What do the facts say?

Nowhere Man

unread,

Apr 4, 2003, 11:36:32 PM4/4/03

to

Do the facts agree with evolution theory or Biblical creation? Let us
examine the evidence.

Why believe the theory of evolution? Does it not make more sense to
follow the facts where they lead? Yes it does. Then why is the theory
of evolution held by many scientists? It is because many scientists do
not want to accept the Bible's story of creation. It means that they
have to accept that miracles took place in ancient times and that the
Bible is the ultimate authority.

Students are criticized by teachers for pointing out the problems of
evolution theory. They are not allowed to see opposing ideas. Academic
groups do not accept those who hold opposing views such as the Bible's
account of creation. Scientific theories are supposed to be held
tentatively. Supporting scientists say that the theory of evolution is
not to be challenged. Does that sound scientific?

The theory of evolution has been around for over 100 years and it is
still doubted by many. Do people still doubt that gravity exists? Or
that the earth revolves around the sun? So how could we be so sure
about the theory of evolution that it is not to be challenged? The
truth is, we can't. The theory of evolution simply does not stand up
to the facts.

NM

Eric Gill

unread,

Apr 4, 2003, 11:52:28 PM4/4/03

to

some_wh...@yahoo.com (Nowhere Man) wrote in
news:cb65864a.03040...@posting.google.com:

> Why believe the theory of evolution?

I've got a better question. Why do you think blatantly lying about the
facts is going to win you any converts when five minutes of search on the
T.O. site will leave anyone who didn't already know better completely
outraged at the extremes you're willing to go to?

Klaus Hellnick

unread,

Apr 5, 2003, 12:13:07 AM4/5/03

to

"Nowhere Man" <some_wh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cb65864a.03040...@posting.google.com...

> Do the facts agree with evolution theory or Biblical creation? Let us
> examine the evidence.
>

Nowhere Man, I took the liberty of greatly improving your table to better
fit reality.

<<Cretinist>> REAL

> Evolution Model Creation Model Observed Facts
Observed Facts
> ======================================================================
> Fossil record will | Fossil record will | Fossil record shows

| Intermediates found at all levels

| Tools, habitations, and

> reveal gradually | sudden appearance of | sudden appearance of

| written languages become

> advancing man-made | man-made structures | man-made structures

| more complex with time

| Many creatures, such as

> evolving new | No new features | No new features

| Pandas and polar bears

> features and | will evolve | evolve

| are clearly developing new
> abilities | |
| new features. Speciation HAS been observed.

> | |
> Mutations are good; | Mutations are harmful; | Mutations are harm-

| most mutations are neutral.

> Overall effect is | Do not cause new | ful; Do not cause

| some are harmful. A small number

> improvement | features | new features; Often

| are beneficial. Evolution does not require
> | | cause death
| all mutations to be beneficial. It is cretinist ignorance to say so

> ======================================================================
>
> Why believe the theory of evolution?

Because study of the real world and logic support it.

>Does it not make more sense to
> follow the facts where they lead? Yes it does.

It is not an either/or question, your premise is flawed.

>Then why is the theory
> of evolution held by many scientists?

Because it makes more sense to follow the facts where they lead.

>It is because many scientists do
> not want to accept the Bible's story of creation. It means that they
> have to accept that miracles took place in ancient times and that the
> Bible is the ultimate authority.
>
> Students are criticized by teachers for pointing out the problems of
> evolution theory. They are not allowed to see opposing ideas. Academic
> groups do not accept those who hold opposing views such as the Bible's
> account of creation. Scientific theories are supposed to be held
> tentatively. Supporting scientists say that the theory of evolution is
> not to be challenged. Does that sound scientific?
>

Students are allowed to hold opposing views, if they can support them with
REAL evidence.

