
the environment" but not "evolve to the environment" - this shows that the
word adaptation means to respond to the environment and change accordingly.
And I think that if you believe in god, you should also believe that
evolution was god's idea. But I don't believe in god, so it is a moot
point for me.
> I will concede, and in fact agree, that "improvement" is not
> necessarily the object. Mere change, under direction of God, is
> sufficient.
Fair enough, but this does nothing to advance your argument.
> What are you talking about, "Crummy Designer?" God is "The Great
> Engineer," to those who really study the matter. He likes
> engineering so much that He shares a love for it with us, who are
> created in His image. Our efforts are "shadows" of His desire to
> create. That's what He does: He creates, then interacts with His
> Creation. When little boys build model forts and have battles with
> plastic coyboys and Indians, that's a "shadow" of how God deals
> with His Creation. It's all for His pleasure, not ours, although
> He gives GREAT pleasure to those who love Him.
If he is a "great engineer" why did he create :
Males with nipples
Organs that do nothing (appendix, pineal gland etc)
Species that have become extinct
etc....
Your flowery words and assertions do not answer the allegation.
<snip preaching>
> We might not be too far apart on this question. At least you are
> recognizing God. But He's not an idiot. He may be extremely curious,
> however. I keep coming back to the notion that God is at play,
> enjoying Himself in His Creation. All the "bad things" that happen
> to men are not really bad if we understand them from His point of
> view. And He DOES offer all of us the opportunity to enjoy blissful
> life with Him forever. Yes, the world is sometimes tough. We all die,
> don't we? So for each of us the worldly ending is a foregone
> conclusion. We know how the worldly game comes out: WE LOSE!
> But if we have Jesus as Lord, WE WIN! We get eternal life, like this:
<snip preaching>
So what you are saying is that all life is a game for her amusement? She
doesn't care what agonies we go through as long as she gets her giggles out
of it. Pardon me for not worshipping such a being.
> What's wrong with either of these two things?
> And horizontal ejection from helicopters might not be such a bad
> idea, if it were perfected.
On this point I have only to assume that you are either a lunatic, an idiot
or a joker. These statements are surely not serious.
Mankind would have choked itself to extinction long ago because of these
evolutionary throwbacks, if he had not developed other superior attributes
to overshadow them.
And the thing about the helicopters... you cannot be serious.
> Yes, and an infinite number of monkeys, pounding away at an infinite
> number of keyboards, would, over an infinite amount of time,
> eventually write the Encyclopedia Britannica.
>
> But that's not how Britannica actually got written. It was a
> deliberate creation, guided and controlled by intelligence.
> Likewise, biological evolution.
But it COULD have been how it was written. That is the point.
> What's wrong with that? It keeps them properly oriented, so
> digestive waste doesn't run out our mouths. (Although . . . )
You are avoiding the real point of the matter, which is that mutations are
common, but beneficial ones are unusual.
> Of course there is, sometimes. And when it is needed in a timely
> manner, evolution (God-controlled evolution) provides it. The classic
> example of "timely evolution" is the change in color of moths in
> England to match the gray background of the industrial age. This took
> only afew years, not millions.
Which also lends credence to the theory that it is RANDOM. Sometimes it
only takes a few years, sometimes it takes many more.
> What's wrong with that? It keeps them properly oriented, so
> digestive waste doesn't run out our mouths. (Although . . . )
Again you are avoiding the point of the matter, by way of implied insults.
> Genesis is poetry, not a textbook. If you were writing it,
> how would you have explained God's Creation to pre-scientific
> people?
So you are admitting the bible is flawed in at least one way. How many
other mistakes, then, might it contain?
> NO! We ARE the pinacle! That's the great thing! He created us in His
> image and gave us control ("dominion") over all the earth.
> Here's the whole idea, in context: (See verse 28 for our
> authorization)
<snip preaching>
You are merely re-asserting the original assertion. Try providing something
that backs up your assertions. (other than a bible quote)
--
David G Dick
"A man without religion is like a fish without a bicycle."
Doug Schiffer
> Dore Williamson wrote:
>
> > It's amazing to me, that evolutionists believe that from a single celled
> > organism, huge dinosaurs were the first to evolve and in their estimation,
> > billions of years later, the small creatures come about and have stayed
> > small, monkeys are still monkeys. If man evolved from the ape, why aren't
> > all men apes and why didn't the ape disappear, after all they evolved didn't
> > they. Evolution makes no sense whatsoever. They still can't determine how
> > that first single cell organism popped into existence from nothing.
>
> It's amazing to me, that creationists hold such antiquated notion that
> humans are "intellegently designed" as is.
>
> But as I have said in another post, if these same creationists believe
> in the "intellegent designed" nature of human being, then female
> creationiss would refrain from shaving their legs, armpits and their
> faces, since "God" intellegently "designed" haor to be there in the
> first place, and shave them off is to disobey "God's" master plan.
Further, creationists should never undergo any medical operation. Appendicitus?
Nope, leave that divinely designed organ in there to do its godly role - to swell,
burst and kill the lucky creationist. Send him or her on his way to heaven!
Only non-believers should be allowed to undergo surgery of any kind, for those
unfortunate evil ones dare to diddle with God's Holy Design. How dare they!
> Futhermore a significant proportion of Asian females do not have hair on
> theor legs, which by your reconing means that they are more
> "intellgently designed."
God also gave Asians a higher average IQ than Europeans. Hmmmm....
--
Hate is not overcome by hate ;
by Love alone is hate appeased.
This is an eternal law.
- Dhamma Pada, verse 3
OrlandoFlorida
news:37452a2...@crc-news.doc.ca...
> On Thu, 20 May 1999 12:52:27 -0400, Bill McGinnis <bmc...@patriot.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Evolution Is Guided And Controlled By God
> >
> > "Evolution" is defined as "a process of change in a certain
> > direction." This is the primary definition in my dictionary, Webster's
> > Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. Your dictionary probably says almost
> > the same thing.
>
> No it doesn't. My Webster's says no such thing.
>
> > Nobody can argue with this definition.
>
> I can. Evolution does not involve direction, just change.
The Theory of Evolution is based upon the concept that genetic changes
result from accidents or errors to the genetic code, which are known
scientifically as mutations and recombination. By definition, accidents
are not planned or guided with a meaningful purpose in mind. And that,
by the wat, is why I reject the Theory of Evolution as an explanation for
the origin and diversity of life. It is simply impossible to explain how
undifferentiated cells could "evolve" into an opthalmic system simply
by a long series of genetic accidents and mistakes.
> > Things change, they evolve in
> > certain directions. Automobiles have evolved from early simple
> > machines, as have airplanes and other manufactured items. Laws have
> > evolved, music has evolved. Almost everything created by man has
> > evolved from something similar to it which existed earlier. Man, as
> > creator of these things, has deliberately modified them over time to
> > meet new conditions and to include advances in technology.
>
> Wheras the evolution of species shows no such change with a goal in
> mind.
That all life forms exhibit well-designed plans of formation cannot be
denied. Yet, such designs cannot be explained by evolutionary "dumb
luck."
> > In Nature too, we see evidence of evolution.
>
> And what I suppose you would call devolution. And evolution involving
> neither improvement or the opposite, but merely change.
Indeed, most genetic mistakes result in tragedies for the individuals
so affected. We humans, for example, consider such occurrences as
genetic-induced "birth defects." Any theory which states that advances
in morphology and physiology are due to birth defects is not founded
on reality.
> > God, as Creator of the
> > Universe, has developed many things progressively from similar things
> > which He created earlier. This is the way He works, bringing all
> > things into existence when He is ready for them to exist.
>
> Then why is he such a crummy designer?
> Why does he "progress" thousands of species into extinction?
> > In Nature, the process of evolution is guided and controlled by God,
> > for His own purposes. It is not an accident, and it does not happen
> > according to any mechanistic process.
>
> But it obviously does. I am prepared to entertain the idea that God
> might have put the evolutionary process in place and let it run free
> to see what happened. If God guided evolution to produce the species
> that it has, he's an idiot.
The Bible tells us that God created all life on the earth and that such
life was designed to reproduce its own kind.
< snip >
> > Genetic mutations are quite
> > rare, usually the result of a mistake in copying the code from one
> > cell to another.
>
> Actually they're quite common. Beneficial mutations are rather rare,
> which is just as well or we'd have new species every week.
My college textbooks state that mutations are not very common,
and that almost always the mutations are harmful in their effects.
< snip >
> > No. God is the Creator of everything, just as it says in the Bible. He
> > uses evolution as one of His creative tools, and he guides it and
> > controls it every step of the way.
>
> Then he's a nincompoop! No human engineer would design a biped with
> it's entrails hung from it's spine. That's like hanging a chandelier
> on a chain from a wall instead of the ceiling.
Obviously, you fancy yourself to be wiser than God. Exactly what would
YOU use - if you were God - to anchor the entrails? Would you rely on the
diaphram and the heart and lungs? Think about it. What better support
is available than the boney spine?
< snip >
"When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two
possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There
is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years
ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural
creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal
reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life
arose spontaneously by chance."
- George Wald, 1967 Nobel Peace Prize winner in Science
Trevor Zion Bauknight
wrote:
> > Then he's a nincompoop! No human engineer would design a biped with
> > it's entrails hung from it's spine. That's like hanging a chandelier
> > on a chain from a wall instead of the ceiling.
>
> Obviously, you fancy yourself to be wiser than God. Exactly what would
> YOU use - if you were God - to anchor the entrails? Would you rely on the
> diaphram and the heart and lungs? Think about it. What better support
> is available than the boney spine?
The spine is okay...it's just that in our case, it obviously wasn't
DESIGNED to stand upright all the time.
Trev
Trevor Zion Bauknight
<laotzuRE...@dreamscape.com> wrote:
> > Futhermore a significant proportion of Asian females do not have hair on
> > theor legs, which by your reconing means that they are more
> > "intellgently designed."
>
> God also gave Asians a higher average IQ than Europeans. Hmmmm....
Which would explain their embracing Buddhism. :-)
Trev
Matt Silberstein
<flo...@iag.net>:
>John Ings <nospam.j...@ottawa.com> wrote in message
>news:37452a2...@crc-news.doc.ca...
>
>> On Thu, 20 May 1999 12:52:27 -0400, Bill McGinnis <bmc...@patriot.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Evolution Is Guided And Controlled By God
>> >
>> > "Evolution" is defined as "a process of change in a certain
>> > direction." This is the primary definition in my dictionary, Webster's
>> > Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. Your dictionary probably says almost
>> > the same thing.
>>
>> No it doesn't. My Webster's says no such thing.
>>
>> > Nobody can argue with this definition.
>>
>> I can. Evolution does not involve direction, just change.
>
>The Theory of Evolution is based upon the concept that genetic changes
>result from accidents or errors to the genetic code, which are known
>scientifically as mutations and recombination. By definition, accidents
>are not planned or guided with a meaningful purpose in mind.
Actually the theory does not say they are accidents, it says there are
changes that we cannot predict nor do they seem related to the
"problem" at hand. They are as "accidental" as where a leaf falls. If
you want to assert God is behind that, go ahead.
> And that,
>by the wat, is why I reject the Theory of Evolution as an explanation for
>the origin and diversity of life. It is simply impossible to explain how
>undifferentiated cells could "evolve" into an opthalmic system simply
>by a long series of genetic accidents and mistakes.
>
Why? Have you looked at current explanations and, if so, can you tell
us what is wrong with them? Do you even know of Darwin's explanation?
[snip]
>
>That all life forms exhibit well-designed plans of formation cannot be
>denied. Yet, such designs cannot be explained by evolutionary "dumb
>luck."
>
Sure it can be denied. Especially if you see "plan" as involving
intention or purpose. And you keep asserting it can't be explained, it
would be better if you showed what was wrong with the current
explanations.
[snip]
>
>Indeed, most genetic mistakes result in tragedies for the individuals
>so affected.
Luckily for most populations more children are born than are necessary
to maintain the population. And sometimes the genetic change results
in greater reproductive success.
> We humans, for example, consider such occurrences as
>genetic-induced "birth defects."
Except when they help.
> Any theory which states that advances
>in morphology and physiology are due to birth defects is not founded
>on reality.
>
And your theory is a caricature of evolutionary biology and is not
founded on reality.
[snip]
>> > Genetic mutations are quite
>> > rare, usually the result of a mistake in copying the code from one
>> > cell to another.
>>
>> Actually they're quite common. Beneficial mutations are rather rare,
>> which is just as well or we'd have new species every week.
>
>My college textbooks state that mutations are not very common,
>and that almost always the mutations are harmful in their effects.
>
The average human has about 6 mutations.
Brian Ceccarelli
Evolution makes sense if you understand it with any scientificScientists don't accept "evolution" as fact. That is why it is still called the
background. This is why all scientists accept it as fact.
"Theory" of Evolution. It has never been called the "Law" of Evolution.
Scientists are very careful on what they call theory and what they call law.
We have Newton's Laws of Motion. We have the Laws of Thermodynamics.
We have Coloumb's Law. We have the Ideal Gas Law . . . .
We have the Theory of Evolution.
For you Christians out there, you can still be an evolutionist and believe
the Genesis account in the Bible. In Genesis, God only says that
He
created it. God never says how He did it. In Genesis, we
see only the
finished products. We do not see the products as they were cooking
in
the oven.
Also, the young earth "Christian" advocates better get up to speed on
Hebrew literature. Because their premise, "the young earth",
is not
Biblical. You cannot extract that the earth is young (e.g., 6000
years)
from Moses's Genesis account. The style of literature in
Genesis 1 is
a poem. Moses wrote a poem. You must read it as a
poem for
that is what Moses intended, not as a thesis in cosmology.
Moses's poem is nonfiction, yes, but its poetic form is the key to understanding
it correctly. You will find that his poem is a thought
rhyme--a classic style
in Hebrew literature. In this particular case, Moses divided
the days of
creation into 2 groups. Days 1 thru 3 are days of formation.
Days 4 to 6
are days of filling. What God formed on Day N, God fills on Day
N + 3.
Light-->stars & planets; water & sky-->fish & birds; dry
ground-->land animals.
1 goes with 4. 2 goes with 5, etc.
In Hebrew grammar, chronology is assigned only to days 1 and 6.
Days 2 thru 5
could happen in any order.
Also, you can factually conclude that a day is not 24 hours. In
the days of creation,
each account ends with "And there was evening and there was morning,
the Nth day."
However, there is no such repetitive stanza closing day 7. Given
that this is
Hebrew poetry, the contextual conclusion is that day 7 is STILL occurring--countless
millennia later. And if you don't believe that conclusion,
then believe your own
Bible--turn to Hebrews 7. There you read that one can still enter
God's seventh
day rest even NOW. And thus, the length of a "day"
in the poem is known not be
a 24 period, but countless millennia. Hence, any argument for
a young earth based on
the Bible is a false syllogism. The Bible never makes a case
for that premise.
By the way, all this stuff is not my original thinking. (I don't
think I have ever had
a thought that was original.) I pulled it from Zondervan's
NIV Study Bible, Revell's
Bible Dictionary, as well as Gleason's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties.
Erik Marksberry
> John Ings <nospam.j...@ottawa.com> wrote in message
> news:37452a2...@crc-news.doc.ca...
>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Evolution Is Guided And Controlled By God
> > >
> > > "Evolution" is defined as "a process of change in a certain
> > > direction." This is the primary definition in my dictionary, Webster's
> > > Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. Your dictionary probably says almost
> > > the same thing.
> >
> > No it doesn't. My Webster's says no such thing.
> >
> > > Nobody can argue with this definition.
> >
> > I can. Evolution does not involve direction, just change.
>
> result from accidents or errors to the genetic code, which are known
> scientifically as mutations and recombination. By definition, accidents
> by the wat, is why I reject the Theory of Evolution as an explanation for
> the origin and diversity of life. It is simply impossible to explain how
> undifferentiated cells could "evolve" into an opthalmic system simply
> by a long series of genetic accidents and mistakes.
That's because you're not taking into account natural selection,
the other half of evolution besides genetic drift.
> > > Things change, they evolve in
> > > certain directions. Automobiles have evolved from early simple
> > > machines, as have airplanes and other manufactured items. Laws have
> > > evolved, music has evolved. Almost everything created by man has
> > > evolved from something similar to it which existed earlier. Man, as
> > > creator of these things, has deliberately modified them over time to
> > > meet new conditions and to include advances in technology.