> The theory of evolution has been around for over 100 years and it is
> still doubted by many. Do people still doubt that gravity exists? Or
> that the earth revolves around the sun? So how could we be so sure
> about the theory of evolution that it is not to be challenged? The
> truth is, we can't. The theory of evolution simply does not stand up
> to the facts.
>
> NM
>

Let's see, who is closer to the TRUTH here. On one hand , there are
scientists, who directly study God's creation and use there God given minds
to try to understand the universe. Then you have narrow minded zealots who
base all their beliefs of Creation on an interpretation of a book, written
by men, which contradicts much of the physical evidence and even itself. One
of these groups is also notorious for lying to get converts.

boikat

unread,

Apr 5, 2003, 12:15:50 AM4/5/03

to

"Nowhere Man" <some_wh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cb65864a.03040...@posting.google.com...

> Do the facts agree with evolution theory or Biblical creation? Let us
> examine the evidence.
>
> Evolution Model Creation Model Observed Facts
> ======================================================================
> Fossil record will | Fossil record will | Fossil record shows
> show gradual change | show sudden appearance | sudden appearance
> between current | of completed forms; | of completed forms;
> kinds and past kinds | No gradual transitions | No gradual
> | | transitions

What does cretinism say about stratographic distribution?

Except that many languages can be traced that show that they evolved from
earlier languages.

Except for things like the evolution of legs from fins, wings from arms....

Except for the ones that convey a survival advantage.

> ======================================================================
>
> Why believe the theory of evolution?

It's not a matter of "beleif", it a matter of supporting evidence.

> Does it not make more sense to
> follow the facts where they lead? Yes it does.

That is why there is a theory of evolution to begin with.

> Then why is the theory
> of evolution held by many scientists?

Because of the evidence.

> It is because many scientists do
> not want to accept the Bible's story of creation.

Which is not the same as claiming that some scientists do not accept the
teachings of the bible, when it comes to matters of the soul, and morality.

> It means that they
> have to accept that miracles took place in ancient times and that the
> Bible is the ultimate authority.

Many scientists that accept evolution based upon the evidence also accept
that there is a God, and that the Bible is spiritually relevent.

>
> Students are criticized by teachers for pointing out the problems of
> evolution theory.

No, they are more likely being criticized for popping off about a subject
they don't know anything about yet.

> They are not allowed to see opposing ideas.

If you have a valid opposing "scientific" idea, I'm sure a many teachers
would be interested in hearing about it.

> Academic groups do not accept those who hold opposing views such as the
Bible's
> account of creation.

That would depend upon the academic group's charter or purpose, wouldn't it?
Why would an academic group, whous purpose was to delve into matters
scientific be compelled to entertain the non-scientific dogma of a
particular religion?

> Scientific theories are supposed to be held
> tentatively.

They are.

> Supporting scientists say that the theory of evolution is
> not to be challenged. Does that sound scientific?

That's because "supporting scientists" make any such statement, at least as
far as any *scientific* challenge goes.

>
> The theory of evolution has been around for over 100 years and it is
> still doubted by many.

And many, if not most, "doubt" for non-scientific reasons. Other than that,
within the scientific community, dabate over the scientific details of of
the *theory* of evolution can and do occure. "Creationism" is not one of
those details.

> Do people still doubt that gravity exists?

Within the scientific community, there is no doubt that evolution is a
phenomena, exactly as the phenomena of gravity. Again, the only thing that
is debatable is the minutia of the details as to "how".

> Or that the earth revolves around the sun? So how could we be so sure
> about the theory of evolution that it is not to be challenged?

Theory of the phenomena itself? Of the phenomena, there is no doubt. Of
the theory? Certainly it's open to scientific challenge. Do I need to
emphasize the word "scientific"?

> The truth is, we can't.

Of the phenomena, yes we can, of the theory that attempts to explain it, of
course it's open to *scientific* challenge based upon scientific reasoning
and evidence.

> The theory of evolution simply does not stand up to the facts.

If your assertion were true, and it isn't, then the ToE that we would have
now, whould bear no resemblence to the theory we *do* have.

Boikat.