> >
> > Wheras the evolution of species shows no such change with a goal in
> > mind.
>
> That all life forms exhibit well-designed plans of formation cannot be
> denied.
Well designed? Ah, such well designed things as oncogenes, the
recurrent laryngeal nerve, autoimmune diseases, wisdom teeth, and the
appendix (to name a few).
> Yet, such designs cannot be explained by evolutionary "dumb
> luck."
Sure they can. For example, the recurrent laryngeal nerve shows
migration of the structures via evolution while maintaining the nerve
attachment. If viewed in a creationist way, it is inefficient and poorly
planned out.
> > > In Nature too, we see evidence of evolution.
> >
> > And what I suppose you would call devolution. And evolution involving
> > neither improvement or the opposite, but merely change.
>
> Indeed, most genetic mistakes result in tragedies for the individuals
> so affected.
Reference please. The vast majority of mutations are neutral
(check out Molecular Biology of the Cell for the details).
> We humans, for example, consider such occurrences as
> genetic-induced "birth defects." Any theory which states that advances
> in morphology and physiology are due to birth defects is not founded
> on reality.
Yeah. Good thing evolution is not based on that. It's based on
direct observations.
> > > God, as Creator of the
> > > Universe, has developed many things progressively from similar things
> > > which He created earlier. This is the way He works, bringing all
> > > things into existence when He is ready for them to exist.
> >
> > Then why is he such a crummy designer?
> > Why does he "progress" thousands of species into extinction?
>
> > > In Nature, the process of evolution is guided and controlled by God,
> > > for His own purposes. It is not an accident, and it does not happen
> > > according to any mechanistic process.
> >
> > But it obviously does. I am prepared to entertain the idea that God
> > might have put the evolutionary process in place and let it run free
> > to see what happened. If God guided evolution to produce the species
> > that it has, he's an idiot.
>
> The Bible tells us that God created all life on the earth and that such
> life was designed to reproduce its own kind.
Then the Bible is wrong. Life can create life that is not of its
own kind (whatever a "kind" is). Look up HeLa cells for a blazing
example.
> < snip >
>
> > > Genetic mutations are quite
> > > rare, usually the result of a mistake in copying the code from one
> > > cell to another.
> >
> > Actually they're quite common. Beneficial mutations are rather rare,
> > which is just as well or we'd have new species every week.
>
> My college textbooks state that mutations are not very common,
> and that almost always the mutations are harmful in their effects.
WHICH college texts? Of the mutations that do something to the
organism, a majority are harmful. But somewhere around 95% of mutations
neither help nor hurt the organism (neutral mutations).
> < snip >
>
> > > No. God is the Creator of everything, just as it says in the Bible. He
> > > uses evolution as one of His creative tools, and he guides it and
> > > controls it every step of the way.
> >
> > Then he's a nincompoop! No human engineer would design a biped with
> > it's entrails hung from it's spine. That's like hanging a chandelier
> > on a chain from a wall instead of the ceiling.
>
> Obviously, you fancy yourself to be wiser than God.
If God designed us, he was not teeribly good at it.
> Exactly what would
> YOU use - if you were God - to anchor the entrails? Would you rely on the
> diaphram and the heart and lungs? Think about it. What better support
> is available than the boney spine?
A HORIZONTAL bony spine.
> < snip >
>
> "When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two
> possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There
> is no third way.
Why not?
> Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago,
BZZZT. Spontaneous generation and evolution are not the same..
Nice try, though.
> but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural
> creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal
> reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life
> arose spontaneously by chance."
> - George Wald, 1967 Nobel Peace Prize winner in Science
It never ceases to amaze me how many quotes and how few facts
creationists post. But I guess that's their sort; truth by authority
(God), not by facts.
--
Erik Marksberry
Elf Sternberg
Brian Ceccarelli <bcecc...@icagen.com> writes:
>Elf Sternberg wrote:
>
>> Evolution makes sense if you understand it with any scientific
>> background. This is why all scientists accept it as fact.
>Scientists don't accept "evolution" as fact. That is why it is still called the
>"Theory" of Evolution. It has never been called the "Law" of Evolution.
>Scientists are very careful on what they call theory and what they call law.
>We have Newton's Laws of Motion. We have the Laws of Thermodynamics.
>We have Coloumb's Law. We have the Ideal Gas Law . . . .
>We have the Theory of Evolution.
Oh, look, an argument so old it's grown moldy. Can you tell
me, Brian, what "The Law of Gravity" is and what it covers?
Nevermind, I'll give you a clue. It describes the *affect* of
gravity (that is not a misspelling), the regular action of two bodies
of given densities and distributions in proximity to one another. It
does not, in contrast, describe *why* this happens or how it happens.
We are currently missing a quantum theory of gravity. And yes, there
*are* "Theories of Gravity," that is, testable hypotheses as to how
gravity works. That objects exert gravity is fact. Why they do is
something nobody knows.
In contrast, there is the fact of evolution. Genetics in a
given population change over time. We even know how fast they
change. We can dig up species that no longer exist, and in their
regions now we find lots of species that we can't find there (or
anywhere) previously. Disputes about geological, radioisotopic, or
genetic dating within the general scientific community are often
fierce, even partisan, but they are not tainted by ideological
concerns; the objective is always to arrive at the best explanation
for the facts, rather than twisting the facts to arrive at
predetermined conclusions found in an ancient book. Eventually, those
who are wrong capitulate, as they must, in the face of overwhelming
evidence.
There are theories as to why evolution happens. To hold them
side-by-side with theories of gravitation, they are by far more
supported by evidentiary sources.
If you want to tell people that "evolution is a theory," you
*must*, in all scientific fairness, tell them that "gravitation is a
theory," and that, if they are going to doubt the fundamental facts of
evolution they must, in all scientific fairness, doubt that their feet
will reliably remain on the ground.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, rational romantic mystic cynical idealist
If you're so smart, why aren't you naked?
A.A 1493 http://www.halcyon.com/elf/
Cyberia
sense to him.
--
SeeYa !
------------
Jim
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Hello... Is this thing on ?
Evan Thompson wrote in message ...
Cyberia
--
SeeYa !
------------
Jim
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Hello... Is this thing on ?
Elf Sternberg wrote in message <7i4lfq$4ar$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
OrlandoFlorida
news:Pine.A41.3.95.990521...@green.weeg.uiowa.edu...
Natural Selection can only account for preserving what already exists, not
in the introduction of any new traits.
> > > > Things change, they evolve in
> > > > certain directions. Automobiles have evolved from early simple
> > > > machines, as have airplanes and other manufactured items. Laws
have
> > > > evolved, music has evolved. Almost everything created by man has
> > > > evolved from something similar to it which existed earlier. Man,
as
> > > > creator of these things, has deliberately modified them over time
to
> > > > meet new conditions and to include advances in technology.
> > >
> > > Wheras the evolution of species shows no such change with a goal in
> > > mind.
> >
> > That all life forms exhibit well-designed plans of formation cannot be
> > denied.
>
> Well designed? Ah, such well designed things as oncogenes, the
> recurrent laryngeal nerve, autoimmune diseases, wisdom teeth, and the
> appendix (to name a few).
Our assessment of these human structures are based on assumptions.
We know of no purpose for the appendix, for example. But that does not
mean that a purpose will not someday be discovered. Oncogenes and
autoimmune diseases, on the other hand, most likely are products of
genetic errors that, while harmful in effect, are not so harmful as to
prevent reproduction and therefore inheritance from one generation to
another. As to wisdom teeth, I think it is merely a matter of opinion as
to whether or not they are useful. (Non-essential, by the way, does not
equate to useless.)
> > Yet, such designs cannot be explained by evolutionary "dumb
> > luck."
>
> Sure they can. For example, the recurrent laryngeal nerve shows
> migration of the structures via evolution while maintaining the nerve
> attachment. If viewed in a creationist way, it is inefficient and poorly
> planned out.
I think you are making a great assumption here, regarding the recurrent
laryngeal nerve.
Here is the description of the ennervation of the larynx found in the
Sixth Edition of "An Atlas of Anatomy," by J.C. Boileau Grant, the
anatomy textbook widely used by schools of medicine:
"The internal laryngeal nerve, which is sensory....The external laryngeal
nerve, supplying Inferior Constrictor and Crico-thyroid....The recurrent
laryngeal nerve, which is mixed, supplying esophagus, trachea..., and
Inferior Constrictor, dividing into 2 branches which ascend variously
related to the branches of the inferior thyroid artery."
This note is added to the description: "The end branch of the recurrent
laryngeal nerve is officially named 'inferior laryngeal nerve' and it
accompanies the inferior laryngeal artery into the larynx."
In the Third Edition of the textbook, "Anatomy: A regional Study of
Human Structure," another textbook used by medical schools,
Dr. Ernest Gardner, et al, write:
"All the intrinsic muscles, with the exception of the cricothyroid, are
supplied by the recurrent laryngeal nerve of the vagus."
I fail to see in any of this a design "flaw." Nor do I see any "proof" or
"evidence" of evolution in the ennervation of the larynx. If you do,
then perhaps you would care to offer an explanation.
> > > > In Nature too, we see evidence of evolution.
> > >
> > > And what I suppose you would call devolution. And evolution involving
> > > neither improvement or the opposite, but merely change.
> >
> > Indeed, most genetic mistakes result in tragedies for the individuals
> > so affected.
>
> Reference please. The vast majority of mutations are neutral
> (check out Molecular Biology of the Cell for the details).
Here are two references:
In the book, "The Collapse of Evolution," Scott M. Huse writes on
pages 45-46:
"In reality, however, mutations are almost always (99.99 percent)
harmful, if not lethal, to the unfortunate organism in which they occur.
In other words, mutations produce organisms that are weaker and
at a marked disadvantage; they are less able to compete for
survival. This fact directly contradicts the assumptions and hopeful
expectations of the modern evolutionary theory."
In the college textbook, "Genetics," Monroe W. Strickberger of the
University of Missouri at Saint Louis acknowledges that mutations
in an established population is almost always harmful and rarely, if
ever beneficial. Unlike Mr. Huse, we might add, Professor Strickberger
is an advocate of the Theory of Evolution. Here is what he says on
page 782 of his tome on genetics:
"New mutations that arise will therefore rarely be better and will very
likely be worse than the genes already present. However, even if some
mutations are better, it is unlikely that they will exceed the fitness of
the established genes by a large degree."
He further adds on pages 782-783:
"Assuming these beneficial mutations are not lost by chance (p. 718),
their increase in frequency will take many generations (p. 726). Evolution
that proceeds exclusively through mutation under constant environmental
conditions is therefore a slow and unlikely process."
> > We humans, for example, consider such occurrences as
> > genetic-induced "birth defects." Any theory which states that advances
> > in morphology and physiology are due to birth defects is not founded
> > on reality.
>
> Yeah. Good thing evolution is not based on that. It's based on
> direct observations.
Direct observations of birth defects?
> > > > God, as Creator of the
> > > > Universe, has developed many things progressively from similar
things
> > > > which He created earlier. This is the way He works, bringing all
> > > > things into existence when He is ready for them to exist.
> > >
> > > Then why is he such a crummy designer?
> > > Why does he "progress" thousands of species into extinction?
> >
> > > > In Nature, the process of evolution is guided and controlled by
God,
> > > > for His own purposes. It is not an accident, and it does not
happen
> > > > according to any mechanistic process.
> > >
> > > But it obviously does. I am prepared to entertain the idea that God
> > > might have put the evolutionary process in place and let it run free
> > > to see what happened. If God guided evolution to produce the species
> > > that it has, he's an idiot.
> >
> > The Bible tells us that God created all life on the earth and that such
> > life was designed to reproduce its own kind.
>
> Then the Bible is wrong. Life can create life that is not of its
> own kind (whatever a "kind" is). Look up HeLa cells for a blazing
> example.
I will do that.
> > < snip >
> >
> > > > Genetic mutations are quite
> > > > rare, usually the result of a mistake in copying the code from one
> > > > cell to another.
> > >
> > > Actually they're quite common. Beneficial mutations are rather rare,
> > > which is just as well or we'd have new species every week.
> >
> > My college textbooks state that mutations are not very common,
> > and that almost always the mutations are harmful in their effects.
>
> WHICH college texts? Of the mutations that do something to the
> organism, a majority are harmful. But somewhere around 95% of mutations
> neither help nor hurt the organism (neutral mutations).
That is not the opinion of Professor Strickberger (see quote above).
> > < snip >
> >
> > > > No. God is the Creator of everything, just as it says in the
Bible. He
> > > > uses evolution as one of His creative tools, and he guides it and
> > > > controls it every step of the way.
> > >
> > > Then he's a nincompoop! No human engineer would design a biped with
> > > it's entrails hung from it's spine. That's like hanging a chandelier
> > > on a chain from a wall instead of the ceiling.
> >
> > Obviously, you fancy yourself to be wiser than God.
>
> If God designed us, he was not teeribly good at it.
"I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are
thy
works; and that my soul knoweth right well."
- Psalms 139:14
> > Exactly what would
> > YOU use - if you were God - to anchor the entrails? Would you rely on
the
> > diaphram and the heart and lungs? Think about it. What better support
> > is available than the boney spine?
>
> A HORIZONTAL bony spine.
So, you would have made us to walk on all fours!
I think you'd better leave the design work to God. He knows what he
is doing.
> > < snip >
> >
> > "When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two
> > possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There
> > is no third way.
>
> Why not?
>
> > Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago,
>
> BZZZT. Spontaneous generation and evolution are not the same..
> Nice try, though.
>
> > but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural
> > creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal
> > reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life
> > arose spontaneously by chance."
> > - George Wald, 1967 Nobel Peace Prize winner in Science
>
> It never ceases to amaze me how many quotes and how few facts
> creationists post. But I guess that's their sort; truth by authority
> (God), not by facts.
Did you say that you enjoy our quotations? Good! Here is another one.
"Our current social and moral problems are largely a result of the
humanistic philosophy that has been spawned by evolutionary
thinking. The so-called new morality we are presently witnessing
is actually no morality, the inevitable result of the atheistic,
evolutionary philosophy. Indeed, there are virtually no areas of
thought and life today which have remained impervious to the
effects of this popular viewpoint."
- Scott M. Huse, "The Collapse of Evolution"
Here is another one:
"The solution to man's massive social problems depend on a
correct understanding of origins. If the evolutionary philosophy is
correct, then life is without purpose. On the other hand, if we were
created by God, our lives have meaning, direction, and purpose.
Clearly, the proposition of origins is the foundation of all other
convictions, actions, and beliefs. Thus, the question of origins is a
vital issue that can be ignored only at great peril."
= Scott M. Huse, "The Collapse of Evolution"
OrlandoFlorida
news:7i4lfq$4ar$1...@brokaw.wa.com...
> >
> >> Evolution makes sense if you understand it with any scientific
> >> background. This is why all scientists accept it as fact.
>
> >Scientists don't accept "evolution" as fact. That is why it is still
called the
> >"Theory" of Evolution. It has never been called the "Law" of Evolution.
> >Scientists are very careful on what they call theory and what they call
law.
>
> >We have Newton's Laws of Motion. We have the Laws of Thermodynamics.
> >We have Coloumb's Law. We have the Ideal Gas Law . . . .
> >We have the Theory of Evolution.
>
>
> --
> Elf M. Sternberg, rational romantic mystic cynical idealist
> If you're so smart, why aren't you naked?
> A.A 1493 http://www.halcyon.com/elf/
The problem is that what is now called "evolution" has very little
to do with the Theory of Evolution. That theory holds that all life
evolved from common ancestors, which ultimately evolved from
one ancestor, which apparently evolved from non-living molecules.
That is quite a radical theory when all we have available for
"evidence" suggests no such scenario. A few fossils have been
found, and a few cases of genetic mutation can be pointed out.
But that is hardly sufficient to justify the sweeping assumptions
of the Theory of Evolution.
It requires as much Faith, perhaps more, to believe in the Theory
of Evolution as it takes to belief in the biblical account of creation.
Faith of such a nature is not science - it is religion. Let us, therefore,
express the truth of the matter: The Christian Religion versus the
Religion of Evolution.
Evan Thompson
> Further, creationists should never undergo any medical operation.
> Appendicitus? Nope, leave that divinely designed organ in there to do its
> godly role - to swell, burst and kill the lucky creationist. Send him or her
> on his way to heaven!
> Only non-believers should be allowed to undergo surgery of any kind, for
those > unfortunate evil ones dare to diddle with God's Holy Design. How
dare they!
Unfortunately, some people really do think this way.
It is seldom their own illnesses that they let go untreated, rather they
let their children die of pneumonia or gangrene because it must have been
"God's will". And often the law can't do anything about it.
Matt Silberstein
<bcecc...@icagen.com>:
>Elf Sternberg wrote:
>
>> Evolution makes sense if you understand it with any scientific
>> background. This is why all scientists accept it as fact.
>
>Scientists don't accept "evolution" as fact. That is why it is still called the
>"Theory" of Evolution. It has never been called the "Law" of Evolution.
>Scientists are very careful on what they call theory and what they call law.
>
>We have Newton's Laws of Motion. We have the Laws of Thermodynamics.
>We have Coloumb's Law. We have the Ideal Gas Law . . . .
>We have the Theory of Evolution.
>
Yes, Laws are mostly a 18th and 19th century concept. We also, btw,
have both the Law of motion and the fact of motion, a theory of
gravity and the fact of gravity.
(For those who have seen the following before, I apologize.)
Evolution is the name of a fact, a theory, and a scientific
discipline. Time out for some definitions:
In science, a fact is a public persistent observation, a set of such
observations, or an inference from such observations. A theory is a
public parsimonious predictive model that explains facts. And a
scientific discipline studies the facts and produces theories.
Evolution is a process by which populations of organisms change their
inherited characteristics over time. The Fact of evolution includes
allele frequency changes in a population, speciation, and Common
Descent. It is a fact because it has been observed. The Theory of
Evolution, which explains the FoE includes imperfect reproduction,
neutral drift, and differential reproductive success as mechanisms.
Evolution biology studies the FoE and modifies the ToE.
Matt Silberstein
<flo...@iag.net>:
[snip]
>
>The problem is that what is now called "evolution" has very little
>to do with the Theory of Evolution. That theory holds that all life
>evolved from common ancestors, which ultimately evolved from
>one ancestor, which apparently evolved from non-living molecules.
Actually Common Descent is pretty much a part of the fact of
evolution. And it says nothing about what life came from, that is an
entirely different subject.
>That is quite a radical theory when all we have available for
>"evidence" suggests no such scenario. A few fossils have been
>found, and a few cases of genetic mutation can be pointed out.
>But that is hardly sufficient to justify the sweeping assumptions
>of the Theory of Evolution.
>
A few cases? How about this, go to your local university biology
library. Get any issue of the Journal of Evolutionary Biology. Tell us
which of the articles has unsupported claims.
>It requires as much Faith, perhaps more, to believe in the Theory
>of Evolution as it takes to belief in the biblical account of creation.
Not at all. It requires no more faith to "believe" in evolution than
it requires to "believe" in physics or chemistry or meteorology.
Science requires exactly the same faith you use when you eat
breakfast, look for your car keys, and read a book.
>Faith of such a nature is not science - it is religion. Let us, therefore,
>express the truth of the matter: The Christian Religion versus the
>Religion of Evolution.
>
Please give one example of how evolution requires faith in a way that
differs from other sciences.
Matt Silberstein
<flo...@iag.net>:
[snip]
>Here are two references:
>
>In the book, "The Collapse of Evolution," Scott M. Huse writes on
>pages 45-46:
>
>"In reality, however, mutations are almost always (99.99 percent)
>harmful, if not lethal, to the unfortunate organism in which they occur.
>In other words, mutations produce organisms that are weaker and
>at a marked disadvantage; they are less able to compete for
>survival. This fact directly contradicts the assumptions and hopeful
>expectations of the modern evolutionary theory."
>
This is simply nonsense. Did the author give any evidence to support
this claim? I doubt it since it is obviously false. The majority of
mutations do nothing at all. You can make changes to fully a third of
the genome (even ignoring the large non-coding sections) and have no
affect.
>In the college textbook, "Genetics," Monroe W. Strickberger of the
>University of Missouri at Saint Louis acknowledges that mutations
>in an established population is almost always harmful and rarely, if
>ever beneficial. Unlike Mr. Huse, we might add, Professor Strickberger
>is an advocate of the Theory of Evolution. Here is what he says on
>page 782 of his tome on genetics:
>
>"New mutations that arise will therefore rarely be better and will very
>likely be worse than the genes already present. However, even if some
>mutations are better, it is unlikely that they will exceed the fitness of
>the established genes by a large degree."
>
>He further adds on pages 782-783:
>
>"Assuming these beneficial mutations are not lost by chance (p. 718),
>their increase in frequency will take many generations (p. 726). Evolution
>that proceeds exclusively through mutation under constant environmental
>conditions is therefore a slow and unlikely process."
>
So they are rarely helpful. Since more are conceived than are needed
to perpetuate the population this is not a problem.
>> > We humans, for example, consider such occurrences as
>> > genetic-induced "birth defects." Any theory which states that advances
>> > in morphology and physiology are due to birth defects is not founded
>> > on reality.
>>
>> Yeah. Good thing evolution is not based on that. It's based on
>> direct observations.
>
>Direct observations of birth defects?
>
No, direct observations of inheritable changes. Calling it a defect
does not change it. All you do is employ a rather transparent
propaganda ploy.
[snip]
>Did you say that you enjoy our quotations? Good! Here is another one.
>
>"Our current social and moral problems are largely a result of the
>humanistic philosophy that has been spawned by evolutionary
>thinking. The so-called new morality we are presently witnessing
>is actually no morality, the inevitable result of the atheistic,
>evolutionary philosophy. Indeed, there are virtually no areas of
>thought and life today which have remained impervious to the
>effects of this popular viewpoint."
> - Scott M. Huse, "The Collapse of Evolution"
>
Did he bother to provide support for his assertion? If not, his
assertion has no more authority than yours does. But you bring up an
interesting point. I suspect you agree with him that the world is in a
moral and social decline. Can you please tell me when and where the
world was better?
[snip]
Evan Thompson
Bill McGinnis <bmc...@patriot.net> wrote:
> "Random mutations" could never account for the intricacy and
> perfection of design we see in Nature. If mutations were random, how
> many quadrillions of failed attempts would occur before the spots on
> the fish are exactly the same as the markings on the rocks it lives
> beside? The mathematics are prohibitive. Genetic mutations are quite
> rare, usually the result of a mistake in copying the code from one
> cell to another. And they are random, not related to any need of the
> species. So, over a million years the fish might randomly grow bigger
> fins and a smaller tail before it stumbled across some helpful change
> in protective markings. Such a cumbersome, long-winded process could
> never result in the timely development of needed protections. The
> species would die out first!
_____ _______ _ _____
|_ _|__ __( )/ ____|
| | | | |/| (___
| | | | \___ \
_| |_ | | ____) |
|_____| |_| |_____/
_____ _ _ ______ _____
/ ____| /\ | | | | | ____| __ \
| | / \ | | | | | |__ | | | |
| | / /\ \ | | | | | __| | | | |
| |____ / ____ \| |____| |____| |____| |__| |
\_____/_/
\_\______|______|______|_____/
_ _ _______ _ _ _____ _
| \ | | /\|__ __| | | | __ \ /\ | |
| \| | / \ | | | | | | |__) | / \ | |
| . ` | / /\ \ | | | | | | _ / / /\ \ | |
| |\ |/ ____ \| | | |__| | | \ \ / ____ \| |____
|_| \_/_/ \_\_| \____/|_| \_\/_/ \_\______|
_____ ______ _ ______ _____ _______ _____ ____ _ _
/ ____| ____| | | ____/ ____|__ __|_ _/ __ \| \ | |
| (___ | |__ | | | |__ | | | | | || | | | \| |
\___ \| __| | | | __|| | | | | || | | | . ` |
____) | |____| |____| |___| |____ | | _| || |__| | |\ |
|_____/|______|______|______\_____| |_| |_____\____/|_| \_|
__ ______ _ _ _____ ____ _ _______ _
\ \ / / __ \| | | | | __ \ / __ \| | |__ __| |
\ \_/ / | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
\ /| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | |__| | |__| | | |__| | |__| | |____| | |_|
|_| \____/ \____/ |_____/ \____/|______|_| (_)
Trevor Zion Bauknight
wrote:
> Faith of such a nature is not science - it is religion. Let us, therefore,
> express the truth of the matter: The Christian Religion versus the
> Religion of Evolution.
There's more evidence supporting the latter, in any case.
Trev
lraven
<Pine.LNX.4.10.990520...@adams.patriot.net>...
> Genetic mutations are quite
> rare, usually the result of a mistake in copying the code from one
> cell to another.
What makes you think genetic mutations are rare? If I'm not mistaken, the
rate of genetic mutation among humans alone is something like 10%, though
obvious physical manifestations of it are not always seen or recognized as
such. My mother and sister both make perfect four-toed footprints because
their second-to-last toe on each foot sits further back than the rest,
situated above the bases of the middle and last toe, plus my mother's
middle fingers are shorter than her index and ring fingers. Another person
I know has only four fingers on one hand and only four toes on the opposite
foot. I know another guy who has a brown eye on one side and a blue one on
the other. I know of another person who had seven fingers on each hand.
Some people are born with their internal organs arranged in a mirror image
to the way most of us are. These are all genetic mutations.
> And they are random, not related to any need of the
> species. So, over a million years the fish might randomly grow bigger
> fins and a smaller tail before it stumbled across some helpful change
> in protective markings. Such a cumbersome, long-winded process could
> never result in the timely development of needed protections. The
> species would die out first!
It is not as cumbersome and long-winded as you think. DNA actually has
mutation-potential built into it. The various species of life are throwing
out mutated members constantly. All that has to happen is for a particular
mutation to be successful and for some kind of isolation factor to come
into play, and speciation can occur given sufficient time according to the
complexity of the life form.
> One more thing, a source of much confusion:
>
> The Bible speaks of the "six days" of Creation. This does not mean
> that everything was created in six literal twenty-four-hour days. The
> "six days" is a figure of speech, meaning six periods of time.
> Similarly, the Bible uses the phrase "the day of the Lord," in
> twenty-seven different places. But nowhere does it mean one single
> twenty-four-hour day. It means the entire period of time when God pays
> back people for the evil they have done. The Bible uses poetical
> figures of speech all the time. "Lake of fire" is a figure of speech.
> So is the idea of Satan as a "roaring lion." There are many, many
> others. It is a great mistake to take them literally.
>
> So God accomplished His great work of Creation in six distinct stages,
> or "days," ending with His creation of Man. Now, His major work is
> done, but He continues to "fine tune" it in an evolutionary manner,
> guiding and controlling this Himself.
Unfortunately for this idea, the sequence of creation described in the
Bible is in scrambled order compared with how things actually came about.
> So whenever an Atheist tries to tell you that you were created not by
> God but by evolution, you can reply:
>
> "YES, BUT EVOLUTION IS GUIDED AND CONTROLLED BY GOD."
God didn't have to have exerted any conscious control over it at all for it
to have worked. You don't have to be an atheist to know this.
Chris
lraven
They have for decades. What time zone are you in?
> That is why it is still
> called the
> > >"Theory" of Evolution.
The theory part of it has to do with process. You're making the common
mistake of confusing "theory" with "hypothesis". Evolution used to be a
hypothesis, but the evidence turned out to be so abundant and ubiquitus
that it became clear some time ago that it is a fact. Creationism can't
even qualify as a hypothesis.
> The problem is that what is now called "evolution" has very little
> to do with the Theory of Evolution. That theory holds that all life
> evolved from common ancestors, which ultimately evolved from
> one ancestor, which apparently evolved from non-living molecules.
> That is quite a radical theory when all we have available for
> "evidence" suggests no such scenario. A few fossils have been
> found, and a few cases of genetic mutation can be pointed out.
> But that is hardly sufficient to justify the sweeping assumptions
> of the Theory of Evolution.
The entire fossil record throughout the entire world is evidence of
evolution.
> It requires as much Faith, perhaps more, to believe in the Theory
> of Evolution as it takes to belief in the biblical account of creation.
> Faith of such a nature is not science - it is religion. Let us,
therefore,
> express the truth of the matter: The Christian Religion versus the
> Religion of Evolution.
Why would it take faith to believe something for which the world is so
filled with physical evidence that researchers can hardly find time to
study it all at the rate it is being found? Why would it take more faith to
believe that than something for which no evidence at all exists?
Chris
Brian Ceccarelli
Elf Sternberg wrote:
> In article <3745BF5D...@icagen.com>
> Brian Ceccarelli <bcecc...@icagen.com> writes:
>
> >Elf Sternberg wrote:
> >
> >> Evolution makes sense if you understand it with any scientific
> >> background. This is why all scientists accept it as fact.
>
> >Scientists don't accept "evolution" as fact. That is why it is still called the
> >"Theory" of Evolution. It has never been called the "Law" of Evolution.
> >Scientists are very careful on what they call theory and what they call law.
>
> >We have Newton's Laws of Motion. We have the Laws of Thermodynamics.
> >We have Coloumb's Law. We have the Ideal Gas Law . . . .
> >We have the Theory of Evolution.
>
> Oh, look, an argument so old it's grown moldy. Can you tell
> me, Brian, what "The Law of Gravity" is and what it covers?
Dear Elf,
You obviously do not have a science background. That's okay. :)
But my degree is in physics and astronomy, and hence, I know something
about science. Scientists adamantly differentiate between a theory and a law.
They are very careful what they call a "theory" and what theories they
elevate to "laws". Even though you would like to play a word game
with me on this topic, there is no word game with regards to theories
and laws in the scientific community. These words have established and
distinct definitions in the vernacular of science.
Scientists declare a theory a law when in every observable circumstance
the theory holds true. For example. E= mc^2. F = ma. F = GMm/d^2.
These always hold true in every observation. Though many have tried, no one
has been able to experimentally refute the truth of these equations. All
experiments uphold the equations. Therefore, the scientific community
collectively calls these equations, once theories, "laws." Sometimes it
takes centuries for a theory to become a law. Much to their credit,
scientists are extremely careful about judging what makes it to lawdom.
The Theory of Evolution is just a theory. It is speculation about the
origins of species. It is a very elaborate speculation which has plausibility,
but nonetheless, it is still a speculation. Evolution remains a theory because
in practice, no one has ever observed it happening. You see, as a
first step, it takes "observation of the process" to send the theory on its
way to becoming a law. (This is not my definition. This is one part of the
scientific definition.) Since no one has ever observed a collection
of molecules randomly coming together to a make a life form, or no one
has observed a frog becoming a bird, the theory of evolution remains
a theory. Labeling evolution as a theory is not an insult to the hypothesis
of evolution. It is just a declaration of the hypothesis's standing amongst
the "Laws" of Nature. The declaration that evolution is a "theory" is
straight from the scientific community. Hence, you hear "the Theory of
Evolution" as opposed to the "Law of Gravity." The choice of words are
there by scientific precept.
I am not slamming evolution in any aspect. I even believe in it to a point.
I just feel it is necessary to keep science scientific. Do not treat the Theory
of Evolution as a "Law." That would be unscientific. Scientists would
scowl at you usurping their authoritative judgment on the subject.
Brian
Matt Silberstein
<bcecc...@interpath.com>:
[snip]
>
> You obviously do not have a science background. That's okay. :)
>But my degree is in physics and astronomy, and hence, I know something
>about science. Scientists adamantly differentiate between a theory and a law.
>They are very careful what they call a "theory" and what theories they
>elevate to "laws".
The do tell us what rules science uses to make this careful decision.
And don't forget to give some references to people doing this. AFAICT
a "law" in science has two properties: it was discovered before the
20th century and 2) it can be simply stated in a sentence, preferably
in a formula.
> Even though you would like to play a word game
>with me on this topic, there is no word game with regards to theories
>and laws in the scientific community. These words have established and
>distinct definitions in the vernacular of science.
>
And by those definitions evolution is the name of a theory and a fact.
> Scientists declare a theory a law when in every observable circumstance
>the theory holds true. For example. E= mc^2. F = ma. F = GMm/d^2.
The last two, you do realize, are wrong.
>These always hold true in every observation.
I guess you did not. How much physics did you say you had studied?