--
Go ahead and hate your neighbor,
go ahead and cheat a friend,
do it in the name of Heaven,
you can justify it in the end.
There wont be any trumpets blowing,
come the judgement day.
On the bloody morning after,
One Tin Soldier rides away.
-- "One Tin Soldier"

Lane Lewis

unread,

Apr 5, 2003, 12:27:45 AM4/5/03

to

"Nowhere Man" <some_wh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cb65864a.03040...@posting.google.com...

snip

The fossil record shows plants and animals of various types with the
more primitive at the bottom geologic layers and the more modern at the top.
With the recent findings in China of all the feathered dinosaurs it would
seem the transitional argument is getting a little ridiculous.

Here's a FAQ on whale transition.

http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

Lane

There is nothing more awe-inspiring than a miracle
except the credulity that can take it at par.
- Mark Twain

boikat

unread,

Apr 5, 2003, 12:30:43 AM4/5/03

to

Edit: Left out a few words:

"boikat" <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:6ytja.17750$TK6....@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com...

> That's because "supporting scientists" *do not* make any such statement,

Pip R. Lagenta

unread,

Apr 5, 2003, 12:36:48 AM4/5/03

to

On Sat, 5 Apr 2003 04:36:32 +0000 (UTC), some_wh...@yahoo.com
(Nowhere Man) wrote:

>Do the facts agree with evolution theory or Biblical creation? Let us
>examine the evidence.
>
>Evolution Model Creation Model Observed Facts
>======================================================================
>Fossil record will | Fossil record will | Fossil record shows
>show gradual change | show sudden appearance | sudden appearance
>between current | of completed forms; | of completed forms;
>kinds and past kinds | No gradual transitions | No gradual
> | | transitions

[snip]

<http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/fossil_series.html>
<http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/orbulina.html>
I'm outta here.

內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌

-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)

<http://home.attbi.com/~galentripp/pip.html>

Bobby D. Bryant

unread,

Apr 5, 2003, 12:52:33 AM4/5/03

to

On Sat, 05 Apr 2003 04:36:32 +0000, Nowhere Man wrote:

> Do the facts agree with evolution theory or Biblical creation? Let us
> examine the evidence.
>
> Evolution Model Creation Model Observed Facts
> ======================================================================
> Fossil record will | Fossil record will | Fossil record shows
> show gradual change | show sudden appearance | sudden appearance
> between current | of completed forms; | of completed forms;
> kinds and past kinds | No gradual transitions | No gradual
> | | transitions

No, the creation model will show that all species appeared suddenly in a
very short window of time and very recently. The fossil record refutes
that with astonishing thoroughness.

But re the fossil record, what is your interpretation of the excellent
fossil record showing the gradual transformations that have provided us
with the bones in our inner ears?

I try to restrain my choice of words on Usenet, but this is such utter
horse shit that I can't think of any other that will do. Your ignorance
(or dishonesty, as the case may be) is astonishing.

Nice try. I suppose you'll say that acquired antibiotic resistance is
"just variation, not evolution".

Evolution makes no such claim. The dinosaurs evolved, and now they're all
gone. Is that an "improvement"?

> Why believe the theory of evolution? Does it not make more sense to
> follow the facts where they lead? Yes it does.

Dude, that's why we *have* a theory of evolution.

> Then why is the theory of evolution held by many scientists?

Because the facts lead us there.

> It is because many scientists do not want to accept the Bible's story
> of creation.

What do *you* know about what scientists want? How many scientists do you
even know?

> It means that they have to accept that miracles took place in ancient
> times and that the Bible is the ultimate authority.

All of which has squat to do with evolution. Evolution doesn't go away if
you accept that miracles took place in ancient time -- or even in the
present (as some people happen to believe).

> Students are criticized by teachers for pointing out the problems of
> evolution theory.

Give three examples, including the problems they pointed out.

> They are not allowed to see opposing ideas.

Sure they are.

> Academic groups do not accept those who hold opposing views such as
> the Bible's account of creation.

What the heck is an "academic group"?

> Scientific theories are supposed to be held tentatively.

Actually, they're supposed to be held in proportion to the supporting
evidence. Do you really expect scientist to hold the heliocentric model
of the solar system tentatively, in this day and age?