>Though many have tried, no one
>has been able to experimentally refute the truth of these equations. All
>experiments uphold the equations.
I can see the problem here: you use 19th century definitions and 19th
century observations. Relativity has shown that both F=ma and
F=GMm/d^2 do not work for all cases. But you won't find that in the
"law" E=mc^2, you will find it in the theory of General Relativity.
> Therefore, the scientific community
>collectively calls these equations, once theories, "laws." Sometimes it
>takes centuries for a theory to become a law. Much to their credit,
>scientists are extremely careful about judging what makes it to lawdom.
>
Can you give an example of something that was once called a theory and
is not called a law?
> The Theory of Evolution is just a theory.
General Relativity is just a theory.
> It is speculation about the
>origins of species. It is a very elaborate speculation which has plausibility,
>but nonetheless, it is still a speculation.
As is all science.
> Evolution remains a theory because
>in practice, no one has ever observed it happening.
You have already been given references that show this statement is
flat out wrong. Try reading the Journal of Evolutionary Biology, try
read _The Beak of the Finch_, try reading the papers referenced at
www.talkorigins.org. Evolution has been observed over and over and
over again. It is one of the best supported theories in science.
> You see, as a
>first step, it takes "observation of the process" to send the theory on its
>way to becoming a law. (This is not my definition. This is one part of the
>scientific definition.)
If it is not yours then you can certainly give us reference to someone
else using this. And then explain how Newton had no observations to
support his theory of optics, how Einstein had no observations to
support his theory of relativity.
> Since no one has ever observed a collection
>of molecules randomly coming together to a make a life form,
Not part of the theory of evolution. Nor is it part of any reasonable
scientific speculation on abiogenesis. Here is a hint you should know:
atoms do not combine randomly.
> or no one
>has observed a frog becoming a bird,
Again, not part of the theory of evolution. You should really read up
on the topic before you object to it. Have you taken many biology or
even evolutionary biology courses in your science education?
> the theory of evolution remains
>a theory. Labeling evolution as a theory is not an insult to the hypothesis
>of evolution. It is just a declaration of the hypothesis's standing amongst
>the "Laws" of Nature. The declaration that evolution is a "theory" is
>straight from the scientific community. Hence, you hear "the Theory of
>Evolution" as opposed to the "Law of Gravity." The choice of words are
>there by scientific precept.
>
You also hear of the theory of gravity.
> I am not slamming evolution in any aspect. I even believe in it to a point.
Too bad because you clearly do not understand it.
>I just feel it is necessary to keep science scientific. Do not treat the Theory
>of Evolution as a "Law." That would be unscientific. Scientists would
>scowl at you usurping their authoritative judgment on the subject.
>
Which of the people in you university biology department do you
consider other than scientists? How about asking the scientists in the
department what they think of evolution?
maff91
wrote:
That's where random mutations come in.
>
>> > > > Things change, they evolve in
>> > > > certain directions. Automobiles have evolved from early simple
>> > > > machines, as have airplanes and other manufactured items. Laws
>have
>> > > > evolved, music has evolved. Almost everything created by man has
>> > > > evolved from something similar to it which existed earlier. Man,
>as
>> > > > creator of these things, has deliberately modified them over time
>to
>> > > > meet new conditions and to include advances in technology.
>> > >
>> > > Wheras the evolution of species shows no such change with a goal in
>> > > mind.
>> >
>> > That all life forms exhibit well-designed plans of formation cannot be
>> > denied.
>>
>> Well designed? Ah, such well designed things as oncogenes, the
>> recurrent laryngeal nerve, autoimmune diseases, wisdom teeth, and the
>> appendix (to name a few).
>
>Our assessment of these human structures are based on assumptions.
Fundie cults don't do science. They were unable to prove in court that
they knew anything about science.
>We know of no purpose for the appendix, for example. But that does not
>mean that a purpose will not someday be discovered. Oncogenes and
>autoimmune diseases, on the other hand, most likely are products of
>genetic errors that, while harmful in effect, are not so harmful as to
>prevent reproduction and therefore inheritance from one generation to
>another. As to wisdom teeth, I think it is merely a matter of opinion as
>to whether or not they are useful. (Non-essential, by the way, does not
>equate to useless.)
Have you heard of vestigial organs?
Are you quote mining from creationist tracts? Why aren't you giving
proper citations?
>
>> > > > In Nature too, we see evidence of evolution.
>> > >
>> > > And what I suppose you would call devolution. And evolution involving
>> > > neither improvement or the opposite, but merely change.
>> >
>> > Indeed, most genetic mistakes result in tragedies for the individuals
>> > so affected.
>>
>> Reference please. The vast majority of mutations are neutral
>> (check out Molecular Biology of the Cell for the details).
>
>Here are two references:
>
>In the book, "The Collapse of Evolution," Scott M. Huse writes on
>pages 45-46:
<http://www.talkorigins.org/scripts/search/query.idq?Cmd=huse&Where=FAQs>
Why doesn't he publish in peer reviewed science journals?
>
>"In reality, however, mutations are almost always (99.99 percent)
>harmful, if not lethal, to the unfortunate organism in which they occur.
>In other words, mutations produce organisms that are weaker and
>at a marked disadvantage; they are less able to compete for
>survival. This fact directly contradicts the assumptions and hopeful
>expectations of the modern evolutionary theory."
>
>In the college textbook, "Genetics," Monroe W. Strickberger of the
>University of Missouri at Saint Louis acknowledges that mutations
>in an established population is almost always harmful and rarely, if
>ever beneficial. Unlike Mr. Huse, we might add, Professor Strickberger
>is an advocate of the Theory of Evolution. Here is what he says on
>page 782 of his tome on genetics:
>
>"New mutations that arise will therefore rarely be better and will very
>likely be worse than the genes already present. However, even if some
>mutations are better, it is unlikely that they will exceed the fitness of
>the established genes by a large degree."
>
>He further adds on pages 782-783:
>
>"Assuming these beneficial mutations are not lost by chance (p. 718),
>their increase in frequency will take many generations (p. 726). Evolution
>that proceeds exclusively through mutation under constant environmental
>conditions is therefore a slow and unlikely process."
Why don't you read his latest book? Quote mining from creationist
tracts won't do.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0867208929/
You need to learn about neutral mutations as well.
http://kimura.genfys.slu.se/
>
>> > We humans, for example, consider such occurrences as
>> > genetic-induced "birth defects." Any theory which states that advances
>> > in morphology and physiology are due to birth defects is not founded
>> > on reality.
>>
>> Yeah. Good thing evolution is not based on that. It's based on
>> direct observations.
>
>Direct observations of birth defects?
You haven't visited talk.origins archive or read peer reviewed science
journals like _Science_ or _Nature_, have you?
>
>> > > > God, as Creator of the
>> > > > Universe, has developed many things progressively from similar
>things
>> > > > which He created earlier. This is the way He works, bringing all
>> > > > things into existence when He is ready for them to exist.
>> > >
>> > > Then why is he such a crummy designer?
>> > > Why does he "progress" thousands of species into extinction?
>> >
>> > > > In Nature, the process of evolution is guided and controlled by
>God,
>> > > > for His own purposes. It is not an accident, and it does not
>happen
>> > > > according to any mechanistic process.
>> > >
>> > > But it obviously does. I am prepared to entertain the idea that God
>> > > might have put the evolutionary process in place and let it run free
>> > > to see what happened. If God guided evolution to produce the species
>> > > that it has, he's an idiot.
>> >
>> > The Bible tells us that God created all life on the earth and that such
>> > life was designed to reproduce its own kind.
>>
>> Then the Bible is wrong. Life can create life that is not of its
>> own kind (whatever a "kind" is). Look up HeLa cells for a blazing
>> example.
>
>I will do that.
You have yet to do that.
>
>> > < snip >
>> >
>> > > > Genetic mutations are quite
>> > > > rare, usually the result of a mistake in copying the code from one
>> > > > cell to another.
>> > >
>> > > Actually they're quite common. Beneficial mutations are rather rare,
>> > > which is just as well or we'd have new species every week.
>> >
>> > My college textbooks state that mutations are not very common,
>> > and that almost always the mutations are harmful in their effects.
>>
>> WHICH college texts? Of the mutations that do something to the
>> organism, a majority are harmful. But somewhere around 95% of mutations
>> neither help nor hurt the organism (neutral mutations).
>
>That is not the opinion of Professor Strickberger (see quote above).
We know more since he wrote the book.
>
>> > < snip >
>> >
>> > > > No. God is the Creator of everything, just as it says in the
>Bible. He
>> > > > uses evolution as one of His creative tools, and he guides it and
>> > > > controls it every step of the way.
>> > >
>> > > Then he's a nincompoop! No human engineer would design a biped with
>> > > it's entrails hung from it's spine. That's like hanging a chandelier
>> > > on a chain from a wall instead of the ceiling.
>> >
>> > Obviously, you fancy yourself to be wiser than God.
>>
>> If God designed us, he was not teeribly good at it.
>
>"I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are
>thy
>works; and that my soul knoweth right well."
> - Psalms 139:14
"Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens,
and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of
the stars and even their sizes and distances,... and this knowledge
he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus
offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk
nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based
in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an
embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in
the Christian and laugh to scorn."
-- St. Augustine, "De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim"
(The Literal Meaning of Genesis)
>
>> > Exactly what would
>> > YOU use - if you were God - to anchor the entrails? Would you rely on
>the
>> > diaphram and the heart and lungs? Think about it. What better support
>> > is available than the boney spine?
>>
>> A HORIZONTAL bony spine.
>
>So, you would have made us to walk on all fours!
>
>I think you'd better leave the design work to God. He knows what he
>is doing.
I want my money back.
I would recommend that you read Stuart Kauffman.
http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/kauffman/
"The Origins of Order : Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution"
by Stuart A. Kauffman Paperback - 709 pages (May 1993) Oxford Univ
Press; ISBN: 0195079515
http://www.aic.nrl.navy.mil/galist/
The Genetic Algorithms Archive
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/coast/archive/clife/FAQ/www/
Hitch-Hiker's Guide to Evolutionary Computation
news:comp.ai.genetic
http://www.marlboro.edu/~lmoss/planhome/index.html
Evolutionary Computer Graphics (more natural looking evolutions)
The similarities between genetic algorithms and biology can be
seen here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html
Evidence for Jury-Rigged Design in Nature
>
>> > < snip >
>> >
>> > "When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two
>> > possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There
>> > is no third way.
>>
>> Why not?
>>
>> > Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago,
>>
>> BZZZT. Spontaneous generation and evolution are not the same..
>> Nice try, though.
>>
>> > but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural
>> > creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal
>> > reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life
>> > arose spontaneously by chance."
>> > - George Wald, 1967 Nobel Peace Prize winner in Science
>>
>> It never ceases to amaze me how many quotes and how few facts
>> creationists post. But I guess that's their sort; truth by authority
>> (God), not by facts.
>
>Did you say that you enjoy our quotations? Good! Here is another one.
>
>"Our current social and moral problems are largely a result of the
>humanistic philosophy that has been spawned by evolutionary
Many theists are humanists.
http://infidel.org/org/aha/documents/
They don't belong to a cult like you which excuses slavery and
segregation based on the Bible.
Slavery, segregation and the Bible
http://x6.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=439145525
http://www.mindspring.com/~israel/NEWS2.HTML
<http://dir.yahoo.com/Arts/Humanities/History/U_S__History/Slavery/>
<http://dir.yahoo.com/Arts/Humanities/History/By_Subject/Slavery/Atlantic_Slave_Trade/>
>thinking. The so-called new morality we are presently witnessing
>is actually no morality, the inevitable result of the atheistic,
>evolutionary philosophy. Indeed, there are virtually no areas of
>thought and life today which have remained impervious to the
>effects of this popular viewpoint."
> - Scott M. Huse, "The Collapse of Evolution"
He would say that, wouldn't he? He is a fundie cult member.
>
>Here is another one:
>
>"The solution to man's massive social problems depend on a
>correct understanding of origins. If the evolutionary philosophy is
>correct, then life is without purpose. On the other hand, if we were
>created by God, our lives have meaning, direction, and purpose.
>Clearly, the proposition of origins is the foundation of all other
>convictions, actions, and beliefs. Thus, the question of origins is a
>vital issue that can be ignored only at great peril."
> = Scott M. Huse, "The Collapse of Evolution"
Ignorance is no excuse.
Frans de Waal, Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans
and Other Animals, 1996, Harvard University Press, Cambridge; ISBN
0-674-35660-8.
Frans de Waal, Peacemaking among primates (Harvard University Press,
1989).
Frans de Waal, Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex Among Apes. Harper
and Row, New York (1983).
Frans B. M. de Waal, ``Bonobo sex and society''
Scientific American 272(4):82- 88 (March 1995)
http://weber.u.washington.edu/~wcalvin/refs.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0465021212/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679763996/
Talk Origins Archive FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
Suspicious Creationist Credentials FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html
Talk.Origins Archive's Creationism FAQs
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html
Creationism and Pseudo Science
http://members.home.net/fsteiger/creation.htm
IS CREATIONISM FOR REAL?
http://www.enconnect.net/rjtolle/
Greene's Creationism Truth Filter
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/
Many people of Christian and other faiths accept evolution as the
scientific explanation for biodiversity. See the God and
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
Evolution FAQ and the Interpretations of Genesis FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/interpretations.html
Charlie the tuna
Brian Ceccarelli wrote:
>
> Elf Sternberg wrote:
>
> > In article <3745BF5D...@icagen.com>
> > Brian Ceccarelli <bcecc...@icagen.com> writes:
> >
> > >Elf Sternberg wrote:
> > >
> > >> Evolution makes sense if you understand it with any scientific
> > >> background. This is why all scientists accept it as fact.
> >
> > >Scientists don't accept "evolution" as fact. That is why it is still called the
> > >"Theory" of Evolution. It has never been called the "Law" of Evolution.
> > >Scientists are very careful on what they call theory and what they call law.
> >
> > >We have Newton's Laws of Motion. We have the Laws of Thermodynamics.
> > >We have Coloumb's Law. We have the Ideal Gas Law . . . .
> > >We have the Theory of Evolution.
> >
> > Oh, look, an argument so old it's grown moldy. Can you tell
> > me, Brian, what "The Law of Gravity" is and what it covers?
>
> Dear Elf,
>
> You obviously do not have a science background. That's okay. :)
> But my degree is in physics and astronomy, and hence, I know something
> about science. Scientists adamantly differentiate between a theory and a law.
> They are very careful what they call a "theory" and what theories they
> elevate to "laws". Even though you would like to play a word game
> with me on this topic, there is no word game with regards to theories
> and laws in the scientific community. These words have established and
> distinct definitions in the vernacular of science.
>
> Scientists declare a theory a law when in every observable circumstance
> the theory holds true. For example. E= mc^2. F = ma. F = GMm/d^2.
> These always hold true in every observation. Though many have tried, no one
> has been able to experimentally refute the truth of these equations. All
> experiments uphold the equations. Therefore, the scientific community
> collectively calls these equations, once theories, "laws." Sometimes it
> takes centuries for a theory to become a law. Much to their credit,
> scientists are extremely careful about judging what makes it to lawdom.
Like equations eh?
See http://www.woodrow.org/teachers/bi/1994/hwintro.html
for an explanation of the Hardy-Weinberg equation - which dates from around
the same time as special relativity.
And has at least as much experimental verification.
Cheers!
Charlie the Tuna
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the point
than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The
happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.
-- Preface to Androcles and the Lion, George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)
Bruce K Darling
OrlandoFlorida wrote in message <7i4vcb$7lt$1...@news.iag.net>...
>Natural Selection can only account for preserving what already exists, not
>in the introduction of any new traits.
>
Really. Care to cite your source?
By the way - you guys need to SNIP all of the nonsense. These extended
postings are a pain in the rear to read.
Thank God I'm Anglican,
Regards
John Popelish
>
> It's amazing to me, that evolutionists believe that from a single celled
> organism, huge dinosaurs were the first to evolve and in their estimation,
> billions of years later, the small creatures come about and have stayed
> small, monkeys are still monkeys. If man evolved from the ape, why aren't
> all men apes and why didn't the ape disappear, after all they evolved didn't
> they. Evolution makes no sense whatsoever. They still can't determine how
> that first single cell organism popped into existence from nothing.
Hey, Dore.
Always entertaining to see you make a pass through the group.
I'll take a stab at answering your questions
for anybody else who's interested.
I am pretty sure that answers are the last thing you want to see.
Dinosaurs were not the first things to evolve
from single celled animals,
but took a few hundred million years to appear.
By the time they were the hot item,
mammals were already scurrying under foot.
Small animals stay small because
they are successful at reproducing with those characteristics,
under the circumstances they face.
There is nothing about evolution that implies
that size increase is a necessary direction of change.
Man and present day primates descended from earlier species.
Different branches of the family went different ways,
and, though some of our cousins died out,
several branches of the family still exist.
There is nothing about evolution
that implies that a new branch of a family
causes the rest of the family to die out.
And evolution does not deal with the question
of how the first cell came to be alive,
but only with how that early life
changed and diversified into the life we see today.
Keep smiling,
John Popelish
Elf Sternberg
Brian Ceccarelli <bcecc...@interpath.com> writes:
Brian, I'll ignore the snide comments. Actually, my
background is in engineering, and I know full well what the difference
is between a "theory" and a "law." A "law" is a theory that has been
demonstrably robust (that is, it adequately explains everything
previously observed) and reliant (that it, is continues to adequately
explain new phenomena, and phenomena predicted by the theory turn out
to be observable).
> The Theory of Evolution is just a theory. It is speculation about the
>origins of species. It is a very elaborate speculation which has plausibility,
>but nonetheless, it is still a speculation. Evolution remains a theory because
>in practice, no one has ever observed it happening.
This has been dealt with many times, Brian. This is a little
bit like an astronmer claiming that we have yet to observe the Earth
going around the sun, and in fact, there are wonderfully elaborate
descriptions of what orbits would look like if the Earth were at the
center of the solar system.
You have not dealt with the central tenant. There are species
alive today that were not here 100,000 or a million years ago. There
were species alive then that are not here now. These are facts. The
process by which this occurred is called evolution.
>The declaration that evolution is a "theory" is straight from the
>scientific community. Hence, you hear "the Theory of Evolution" as
>opposed to the "Law of Gravity." The choice of words are there by
>scientific precept.
Except that Newton's Law of Gravity is *wrong*. Dead and
completely wrong. That it's "close enough" for almost all work we do
on Earth is one thing; as an astronomer you know (and should admit, or
be labeled Yet Another Liar For Jesus) that "Newton's Law of Gravity"
was superseded by Einstien's "Theory of Gravity" early in this
century. Newton did not adequately describe the motion of Mercury;
Einstien did. Curiously, nobody yet calls Einstien's equations "a Law
of Gravity."
In the meantime, I too believe in keeping science scientific.
The conclusion that the Earth goes around the sun has been reached by
indirect observation; the conclusion that speciation occurs has also
been reached by indirect observation-- although there have now been
conclusive incidents of speciation observed in insects recently.
And I have been married for ten years to a marine biologist.
She assures me that there is no "theory of evolution" [sic]. There
are "theories for evolutionary mechanisms," but for someone in her
field to claim that evolution itself is still contentious is heading
for professional suicide.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, rational romantic mystical cynical idealist
e...@halcyon.com: A Decade of Usenet: On-line since August 18, 1988
http://www.halcyon.com/elf/
I have looked into the abyss, and the abyss has looked into me.
Neither liked what we saw.
--- Brother Theodore
OrlandoFlorida
news:01bea43d$07625e00$1b1b98d0@default...
> > The problem is that what is now called "evolution" has very little
> > to do with the Theory of Evolution. That theory holds that all life
> > evolved from common ancestors, which ultimately evolved from
> > one ancestor, which apparently evolved from non-living molecules.
> > That is quite a radical theory when all we have available for
> > "evidence" suggests no such scenario. A few fossils have been
> > found, and a few cases of genetic mutation can be pointed out.
> > But that is hardly sufficient to justify the sweeping assumptions
> > of the Theory of Evolution.
>
> The entire fossil record throughout the entire world is evidence of
> evolution.
Actually, that is not a correct assumption. That fossils exist is not
denied. It is the assumptions made by the evolutionists that is
controversial. Suppose, for example, that a fossil is discovered
of a creature that had a skeletal structure somewhere between
a monkey and a man. The evolutionist would be inclined to jump
to the conclusion that it is the remains of a "missing link" between
man and a primitive ancestor. Yet, there is nothing that could
warrant such an assumption. Why not assume that it is the remains
of a creature who became extinct? Why not assume that the remains
are those of a genuine man who suffered a debilitating bone disease?
Why is one assumption preferred over another? The answer, clearly,
is that the bias of the evolutionist causes him to make assumptions
that would support his conclusions.
> > It requires as much Faith, perhaps more, to believe in the Theory
> > of Evolution as it takes to belief in the biblical account of creation.
> > Faith of such a nature is not science - it is religion. Let us,
therefore,
> > express the truth of the matter: The Christian Religion versus the
> > Religion of Evolution.
>
> Why would it take faith to believe something for which the world is so
> filled with physical evidence that researchers can hardly find time to
> study it all at the rate it is being found? Why would it take more faith
to
> believe that than something for which no evidence at all exists?
Who says there is no evidence for Christianity? The entire Bible - both
Old Testament and New Testament - is the testimony to the truth of God
and Jesus, and the testimony of witnesses is clearly evidence. The word
"testament," incidentally is derived from the word "testis," which means
"witness." According to Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary,
testament is defined as, "A tangible proof or tribute that testifies to or
serves as evidence." Hence, by the very definition of testament, the Old
Testament and the New Testament consists of genuine evidence.
Turning now to the fossil evidence, fossils have indeed been found and
are indeed evidence of something. But exactly what those fossils are
evidence of remains in dispute. I have already given examples that
indicate that more than one interpretation or assumption is possible.
I therefore stand by my statement that, "It requires as much Faith,
perhaps more, to believe in the Theory of Evolution as it takes to believe
in the biblical account of creation."
Allow me to conclude with the words of British biologist, L. Harrison
Matthews, who wrote the following in the foreward to the 1971 edition
of Darwin's "The Origin of Species":
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus
in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved
theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the Theory of
Evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both
are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the
present, has been capable of proof."
OrlandoFlorida
news:3747dfe5...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
> In alt.religion.christian I read this message from Brian Ceccarelli
> <bcecc...@interpath.com>:
>
> [snip]
> >
> > You obviously do not have a science background. That's okay. :)
> >But my degree is in physics and astronomy, and hence, I know something
> >about science. Scientists adamantly differentiate between a theory and a
law.
> >They are very careful what they call a "theory" and what theories they
> >elevate to "laws".
>
> The do tell us what rules science uses to make this careful decision.
> And don't forget to give some references to people doing this. AFAICT
> a "law" in science has two properties: it was discovered before the
> 20th century and 2) it can be simply stated in a sentence, preferably
> in a formula.
Both of your statements apply to the Law of Gravity, but not the Theory
of Evolution.
Gravity was discovered long ago. Do you dispute that fact?
Gravity, being a force, can indeed be expressed in a mathematical
equation. Furthermore, the term "law" is universally considered to be
applicable to the concept of gravity.
I refer you to the Sixth Edition of "Schaum's Outline of Theory and
Problems of College Physics," by Daniel Schaum, and edited by
Professor of Physics, Carel W. Van der Merwe, of New York University.
On page 36 of this book, we find the following heading in bold type:
"Law of Universal Gravitation." Under this heading is the following
explanation:
"The force of attraction between two masses M and M1 separated
by a distance of R, G being the constant of gravitation, is
Force = G * ((M * M1) / R^2)
When M and M1 are expressed in kilograms and R in meters, the force
will be given in newtons if G = 6.67 x 10^-11 nt - M^2/kg^2."
Note: Due to limitations in expressing the mathematical equations,
I took the liberty of modifying the layout of the equation from what
was presented in the text, such as using parenthesis, to make the
equation understandable. In the original text, for example, the
exponentials did not require the carrot sign (^) to identify them
as exponentials. Aside from such modifications required by the
limitations of the text being used here, the quotation has not been
altered.
Thus, it is obvious that the contention that Gravity is a Law of Physics
is indeed quite true.
<snip>
OrlandoFlorida
news:3762df02...@news2.newscene.com...
<snip>
"Proper citations?" Are you serious? I just quoted from two well-respected
medical sources that are widely used for teaching purposes in schools
of medicine!
Is that the only rebuttal you can offer - that they are not proper citations
because they are from accepted textbooks of the medical profession?
What do you have against the medical community that causes you to say
such ridiculous things?
> >> Reference please. The vast majority of mutations are neutral
> >> (check out Molecular Biology of the Cell for the details).
> >
> >Here are two references:
> >
> >In the book, "The Collapse of Evolution," Scott M. Huse writes on
> >pages 45-46:
> >
> >"In reality, however, mutations are almost always (99.99 percent)
> >harmful, if not lethal, to the unfortunate organism in which they occur.
> >In other words, mutations produce organisms that are weaker and
> >at a marked disadvantage; they are less able to compete for
> >survival. This fact directly contradicts the assumptions and hopeful
> >expectations of the modern evolutionary theory."
> >
> >In the college textbook, "Genetics," Monroe W. Strickberger of the
> >University of Missouri at Saint Louis acknowledges that mutations
> >in an established population is almost always harmful and rarely, if
> >ever beneficial. Unlike Mr. Huse, we might add, Professor Strickberger
> >is an advocate of the Theory of Evolution. Here is what he says on
> >page 782 of his tome on genetics:
> >
> >"New mutations that arise will therefore rarely be better and will very
> >likely be worse than the genes already present. However, even if some
> >mutations are better, it is unlikely that they will exceed the fitness of
> >the established genes by a large degree."
> >
> >He further adds on pages 782-783:
> >
> >"Assuming these beneficial mutations are not lost by chance (p. 718),
> >their increase in frequency will take many generations (p. 726).
Evolution
> >that proceeds exclusively through mutation under constant environmental
> >conditions is therefore a slow and unlikely process."
>>
> >"I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous
are
> >thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well."
> > - Psalms 139:14
> >
> >I think you'd better leave the design work to God. He knows what he
> >is doing.
>
> I want my money back.
As far as I am concerned, you can have it back. As God for a refund
when you meet Him on Judgment Day.
Cyberia
>lraven <sp...@me.not> wrote in message
>news:01bea43d$07625e00$1b1b98d0@default...
>
>
>denied. It is the assumptions made by the evolutionists that is
>controversial. Suppose, for example, that a fossil is discovered
>of a creature that had a skeletal structure somewhere between
>a monkey and a man. The evolutionist would be inclined to jump
>to the conclusion that it is the remains of a "missing link" between
>man and a primitive ancestor. Yet, there is nothing that could
>warrant such an assumption. Why not assume that it is the remains
>of a creature who became extinct? Why not assume that the remains
>are those of a genuine man who suffered a debilitating bone disease?
>Why is one assumption preferred over another? The answer, clearly,
>is that the bias of the evolutionist causes him to make assumptions
>that would support his conclusions.
You are ignoring the peer review process entirely.
Trevor Zion Bauknight
wrote:
> Thus, it is obvious that the contention that Gravity is a Law of Physics
> is indeed quite true.
Have you told Albert Einstein? He proposed in his theories of gravitation
that the phenomenon (which undoubtedly exists) acts quite differently in
extreme situations.
In any case, the point is not that Gravity works. That much is fact.
What we do not understand is by what mechanism it works.
By the same token, Evolution works...we're just not completely sure how.
Trev
OrlandoFlorida
> In alt.religion.christian I read this message from "OrlandoFlorida"
> <flo...@iag.net>:
>
> >lraven <sp...@me.not> wrote in message
> >news:01bea43d$07625e00$1b1b98d0@default...
> >
> >> > to do with the Theory of Evolution. That theory holds that all life
> >> > evolved from common ancestors, which ultimately evolved from
> >> > one ancestor, which apparently evolved from non-living molecules.
> >> > That is quite a radical theory when all we have available for
> >> > "evidence" suggests no such scenario. A few fossils have been
> >> > found, and a few cases of genetic mutation can be pointed out.
> >> > But that is hardly sufficient to justify the sweeping assumptions
> >>
> >> evolution.
> >
>
But it remains an assumption. Whether or not it is "good" is questionable.
> > That fossils exist is not
> >denied. It is the assumptions made by the evolutionists that is
> >controversial.
>
> Please list those assumptions and evidence that actual scientists make
> those assumptions.
All "conclusions" based on fossil findings are assumptions.
> > Suppose, for example, that a fossil is discovered
> >of a creature that had a skeletal structure somewhere between
> >a monkey and a man. The evolutionist would be inclined to jump
> >to the conclusion that it is the remains of a "missing link" between
> >man and a primitive ancestor.
>
> Depends on where it was found. If, for example, it were found among
> trilobites they would come to a very different conclusion. The problem
> here is that you are discussing one particular (hypothetical fossil).
> You are right that no single fossil says much. But when you have
> thousand and more you can put them into chronological order. And when
> you do you will notice other patterns in the fossils. You will notice
> that A resembles B resembles C and that certain features change over
> time. For some organisms, hard shelled marine animals in particular
> (for well known reasons) we have very good records. For others we do
> not. But if we have a series of fossils that show a sequence of leg
> bone changes, for example, and we find a new fossil that fits between
> two in time and has a morphology that fits between them, then saying
> it was in an sequence of descent is a reasonable and obvious
> *conclusion*.
>
> > Yet, there is nothing that could
> >warrant such an assumption. Why not assume that it is the remains
> >of a creature who became extinct? Why not assume that the remains
> >are those of a genuine man who suffered a debilitating bone disease?
>
> Have you actually looked at any of the fossils that represent common
> ancestors of H.s. and monkeys? There is no way they could be human.
>
> >Why is one assumption preferred over another? The answer, clearly,
> >is that the bias of the evolutionist causes him to make assumptions
> >that would support his conclusions.
> >
> Or the fossil fits with all the other fossils that we have found and
> forms a rational pattern.
>
> >> > It requires as much Faith, perhaps more, to believe in the Theory
> >> > of Evolution as it takes to belief in the biblical account of
creation.
> >> > Faith of such a nature is not science - it is religion. Let us,
> >therefore,
> >> > express the truth of the matter: The Christian Religion versus the
> >> > Religion of Evolution.
> >>
> >> Why would it take faith to believe something for which the world is so
> >> filled with physical evidence that researchers can hardly find time to
> >> study it all at the rate it is being found? Why would it take more
faith
> >to
> >> believe that than something for which no evidence at all exists?
> >
> >Who says there is no evidence for Christianity? The entire Bible - both
> >Old Testament and New Testament - is the testimony to the truth of God
> >and Jesus, and the testimony of witnesses is clearly evidence.
>
> And testimony of humans is known to be unreliable. Humans are known to
> make mistakes and lie and such.
They are also known to the truth. That is why we call acceptance of the
evidence a Faith or Belief. The same holds true for the Theory of
Evolution. Do you believe the assumptions of some scientists? If
so, then that is your Faith or Belief.
> > The word
> >"testament," incidentally is derived from the word "testis," which means
> >"witness." According to Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary,
> >testament is defined as, "A tangible proof or tribute that testifies to
or
> >serves as evidence." Hence, by the very definition of testament, the Old
> >Testament and the New Testament consists of genuine evidence.
> >
> >Turning now to the fossil evidence, fossils have indeed been found and
> >are indeed evidence of something. But exactly what those fossils are
> >evidence of remains in dispute. I have already given examples that
> >indicate that more than one interpretation or assumption is possible.
> >
> If you can't even figure out the difference between assumption and
> conclusion how can we listen to the rest?
The conclusions of the Theory of Evolution are based on assumptions.
> >I therefore stand by my statement that, "It requires as much Faith,
> >perhaps more, to believe in the Theory of Evolution as it takes to
believe
> >in the biblical account of creation."
> >
> Why not look at the body of evidence rather than make a story about a
> single hypothetical fossil. Or are you willing to concede that
> evolution occurs for all other organisms except H.s.?
I concede nothing to evolutionists. However, my primary interest, for
reasons which might be obvious, is in regard to human beings. Let
us look at a few claims made by evolutionists in regard to Man:
1. Heidelberg Man: This assumption was created from only a jaw
bone that many concede was quite human.
2. Nebraska Man: This assumption was erected from one tooth. It
was later discovered that it was a tooth from an extinct pig.
3. Piltdown Man: This assumption was built on a jawbone. It later
was discovered to be the jawbone of a modern ape.
4. Peking Man: This assumption was supposed to be built from
fossils 500,000 years old, but the evidence has disappeared.
5. Neanderthal Man: This famous skeleton, found in France more
than 50 years ago, was assumed to be a link between modern
man and primitive ancestors. But at the International Congress of
Zoology in 1958, Dr. A.J.E. Cave stated that his examination
showed that the fossils were the remains of an old man who
suffered from arthritis.
6. New Guinea Man: A false assumption of a link to primitive
ancestors, this is nothing more than a "species" that can
be found today in the region near Australia.
7. Cro-Magnon Man: Although the assumption is made that
this is a link to primitive ancestor, it had similar physique and
brain capacity as Modern Man. As the creationists ask, "So
what's the difference?"
8. Modern Man: A supposed genius who thinks he evolved from
a primitive simian.
"Professing themselves to be wise they became fools."
- Romans 1:22
OrlandoFlorida
news:trev-22059...@nas-p10.usc.net...
By evolution, do you mean the Theory of Evolution, which states that,
among other things, Man evolved from a primitive simian-like creature?
If so, then I disagree that it "works." It has never once been demonstrated,
and I seriously doubt if it ever could be demonstrated. Those who believe
that, do so by an act of Faith.
Matt Silberstein
<flo...@iag.net>:
>lraven <sp...@me.not> wrote in message
>news:01bea43d$07625e00$1b1b98d0@default...
>
>> > The problem is that what is now called "evolution" has very little
>> > to do with the Theory of Evolution. That theory holds that all life
>> > evolved from common ancestors, which ultimately evolved from
>> > one ancestor, which apparently evolved from non-living molecules.
>> > That is quite a radical theory when all we have available for
>> > "evidence" suggests no such scenario. A few fossils have been
>> > found, and a few cases of genetic mutation can be pointed out.
>> > But that is hardly sufficient to justify the sweeping assumptions
>> > of the Theory of Evolution.
>>
>> The entire fossil record throughout the entire world is evidence of
>> evolution.
>
>Actually, that is not a correct assumption.
No, but it is a good conclusion.
> That fossils exist is not
>denied. It is the assumptions made by the evolutionists that is
>controversial.
Please list those assumptions and evidence that actual scientists make
those assumptions.
> Suppose, for example, that a fossil is discovered
> The word
>"testament," incidentally is derived from the word "testis," which means
>"witness." According to Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary,
>testament is defined as, "A tangible proof or tribute that testifies to or
>serves as evidence." Hence, by the very definition of testament, the Old
>Testament and the New Testament consists of genuine evidence.
>
>Turning now to the fossil evidence, fossils have indeed been found and
>are indeed evidence of something. But exactly what those fossils are
>evidence of remains in dispute. I have already given examples that
>indicate that more than one interpretation or assumption is possible.
>
If you can't even figure out the difference between assumption and
conclusion how can we listen to the rest?
>I therefore stand by my statement that, "It requires as much Faith,
>perhaps more, to believe in the Theory of Evolution as it takes to believe
>in the biblical account of creation."
>
Why not look at the body of evidence rather than make a story about a
single hypothetical fossil. Or are you willing to concede that
evolution occurs for all other organisms except H.s.?
[snip]
Trevor Zion Bauknight
wrote:
> 2. Nebraska Man: This assumption was erected from one tooth. It
> was later discovered that it was a tooth from an extinct pig.
Wait a second.
If there are still pigs, how can there be an "extinct pig?" Surely you
don't mean to suggest that speciation is so subtle and that natural
selection plays a role in the survival of certain species in favor of
others?
Trev
Trevor Zion Bauknight
wrote:
> > By the same token, Evolution works...we're just not completely sure how.
>
> By evolution, do you mean the Theory of Evolution, which states that,
> among other things, Man evolved from a primitive simian-like creature?
"Simian-like?" Man is still evolving. In terms of evolutionary theory,
there really isn't a "primitive" creature, as no upward direction or
progression toward civilization is implied. Only time will tell whether
"Man" is better suited to his environment and its changes (even those
changes Man has wrought) than those "primitive" creatures like cockroaches
evolving alongside Man. My money's on the cockroaches, frankly.
> If so, then I disagree that it "works." It has never once been demonstrated,
> and I seriously doubt if it ever could be demonstrated. Those who believe
> that, do so by an act of Faith.
How do you "demonstrate" a natural process which takes hundreds of
thousands, even millions of years? You don't. You observe it as well as
you can in the fossil record. Sure, the record is spotty, largely due to
the vast unlikelihood of the preservation of those fossils, particularly
in a context by which they may be accurately dated.
We can't observe quantum activity, either, or the effects of
near-light-speed travel on the human body (at least not directly); but
that doesn't prevent theories about such things from being grounded in
evidence.
Creationism, by contrast, is not in any way based on any kind of tangible
evidence other than the record of a single Bronze Age civilization's
mythology.
Trev
OrlandoFlorida
> > was later discovered that it was a tooth from an extinct pig.
>
>
> If there are still pigs, how can there be an "extinct pig?" Surely you
> don't mean to suggest that speciation is so subtle and that natural
> selection plays a role in the survival of certain species in favor of
> others?
>
> Trev
The concept of Extinct Species is not the exclusive domain of the
Theory of Evolution.
Trevor Zion Bauknight
wrote:
> > If there are still pigs, how can there be an "extinct pig?" Surely you
> > don't mean to suggest that speciation is so subtle and that natural
> > selection plays a role in the survival of certain species in favor of
> > others?
> The concept of Extinct Species is not the exclusive domain of the
> Theory of Evolution.
You didn't answer my question.
Trev
Shane D. Killian
>
> Actually, that is not a correct assumption. That fossils exist is not
> denied. It is the assumptions made by the evolutionists that is
> of a creature that had a skeletal structure somewhere between
> a monkey and a man. The evolutionist would be inclined to jump
> to the conclusion that it is the remains of a "missing link" between
> warrant such an assumption. Why not assume that it is the remains
> of a creature who became extinct? Why not assume that the remains
> are those of a genuine man who suffered a debilitating bone disease?
> is that the bias of the evolutionist causes him to make assumptions
> that would support his conclusions.
>
the fossil will be found in such a place. If it's all just assumption,
then please explain what all of evolutions predictions have so far
panned out?
> Turning now to the fossil evidence, fossils have indeed been found and
> are indeed evidence of something. But exactly what those fossils are
> evidence of remains in dispute. I have already given examples that
> indicate that more than one interpretation or assumption is possible.
>
--
Shane D. Killian -- sha...@vnet.net -- http://users.vnet.net/shanek
"uuunnn k mmmmmmk hhhhhhhh khbbbbbbbbbbbh
gnhjjjjjjjjjjj rrrrrrrrrddddfc gvb uyyyyyyyhubbbbbbb"
--Sinclair Mitchell Killian, born 1/29/98
Shane D. Killian
> >
> > The do tell us what rules science uses to make this careful decision.
> > And don't forget to give some references to people doing this. AFAICT
> > a "law" in science has two properties: it was discovered before the
> > 20th century and 2) it can be simply stated in a sentence, preferably
> > in a formula.
>
> of Evolution.
>
> Gravity was discovered long ago. Do you dispute that fact?
>
century. And we still haven't fully "discovered" it--we have *no* idea
how it works on a quantum level!
Matt Silberstein
<flo...@iag.net>:
>Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:37476658...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
>> In alt.religion.christian I read this message from "OrlandoFlorida"
>> <flo...@iag.net>:
>>
>> >lraven <sp...@me.not> wrote in message
>> >news:01bea43d$07625e00$1b1b98d0@default...
>> >
>> >> > The problem is that what is now called "evolution" has very little
>> >> > to do with the Theory of Evolution. That theory holds that all life
>> >> > evolved from common ancestors, which ultimately evolved from
>> >> > one ancestor, which apparently evolved from non-living molecules.
>> >> > That is quite a radical theory when all we have available for
>> >> > "evidence" suggests no such scenario. A few fossils have been
>> >> > found, and a few cases of genetic mutation can be pointed out.
>> >> > But that is hardly sufficient to justify the sweeping assumptions
>> >> > of the Theory of Evolution.
>> >>
>> >> The entire fossil record throughout the entire world is evidence of
>> >> evolution.
>> >
>> >Actually, that is not a correct assumption.
>>
>> No, but it is a good conclusion.
>
>But it remains an assumption. Whether or not it is "good" is questionable.
>
From the On-line webster's at http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
Assumption:
5 a : an assuming that something is true b : a fact or statement (as a
proposition, axiom, postulate, or notion) taken for granted
(The other meanings are inappropriate.)
Conclusion:
1 a : a reasoned judgment : INFERENCE b : the necessary consequence of
two or more propositions taken as premises; especially : the inferred
proposition of a syllogism
That the fossil record is evidence for evolution is a *conclusion* we
get from examining the fossil record. It is not an assumption. You
can, if you wish, challenge that *conclusion*. To do so you need to
challenge the actual reasoning behind the *conclusion*, the actual
*assumption* made, and the actual *evidence*. And to do that you need
to understand the different between assumptions, conclusions, and
evidence.
Now, at it happens there are three major independent lines of evidence
in support of evolution. The fossil evidence is quite strong, but it
is just one of those lines of evidence. And, AAMOF, while sufficient
itself, it is the weakest of those lines of evidence. Can you even
name the other two lines?
>> > That fossils exist is not
>> >denied. It is the assumptions made by the evolutionists that is
>> >controversial.
>>
>> Please list those assumptions and evidence that actual scientists make
>> those assumptions.
>
>All "conclusions" based on fossil findings are assumptions.
>
Let's try again. Do you have any evidence or examples or reasoning
that shows that the actions of biologists, as biologists, differs from
the actions of other scientists working in their fields? And evidence
or examples or reasoning that shows that biologists use different
assumptions?
Or go to the following web page and explain how the *conclusions* are
really *assumptions*:
http://www.best.com/~dlindsay/creation/fossil_series.html
>> > Suppose, for example, that a fossil is discovered
>> >of a creature that had a skeletal structure somewhere between
>> >a monkey and a man. The evolutionist would be inclined to jump
>> >to the conclusion that it is the remains of a "missing link" between
>> >man and a primitive ancestor.
>>
>> Depends on where it was found. If, for example, it were found among
>> trilobites they would come to a very different conclusion. The problem
>> here is that you are discussing one particular (hypothetical fossil).
>> You are right that no single fossil says much. But when you have
>> thousand and more you can put them into chronological order. And when
>> you do you will notice other patterns in the fossils. You will notice
>> that A resembles B resembles C and that certain features change over
>> time. For some organisms, hard shelled marine animals in particular
>> (for well known reasons) we have very good records. For others we do
>> not. But if we have a series of fossils that show a sequence of leg
>> bone changes, for example, and we find a new fossil that fits between
>> two in time and has a morphology that fits between them, then saying
>> it was in an sequence of descent is a reasonable and obvious
>> *conclusion*.
>>
Gee, you seem to have ignored all of that. I guess it is easier to
simply assert your position. That way you do not have to provide an
rational or evidence.
>> > Yet, there is nothing that could
>> >warrant such an assumption. Why not assume that it is the remains
>> >of a creature who became extinct? Why not assume that the remains
>> >are those of a genuine man who suffered a debilitating bone disease?
>>
>> Have you actually looked at any of the fossils that represent common
>> ancestors of H.s. and monkeys? There is no way they could be human.
>>
I guess you have not.
>> >Why is one assumption preferred over another? The answer, clearly,
>> >is that the bias of the evolutionist causes him to make assumptions
>> >that would support his conclusions.
>> >
>> Or the fossil fits with all the other fossils that we have found and
>> forms a rational pattern.
Somehow this concept escapes you.
[snip]
>> >Who says there is no evidence for Christianity? The entire Bible - both
>> >Old Testament and New Testament - is the testimony to the truth of God
>> >and Jesus, and the testimony of witnesses is clearly evidence.
>>
>> And testimony of humans is known to be unreliable. Humans are known to
>> make mistakes and lie and such.
>
>They are also known to the truth. That is why we call acceptance of the
>evidence a Faith or Belief. The same holds true for the Theory of
>Evolution. Do you believe the assumptions of some scientists? If
>so, then that is your Faith or Belief.
>
No, AAMOF, I don't accept what they say on their word, no scientists
does. Material offered for publication is checked. Crucial experiment
(and quite a few non-crucial ones) are repeated. Evidence is compared
to see if it matches. The reasoning is examined to see if it supports
the conclusion. The conclusion is tested to see if actually works in
the world. The whole process of science is devoted to minimizing, as
best as we know how, the need to rely on faith or belief in testimony.
If you think there is a problem with a paper you can try to re-create
the situation. Even if you don't disagree, you will do so because
results build on results. If a paper is meaningful in any way, then
people will try to build on it. If the paper is false it will get
found out. Not immediately, but eventually. If you can think of a
human endeavor that does a better job, then let us know. But your only
other option is to say that these thousands of people, from different
countries and different religions and such, are all in on a grand
conspiracy. A conspiracy that seems to go down to the high school
level since you can do good experiments to show evolution in a good
high school lab.
>> > The word
>> >"testament," incidentally is derived from the word "testis," which means
>> >"witness." According to Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary,
>> >testament is defined as, "A tangible proof or tribute that testifies to
>or
>> >serves as evidence." Hence, by the very definition of testament, the Old
>> >Testament and the New Testament consists of genuine evidence.
>> >
>> >Turning now to the fossil evidence, fossils have indeed been found and
>> >are indeed evidence of something. But exactly what those fossils are
>> >evidence of remains in dispute. I have already given examples that
>> >indicate that more than one interpretation or assumption is possible.
>> >
>> If you can't even figure out the difference between assumption and
>> conclusion how can we listen to the rest?
>
>The conclusions of the Theory of Evolution are based on assumptions.
>
The *conclusions* of anything are based on *assumption*. SFW?! The
question is what assumptions. The "faith" of science is the same faith
you use to eat breakfast, to start a car, and to read a book. It is
the simple idea that the world will work the same way now that it has
worked in the past.
>> >I therefore stand by my statement that, "It requires as much Faith,
>> >perhaps more, to believe in the Theory of Evolution as it takes to
>believe
>> >in the biblical account of creation."
>> >
>> Why not look at the body of evidence rather than make a story about a
>> single hypothetical fossil. Or are you willing to concede that
>> evolution occurs for all other organisms except H.s.?
>
>I concede nothing to evolutionists. However, my primary interest, for
>reasons which might be obvious, is in regard to human beings. Let
>us look at a few claims made by evolutionists in regard to Man:
>
But humans represent such a tiny portion of life on Earth. You don't
show that evolution and Common Descent existed just by looking at the
evidence for human evolution. To show Common Descent we look at all
the evidence. Once we have come to a conclusion we then look at what
the evidence tells us about humans.
>1. Heidelberg Man: This assumption was created from only a jaw
>bone that many concede was quite human.
>
>2. Nebraska Man: This assumption was erected from one tooth. It
>was later discovered that it was a tooth from an extinct pig.
>
Later meaning two years.
>3. Piltdown Man: This assumption was built on a jawbone. It later
>was discovered to be the jawbone of a modern ape.
>
Not quite.
>4. Peking Man: This assumption was supposed to be built from
>fossils 500,000 years old, but the evidence has disappeared.
>
No, some of the evidence disappeared. Lots of the evidence did not and
much more has been found at the same site.
>5. Neanderthal Man: This famous skeleton, found in France more
>than 50 years ago, was assumed to be a link between modern
>man and primitive ancestors. But at the International Congress of
>Zoology in 1958, Dr. A.J.E. Cave stated that his examination
>showed that the fossils were the remains of an old man who
>suffered from arthritis.
>
How old is your reference for this stuff? Skeleton (note the
singular)? more than 50(!) years ago? 1958? There are many more than a
single skeleton and no, they were not humans who suffered from
arthritis. If you read this in a recent book then you have been sadly
deceived. Why not read a science book that discusses the actual
evidence and the actual reasoning involved. If your faith is strong
enough it should survive your looking at the real evidence.
>6. New Guinea Man: A false assumption of a link to primitive
>ancestors, this is nothing more than a "species" that can
>be found today in the region near Australia.
>
You keep on making assertions. Assertions are not reasons.
>7. Cro-Magnon Man: Although the assumption is made that
>this is a link to primitive ancestor, it had similar physique and
>brain capacity as Modern Man. As the creationists ask, "So
>what's the difference?"
>
ROTFLMAOASTDTD. This is one of my favorite bits. If the differences
are large you ask for a transitional between. If they are close you
claim they are the same. And you fail to see the problem.
>8. Modern Man: A supposed genius who thinks he evolved from
>a primitive simian.
>
Have you ever looked at actual evidence?
Matt Silberstein
<flo...@iag.net>:
>Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:3747dfe5...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
>> In alt.religion.christian I read this message from Brian Ceccarelli
>> <bcecc...@interpath.com>:
>>
>> [snip]
>> >
>> > You obviously do not have a science background. That's okay. :)
>> >But my degree is in physics and astronomy, and hence, I know something
>> >about science. Scientists adamantly differentiate between a theory and a
>law.
>> >They are very careful what they call a "theory" and what theories they
>> >elevate to "laws".
>>
>> The do tell us what rules science uses to make this careful decision.
>> And don't forget to give some references to people doing this. AFAICT
>> a "law" in science has two properties: it was discovered before the
>> 20th century and 2) it can be simply stated in a sentence, preferably
>> in a formula.
>
>Both of your statements apply to the Law of Gravity, but not the Theory
>of Evolution.
>
Yes, but neither applies to the *Theory* of Gravity.
>Gravity was discovered long ago. Do you dispute that fact?
>
>Gravity, being a force, can indeed be expressed in a mathematical
>equation. Furthermore, the term "law" is universally considered to be
>applicable to the concept of gravity.
>
Try again. The formula that expresses the force between two masses is
not all there is to the theory of gravity. And the "Law" of gravity is
incorrect.
>I refer you to the Sixth Edition of "Schaum's Outline of Theory and
>Problems of College Physics," by Daniel Schaum, and edited by
>Professor of Physics, Carel W. Van der Merwe, of New York University.
What year?
>On page 36 of this book, we find the following heading in bold type:
>"Law of Universal Gravitation." Under this heading is the following
>explanation:
>
>"The force of attraction between two masses M and M1 separated
>by a distance of R, G being the constant of gravitation, is
>
> Force = G * ((M * M1) / R^2)
>
>When M and M1 are expressed in kilograms and R in meters, the force
>will be given in newtons if G = 6.67 x 10^-11 nt - M^2/kg^2."
>
It also happens to be wrong. It is close for small masses, but it is
wrong. Read up on Einstein and Mercury.
[snip]
>
>Thus, it is obvious that the contention that Gravity is a Law of Physics
>is indeed quite true.
>
Sigh. No one disputed that. We have disputed whether the law given is
correct, it is not. We have disputed whether their is a hierarchy with
law above theory, there is not.
Matt Silberstein
<flo...@iag.net>:
>Trevor Zion Bauknight <tr...@sc.edu> wrote in message
>news:trev-22059...@nas-p10.usc.net...
>> In article <7i7qto$kum$1...@news.iag.net>, "OrlandoFlorida" <flo...@iag.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Thus, it is obvious that the contention that Gravity is a Law of Physics
>> > is indeed quite true.
>>
>> Have you told Albert Einstein? He proposed in his theories of gravitation
>> that the phenomenon (which undoubtedly exists) acts quite differently in
>> extreme situations.
>>
>> In any case, the point is not that Gravity works. That much is fact.
>> What we do not understand is by what mechanism it works.
>>
>> By the same token, Evolution works...we're just not completely sure how.
>
>By evolution, do you mean the Theory of Evolution, which states that,
>among other things, Man evolved from a primitive simian-like creature?
>If so, then I disagree that it "works." It has never once been demonstrated,
>and I seriously doubt if it ever could be demonstrated. Those who believe
>that, do so by an act of Faith.
>
Common Descent is as well observed as the orbit of Pluto or the core
of the Earth. And, just to make your day, Common Descent is more part
of the Fact of Evolution, not the Theory. But that would require you
to understand the difference, in science, between a fact (descriptive
statement about the world) and theory (explanatory statement about the
world). We are still working on the difference between assumption and
conclusion.
xtmprs...@erols.com
tools found in europe. The jaw is far more robust than any modern human
but is otherwise very similar to modern humans, just like homo erectus.
The conclusion(not assumption) is that heidelberg is homo erectus.
If more evidence is found, opinions may change.
Wait! More evidence was found! Many semi complete skeletons
that appear to be intermediate between homo erectus and neanderthals
were found in a cave. They are older than the oldest neandertal.
> 2. Nebraska Man: This assumption was erected from one tooth. It
> was later discovered that it was a tooth from an extinct pig.
>
Wrong. Its not an assumption, it's a fact. This pig tooth looks exactly
like an eroded human tooth. On the second nebraska dig, pig jaws were
found that had human looking teeth in them. Later the process that makes
pig teeth look human was discovered. They did NOT find a random tooth
and out of the blue decide it's human.
> 3. Piltdown Man: This assumption was built on a jawbone. It later
> was discovered to be the jawbone of a modern ape.
Wrong. This conclusion(not assumption) was based on a jawbone and skull
doctored to look like a transitional form. Decades later a new dating
method was invented, the bones were tested, and the fraud was dicovered.
By evolutionists, not creationists.
>
> 4. Peking Man: This assumption was supposed to be built from
> fossils 500,000 years old, but the evidence has disappeared.
>
Wrong. plaster casts were made from the fossils. Those casts did not
disappear.
More fossils have since been discovered. These fossils are facts, not
assunptions. Peking man was reclassified to homo erectus.
> 5. Neanderthal Man: This famous skeleton, found in France more
> than 50 years ago, was assumed to be a link between modern
> man and primitive ancestors. But at the International Congress of
> Zoology in 1958, Dr. A.J.E. Cave stated that his examination
> showed that the fossils were the remains of an old man who
> suffered from arthritis.
>
Wrong. One neandertal skeleton was found to be an old man with
arthritis.
There are dozens more neandertal skeletons of young men without
arthritis. There is an adolescent and a few babies. They are all obvious
neandertals.
> 6. New Guinea Man: A false assumption of a link to primitive
> ancestors, this is nothing more than a "species" that can
> be found today in the region near Australia.
>
I never heard of this. I ASSUME it as correct as all the other examples
you listed.
> 7. Cro-Magnon Man: Although the assumption is made that
> this is a link to primitive ancestor, it had similar physique and
> brain capacity as Modern Man. As the creationists ask, "So
> what's the difference?"
>
The difference is, cro magnon had rectangular eye sockets, a
consistently tall forehead, and a larger brain size than modern humans.
If the creationists knew what they were talking about, they wouldn't
have to ask.
> 8. Modern Man: A supposed genius who thinks he evolved from
> a primitive simian.
Also, a supposed rational being who rejects any evidence that conflicts
with his creation myth.
>
> "Professing themselves to be wise they became fools."
> - Romans 1:22
Remove the beam from your own eye, so you can see clearly enough to
remove the mote from you brother's eye
matthew 7:2-5
xtmprs...@erols.com
>
> Elf Sternberg <e...@halcyon.com> wrote in message
> news:7i4lfq$4ar$1...@brokaw.wa.com...
> > In article <3745BF5D...@icagen.com>
> > Brian Ceccarelli <bcecc...@icagen.com> writes:
> >
> > >Elf Sternberg wrote:
> > >
> > >> Evolution makes sense if you understand it with any scientific
> > >> background. This is why all scientists accept it as fact.
> >
> > >Scientists don't accept "evolution" as fact. That is why it is still
> called the
> > >"Theory" of Evolution. It has never been called the "Law" of Evolution.
> > >Scientists are very careful on what they call theory and what they call
> law.
> >
> > >We have Newton's Laws of Motion. We have the Laws of Thermodynamics.
> > >We have Coloumb's Law. We have the Ideal Gas Law . . . .
> > >We have the Theory of Evolution.
> >
> > Oh, look, an argument so old it's grown moldy. Can you tell
> > me, Brian, what "The Law of Gravity" is and what it covers?
> >
> > gravity (that is not a misspelling), the regular action of two bodies
> > of given densities and distributions in proximity to one another. It
> > does not, in contrast, describe *why* this happens or how it happens.
> > We are currently missing a quantum theory of gravity. And yes, there
> > *are* "Theories of Gravity," that is, testable hypotheses as to how
> > gravity works. That objects exert gravity is fact. Why they do is
> > something nobody knows.
> >
> > In contrast, there is the fact of evolution. Genetics in a
> > given population change over time. We even know how fast they
> > change. We can dig up species that no longer exist, and in their
> > regions now we find lots of species that we can't find there (or
> > anywhere) previously. Disputes about geological, radioisotopic, or
> > genetic dating within the general scientific community are often
> > fierce, even partisan, but they are not tainted by ideological
> > concerns; the objective is always to arrive at the best explanation
> > for the facts, rather than twisting the facts to arrive at
> > predetermined conclusions found in an ancient book. Eventually, those
> > who are wrong capitulate, as they must, in the face of overwhelming
> > evidence.
> >
> > There are theories as to why evolution happens. To hold them
> > side-by-side with theories of gravitation, they are by far more
> > supported by evidentiary sources.
> >
> > If you want to tell people that "evolution is a theory," you
> > *must*, in all scientific fairness, tell them that "gravitation is a
> > theory," and that, if they are going to doubt the fundamental facts of
> > evolution they must, in all scientific fairness, doubt that their feet
> > will reliably remain on the ground.
> >
> > Elf
> >
> > --
> > Elf M. Sternberg, rational romantic mystic cynical idealist
> > If you're so smart, why aren't you naked?
> > A.A 1493 http://www.halcyon.com/elf/
>
> The problem is that what is now called "evolution" has very little
> to do with the Theory of Evolution. That theory holds that all life
> evolved from common ancestors, which ultimately evolved from
> one ancestor, which apparently evolved from non-living molecules.
> That is quite a radical theory when all we have available for
> "evidence" suggests no such scenario. A few fossils have been
> found, and a few cases of genetic mutation can be pointed out.
> But that is hardly sufficient to justify the sweeping assumptions
> of the Theory of Evolution.
>
There are more that a 'few' fossils. There are more that a 'few'
cases of genetic mutation. Even a 'few' fossils is more hard evidence
than can be found to support the genesis model.
> It requires as much Faith, perhaps more, to believe in the Theory
> of Evolution as it takes to belief in the biblical account of creation.
> Faith of such a nature is not science - it is religion. Let us, therefore,
> express the truth of the matter: The Christian Religion versus the
> Religion of Evolution.
Evolution is based on facts: fossils, their locations, their comarative
features, the dating of rocks, experiments in the lab, etc. The
christian religion is based on the 3,000 year old creation myth of a
group of arabs. Which one of these needs faith to shore it up?
xtmprs...@erols.com
>
> John Ings <nospam.j...@ottawa.com> wrote in message
> news:37452a2...@crc-news.doc.ca...
>
> > On Thu, 20 May 1999 12:52:27 -0400, Bill McGinnis <bmc...@patriot.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Evolution Is Guided And Controlled By God
> > >
> > > "Evolution" is defined as "a process of change in a certain
> > > direction." This is the primary definition in my dictionary, Webster's
> > > Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. Your dictionary probably says almost
> > > the same thing.
> >
> > No it doesn't. My Webster's says no such thing.
> >
> > > Nobody can argue with this definition.
> >
> > I can. Evolution does not involve direction, just change.
>
> The Theory of Evolution is based upon the concept that genetic changes
> result from accidents or errors to the genetic code, which are known
> scientifically as mutations and recombination. By definition, accidents
> by the wat, is why I reject the Theory of Evolution as an explanation for
> the origin and diversity of life. It is simply impossible to explain how
> undifferentiated cells could "evolve" into an opthalmic system simply
> by a long series of genetic accidents and mistakes.
>
religious reasons. For the rest of us, Darwin explained it
more than a hundred years ago.
> > > Things change, they evolve in
> > > certain directions. Automobiles have evolved from early simple
> > > machines, as have airplanes and other manufactured items. Laws have
> > > evolved, music has evolved. Almost everything created by man has
> > > evolved from something similar to it which existed earlier. Man, as
> > > creator of these things, has deliberately modified them over time to
> > > meet new conditions and to include advances in technology.
> >
> > Wheras the evolution of species shows no such change with a goal in
> > mind.
>
> That all life forms exhibit well-designed plans of formation cannot be
> denied. Yet, such designs cannot be explained by evolutionary "dumb
> luck."
>
> > > In Nature too, we see evidence of evolution.
> >
> > And what I suppose you would call devolution. And evolution involving
> > neither improvement or the opposite, but merely change.
>
> Indeed, most genetic mistakes result in tragedies for the individuals
> so affected. We humans, for example, consider such occurrences as
> genetic-induced "birth defects." Any theory which states that advances
> in morphology and physiology are due to birth defects is not founded
> on reality.
>
> > > God, as Creator of the
> > > Universe, has developed many things progressively from similar things
> > > which He created earlier. This is the way He works, bringing all
> > > things into existence when He is ready for them to exist.
> >
> > Then why is he such a crummy designer?
> > Why does he "progress" thousands of species into extinction?
>
> > > In Nature, the process of evolution is guided and controlled by God,
> > > for His own purposes. It is not an accident, and it does not happen
> > > according to any mechanistic process.
> >
> > But it obviously does. I am prepared to entertain the idea that God
> > might have put the evolutionary process in place and let it run free
> > to see what happened. If God guided evolution to produce the species
> > that it has, he's an idiot.
>
> The Bible tells us that God created all life on the earth and that such
> life was designed to reproduce its own kind.
>
> < snip >
>
> > > Genetic mutations are quite
> > > rare, usually the result of a mistake in copying the code from one
> > > cell to another.
> >
> > Actually they're quite common. Beneficial mutations are rather rare,
> > which is just as well or we'd have new species every week.
>
> My college textbooks state that mutations are not very common,
> and that almost always the mutations are harmful in their effects.
>
> < snip >
>
> > > No. God is the Creator of everything, just as it says in the Bible. He
> > > uses evolution as one of His creative tools, and he guides it and
> > > controls it every step of the way.
> >
> > Then he's a nincompoop! No human engineer would design a biped with
> > it's entrails hung from it's spine. That's like hanging a chandelier
> > on a chain from a wall instead of the ceiling.
>
> Obviously, you fancy yourself to be wiser than God. Exactly what would
> YOU use - if you were God - to anchor the entrails? Would you rely on the
> diaphram and the heart and lungs? Think about it. What better support
> is available than the boney spine?
>
> < snip >
>
> "When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two
> possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There
> is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years
> ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural
xtmprs...@erols.com
>
> OrlandoFlorida wrote in message <7i4vcb$7lt$1...@news.iag.net>...
>
> >Natural Selection can only account for preserving what already exists, not
> >in the introduction of any new traits.
> >
>
happened earlier.
Mutations are happening all the time, so natural selection always has
something to new to work on.
xtmprs...@erols.com
>
> In article <3745AB2F...@dreamscape.com>, Doug Schiffer
> <laotzuRE...@dreamscape.com> wrote:
>
> > Further, creationists should never undergo any medical operation.
> > Appendicitus? Nope, leave that divinely designed organ in there to do its
> > godly role - to swell, burst and kill the lucky creationist. Send him or her
> > on his way to heaven!
>
> > Only non-believers should be allowed to undergo surgery of any kind, for
> those > unfortunate evil ones dare to diddle with God's Holy Design. How
> dare they!
>
> Unfortunately, some people really do think this way.
> It is seldom their own illnesses that they let go untreated, rather they
> let their children die of pneumonia or gangrene because it must have been
> "God's will". And often the law can't do anything about it.
This isn't true. It's well established law that children can be taken
from these parents by force and treated in a hospital. The parents can
be charged with child abuse.
Matt Silberstein
Sadly enough he was rather correct:
http://www.theatlantic.com/atlantic/unbound/flashbks/xsci/suffer.htm
Or look at (isn't PubMed ((http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/))
wonderful?):
Child fatalities from religion-motivated medical neglect.
Pediatrics. 1998 Apr;101(4 Pt 1):625-9.
PMID: 9521945; UI: 98190119.
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate deaths of children from families in which faith
healing was practiced in lieu of medical care and to determine if such
deaths were preventable.
DESIGN: Cases of child fatality in faith-healing sects were reviewed.
Probability of survival for each was then estimated based on expected
survival rates for children with similar disorders who receive medical
care.
PARTICIPANTS: One hundred seventy-two children who died between 1975
and 1995 and were identified by referral or record search. Criteria
for inclusion were evidence that parents withheld medical care because
of reliance on religious rituals and documentation sufficient to
determine the cause of death.
RESULTS: One hundred forty fatalities were from conditions for which
survival rates with medical care would have exceeded 90%. Eighteen
more had expected survival rates of >50%. All but 3 of the remainder
would likely have had some benefit from clinical help.
CONCLUSIONS: When faith healing is used to the exclusion of medical
treatment, the number of preventable child fatalities and the
associated suffering are substantial and warrant public concern.
Existing laws may be inadequate to protect children from this form of
medical neglect.
MrHat
long for a supreme being to get bored?... Why did god create a BIG universe
within which to house little old Earth and all that dwells on it...
Why did god not just create people in heaven instead of us having to muck
about on earth before we get to see our creator. Why did god, who sees all
things, plan our history in such a way that he must continually change it
and who's direct intervention ends with the death of Christ. Why did god
only have one chosen people (B.C)instead of choosing everyone Why did god
create a universe within which evil can exist
I guess god must have alot of idle time to pass
mr HAT
Goyra
<7i7p0d$koh$1...@news.iag.net>...
> lraven <sp...@me.not> wrote in message
> news:01bea43d$07625e00$1b1b98d0@default...
> Suppose, for example, that a fossil is discovered
> of a creature that had a skeletal structure somewhere between
> a monkey and a man. The evolutionist would be inclined to jump
> to the conclusion that it is the remains of a "missing link" between
> man and a primitive ancestor.
Inclined to jump? Perhaps. But there is a
process in place, called Peer Review, to prevent
such unwarranted jumps. If you can see a problem
with the Peer Review process, please tell us
about it.
> Why not assume that it is the remains
> of a creature who became extinct? Why not assume that the remains
> are those of a genuine man who suffered a debilitating bone disease?
And why could it not be Santa Claus? I
think that the most LIKELY circumstance is the
one you should use for your initial theory.
Don't you? If not why not?
> Why is one assumption preferred over another? The answer, clearly,
> is that the bias of the evolutionist causes him to make assumptions
> that would support his conclusions.
Well, if they have all been making
mistakes, why don't YOU go and point out
their mistakes? Remember, they publish their
research - you can go look it up.
You will have MUCH more fun looking
for mistakes than sitting here talking about
it! Go on now, try to achieve something real.
Byeeeeee.....
Goyra
xtmprs...@erols.com
>
> In alt.religion.christian I read this message from
> xtmprs...@erols.com:
>
> >Evan Thompson wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <3745AB2F...@dreamscape.com>, Doug Schiffer
> >> <laotzuRE...@dreamscape.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Further, creationists should never undergo any medical operation.
> >> > Appendicitus? Nope, leave that divinely designed organ in there to do its
> >> > godly role - to swell, burst and kill the lucky creationist. Send him or her
> >> > on his way to heaven!
> >>
> >> > Only non-believers should be allowed to undergo surgery of any kind, for
> >> those > unfortunate evil ones dare to diddle with God's Holy Design. How
> >> dare they!
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, some people really do think this way.
> >> It is seldom their own illnesses that they let go untreated, rather they
> >> let their children die of pneumonia or gangrene because it must have been
> >> "God's will". And often the law can't do anything about it.
> >
> >This isn't true. It's well established law that children can be taken
> >from these parents by force and treated in a hospital. The parents can
> >be charged with child abuse.
> >
> Sadly enough he was rather correct:
>
> http://www.theatlantic.com/atlantic/unbound/flashbks/xsci/suffer.htm
>
With christian scientists nobody knowsa theres a problem until too late.
Jehovas witnesses don't ojbect to all medical care, just transfusions.
When a witness child is in a hospital for something and needs a
transfusion, the parents only hope is to get the child out of therer
fast. In a case near me, the doctor knew the parents were witnesses and
got a court order in advance. When the parents tried to take the child
home, the police were there to protect him. The parents took the case to
court, and got nowhere.
mel turner
[snip]
>> >> The entire fossil record throughout the entire world is evidence
of
>> >> evolution.
>> >
>> >Actually, that is not a correct assumption.
>>
>> No, but it is a good conclusion.
>But it remains an assumption. Whether or not it is "good" is
questionable.
Nope, it is based on analysis of the evidence. Conclusion, not
assumption. And the goodness of the studies isn't questioned except by
those with religious reasons to reject them.
[snip]
>> Please list those assumptions and evidence that actual scientists
make
>> those assumptions.
>
>All "conclusions" based on fossil findings are assumptions.
You must have borrowed Humpty-Dumpty's dictionary. Conclusions based
on evidence aren't "assumptions".
[snip]
>> And testimony of humans is known to be unreliable. Humans are known
to
>> make mistakes and lie and such.
>
>They are also known to the truth. That is why we call acceptance of
the
>evidence a Faith or Belief.
Acceptance of real physical evidence isn't "faith".
>The same holds true for the Theory of
>Evolution. Do you believe the assumptions of some scientists?
"Believe the assumptions"? That's an odd expression, what does it
mean? Do we believe that some scientists have made these [unnamed]
assumptions? Or do we agree with those scientists' interpretations of
the evidence?
>If
>so, then that is your Faith or Belief.
If "evidence", then not "faith".
[snip]
>> If you can't even figure out the difference between assumption and
>> conclusion how can we listen to the rest?
He's gotcha there.
>The conclusions of the Theory of Evolution are based on assumptions.
There you go again. What assumptions are these, and how are they
unreasonable? Does evolutionary theory rely on "assumptions" any more
than other scientific theories?
[snip]
>> Why not look at the body of evidence rather than make a story about
a
>> single hypothetical fossil. Or are you willing to concede that
>> evolution occurs for all other organisms except H.s.?
>
>I concede nothing to evolutionists. However, my primary interest, for
>reasons which might be obvious, is in regard to human beings.
The reasons for most creationists' prejudices often are obvious.
>Let
>us look at a few claims made by evolutionists in regard to Man:
>
>1. Heidelberg Man: This assumption
Assumption? Nope, conclusion.
>was created from only a jaw
>bone that many concede was quite human.
Wrong. Falsehood. You've uncritically repeated some creationist's
distortions of the true facts. Yes, the first specimen of this one was
a mandible. No, that isn't the only fossil assigned to _Homo
heidelbergensis_
http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/hfs8.html
http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html#chart indicates we have
remains of about 50 individuals of H. heidelbergensis
Yes, it is "quite human" [Homo sp.], but that isn't any "concession";
that's the "evolutionist" interpretation. No, it isn't at all the the
same as modern Homo sapiens, but is a more primitive transitional
form.
>2. Nebraska Man: This assumption was erected from one tooth.
You really need to look up "assumption". Nothing was 'erected'; a
tooth was misidentified as a possible primate. BFD.
>It
>was later discovered that it was a tooth from an extinct pig.
Oops, wrong. It was a peccary, not a true pig. Guess this mistake
of yours means we can discount everything else you say. Yes, the
misidentification was soon corrected. This historical footnote from
the 1920s lives on in creationist folklore as somehow discrediting
all of science when all it shows is that science sometimes makes
mistakes but also corrects mistakes.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html
http://x13.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=462175390
>3. Piltdown Man: This assumption was built on a jawbone. It later
>was discovered to be the jawbone of a modern ape.
Wrong. It was fraud [persons and motives unknown] based on both jaw
and skull parts. The hoax was revealed by "evolutionist" scientists,
not creationists.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_piltdown.html
http://x13.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=462175390
>4. Peking Man: This assumption was supposed to be built from
>fossils 500,000 years old, but the evidence has disappeared.
Wrong. Another egregious mistake or outright lie that you're
uncritically accepting. "Peking man" was specimens of the now very
well-known hominid species Homo erectus.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fossil-hominids.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
The original Peking fossils were lost during the war, but the evidence
from the casts made from them remain, and other remains were later
found from the same sites. Many other fossils of Homo erectus [and H.
ergaster] are known from Asia and Africa.
http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/hfs7.html
http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html#chart indicates we have
remains of about 150 individuals of H. erectus,
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_peking.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_erectus.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_java.html
>5. Neanderthal Man: This famous skeleton, found in France more
>than 50 years ago, was assumed to be a link between modern
>man and primitive ancestors. But at the International Congress of
>Zoology in 1958, Dr. A.J.E. Cave stated that his examination
>showed that the fossils were the remains of an old man who
>suffered from arthritis.
Wrong. Yet another badly distorted falsehood. Neandertal man is a very
well-known form of advanced human [contemporary with anatomically
modern Homo sapiens]. It isn't based on one skeleton of one arthritic
old man, there are remains of many individuals known, including
babies. Yes, one famous specimen was from an arthritic neandertal man.
It was't from an arthritic modern human and not all neandertals were
arthritic.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_neands.html
http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/hfs9.html
http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/hfs9.html indicates we have remains of
about 500 individuals of H. neanderthalensis
>6. New Guinea Man: A false assumption of a link to primitive
>ancestors, this is nothing more than a "species" that can
>be found today in the region near Australia.
Weird gibberish. The false assumption here is yours, that there are
any such discussions of any so-called "New Guinea Man", anywhere at
all other than in creationists' "fact" sheets.
This strange term "New Guinea Man" seems only to appear in misinformed
creationist lists that are just like yours; where are you all finding
it? Are you really taking all of your "scientific" information from a
ridiculous Jack Chick cartoon? Sheeesh! [see:
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/bigdaddy.html> for the "New
Guinea Man" connection].
Yes, there are humans living in New Guinea; no, they are modern _Homo
sapiens_, and nobody says they are any more [or any less] of "a link
to primitive ancestors" than are anybody else.
>7. Cro-Magnon Man: Although the assumption is made that
>this is a link to primitive ancestor, it had similar physique and
>brain capacity as Modern Man. As the creationists ask, "So
>what's the difference?"
Wrong. That's another blatant falsehood. This time the lie is that
"the assumption is made that
this is a link to primitive ancestor". No, Cro-Magnons are indeed
understood to be anatomically modern humans.
http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/hfs10.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
>8. Modern Man: A supposed genius who thinks he evolved from
>a primitive simian.
Sounds like another Jack Chick quote. How cute.
>"Professing themselves to be wise they became fools."
>- Romans 1:22
Backatcha: "...whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of
hell fire." -- Mathew 5:22
cheers
mel turner
In article <7i219b$oss$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
jdpo...@students.uiuc.edu wrote...
[snip]
>I was curious what type of scientific background you are coming from,
and
>what definition of evolution you are using.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
>My scientific background comes
>from a B.S. in chemistry and most of a Ph.D. in inorganic and surface
>chemistry, as well as other excursions into physics and biology. From
my
>perspective, several things are clear:
>First, microevolution (adaptation by a species)
No, "microevolution" as defined by biologists is any evolutionary
change within one species. Not all such change is necessarily adaptive.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genetic-drift.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness.html
>is constantly occuring and is readily observable in the natural
>world.
Yep.
>Second, macroevolution (darwinian evolution, where species can come
>from a common ancestor)
"Macroevolution" was defined as any and all evolution above the
within-one-species level. Cases of new species formation and the
cumulative long-term trends within higher taxonomic groups are both
seen as "macroevolution".
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
Creationists freqently misuse the term "macroevolution" to mean
"evolution of larger changes than I wish to admit occur".
Macroevolution isn't necessarily "Darwinian evolution" [i.e., adaptive
evolution by natural selection] any more [or any less] than
microevolution is.
>does not occur and is not observable in the natural
>world.
Sure it does and is. Speciation [= macroevolution] is indeed observed
to occur:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html
Further, much of the variation seen within species looks very much like
stages of speciation-in-progress. We often see every gray zone between
"clearly two geographic forms of one species" and "clearly two closely
related but separate species".
Also, there is an overwhelmingly vast amount of evidence for common
descent, throughout comparative biology. The fact that all organisms
fall into nested hierarchies of groups within groups within groups is
compelling evidence of branching lineages and common descent.
>Third, the "science" used to "prove" evolution uses highly circular
>reasoning,
Nope, it isn't.
>and ignores the vast lack of evidence in favor of a few examples of
questionable evidence.
Wrong again. It seems clear your strongest scientific background isn't
in systematic biology. What areas of "lack of evidence" are these?
What's so "questionable" about the evidence?
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/evolution/evolution-for-begi
nners.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/other-links.html#evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/other-links.html#science
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/reading-list.html
> Fourth, and finally (for now), the Biblical idea
>of the Great Flood provides a better explaination for the observed
fossil
>record
Yeah, right [wrong]. The Flood/Ark story might have some sort of great
theological significance, but it's about as scientifically plausible as
the one about Santa's annual sleighride.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt.html
>than any model of evolutionary thinking I have ever been exposed to.
Such as? Explain.
>I am extremely interested in continuing this conversation, but do not
>frequent the newsgroups very often.
You should check out talk.origins; it's the designated newsgroup for
creationism/evolution debates.
cheers
Shane D. Killian
>
> why did god wait so long before he created this universe?
>
the universe, I guess he didn't wait that long at all!
> Why did god create a BIG universe within which to house little old Earth
> and all that dwells on it...
>
Well, hey, if you're gonna create a universe, might as well create one
with plenty of leg room!
> I guess god must have alot of idle time to pass
>
When a day to you is like a thousand yeads, that can happen.
mel turner
[snip]
>> In any case, the point is not that Gravity works. That much is
fact.
>> What we do not understand is by what mechanism it works.
>>
>> By the same token, Evolution works...we're just not completely sure
how.
>
>By evolution, do you mean the Theory of Evolution, which states that,
>among other things, Man evolved from a primitive simian-like
creature?
Oh, it states that, does it? You sure about that?
Can you quote this "Theory of Evolution" for us?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil.html
>If so, then I disagree that it "works." It has never once been
demonstrated,
>and I seriously doubt if it ever could be demonstrated.
What hasn't ever been demonstrated? That populations of organisms
evolve? Sure it has. That speciation occurs? Sure it has. That "Man
evolved from a primitive simian-like creature"? There are indeed lots
of evidence for the common ancestry of humans and the other primates.
>Those who believe that, do so by an act of Faith.
Nope. Evidence. Try:
http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness.html
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/evolution/evolution-for-beg
inners.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/other-links.html#evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/other-links.html#science
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/reading-list.html
cheers
OrlandoFlorida
news:3747F4BA...@vnet.net...
> OrlandoFlorida wrote:
> >
> > Actually, that is not a correct assumption. That fossils exist is not
> > denied. It is the assumptions made by the evolutionists that is
> > of a creature that had a skeletal structure somewhere between
> > a monkey and a man. The evolutionist would be inclined to jump
> > to the conclusion that it is the remains of a "missing link" between
> > warrant such an assumption. Why not assume that it is the remains
> > of a creature who became extinct? Why not assume that the remains
> > are those of a genuine man who suffered a debilitating bone disease?
> > is that the bias of the evolutionist causes him to make assumptions
> > that would support his conclusions.
> >
> the fossil will be found in such a place. If it's all just assumption,
> then please explain what all of evolutions predictions have so far
> panned out?
So if evolutionary theory claims to know where all the fossils are even
before they are discovered, why have not all the fossils been discovered?
Or are you claiming that all the fossils have already been discovered?
> > Turning now to the fossil evidence, fossils have indeed been found and
> > are indeed evidence of something. But exactly what those fossils are
> > evidence of remains in dispute. I have already given examples that
> > indicate that more than one interpretation or assumption is possible.
> >
> They fit exactly in with the predictions made by evolution.
Exactly what are those "predictions"? And if evolutionary theory is
based on scientific methodology, how could it "predict" the discovery
of evidence? Scientific methodology is supposed to be based on
evidence as it is discovered, not on claims that it knew what the
evidence is before the evidence can be discovered. I think we have
here a sign that the Theory of Evolution is not based on real evidence
at all.
OrlandoFlorida
The assumptions of the Theory of Evolution are based on the
interpretations of fossil finds. It is truly an act of Faith to believe
that those interpretative assumptions are in fact true.