> Supporting scientists say that the theory of evolution is not to
> be challenged.

Name three.

> Does that sound scientific?

It sounds like more made up "evidence" to support your rhetoric, is what
it sounds like.

> The theory of evolution has been around for over 100 years and it is
> still doubted by many.

Does that telly you something about evolution, or about the doubters?

> Do people still doubt that gravity exists? Or
> that the earth revolves around the sun? So how could we be so sure
> about the theory of evolution that it is not to be challenged? The
> truth is, we can't. The theory of evolution simply does not stand up
> to the facts.

It stands up to the facts just fine, since it was derived from them. The
only place it has trouble standing up is in congregations who are
repeatedly told by ignorant authority figures that they are going to rot
in Hell if they believe it.

If you'd take a look around while you were up on your soapbox (rather than
spouting nonsense) you'd notice that a lot of people in this world believe
-- or disbelieve -- some really strange stuff at the behest of their
religious leaders.

--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas

Lucas Bachmann

unread,

Apr 5, 2003, 2:54:35 AM4/5/03

to

Nowhere Man wrote:

>Creation Model

>Archeology will reveal
>sudden appearance of
>man-made structures
>and complex language

How does the creation model which has
8 people starting civilization over again
account for the sudden appearance of
man-made structures?

What structures have no early design predecessors?

Which languages were created in the babel incident?
Which complex languages weren't?

Is English a complex language? Do you speak, read, and understand
middle english?

Lucas Bachmann
Debunking Creation Science with Creation Science
http://www.darwin.ws/contradictions

Skitter...@shadowwatch.org

unread,

Apr 5, 2003, 3:51:51 AM4/5/03

to

On 4-Apr-2003, some_wh...@yahoo.com (Nowhere Man) wrote:

> Path:
> twister.neo.rr.com!news-server.columbus.rr.com!newsfeed4.cidera.com!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!newsfeed.cwix.com!feed2.news.rcn.net!rcn!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!darwin.ediacara.org!there.is.no.cabal
> From: some_wh...@yahoo.com (Nowhere Man)
> Newsgroups: talk.origins
> Subject: What do the facts say?
> Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 04:36:32 +0000 (UTC)
> Organization: http://groups.google.com/
> Lines: 53
> Sender: ro...@darwin.ediacara.org
> Approved: rob...@ediacara.org
> Message-ID: <cb65864a.03040...@posting.google.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
> X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1049517392 53439 128.100.83.246 (5 Apr 2003
> 04:36:32 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: use...@darwin.ediacara.org
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 04:36:32 +0000 (UTC)
> Xref: news-server.columbus.rr.com talk.origins:1166390

Please, in future posts, do not confuse "archaeology" with "linguistics";
both are/can be subdisciplines of anthropology, but are rather different in
many important respects (although one can inform the other). Also, it
appears you are confusing "language" with "witting system"; these also, are
distinct entities. Again, on occasion, one can inform the other, but they
should not be confused.

You also seem to be miss-using the term "primitive"; generally, in a
anthropological sense, "primitive" often simply means "earlier". No
languages are simple. Would you please explain what you mean by your above
assertion re languages.

You assertion that "archaeology" reveals sudden appearance of man-made
structures" is simply incorrect. The evidence for the construction of
shelters is found at early hominid sites -as well as being observed in other
apes- and a reasonably good progression from them to modern structures has
been worked out. There is no sudden appearance in the way in which you seem
to be using the term of which I am aware. Please support this assertion.

You seem to not be aware that evolutionary theory is, in fact, being
challenged every day, by many scientists and has been since its first being
put forth. That's the sort of thing scientists do. So far, it has not been
found to be the "least wanting" when compared to other explanations.

Skitter the Cat

Roy

unread,

Apr 5, 2003, 8:29:46 AM4/5/03

to

Nowhere Man wrote:
> Do the facts agree with evolution theory or Biblical creation? Let us
> examine the evidence.
>
> Evolution Model Creation Model Observed Facts
> ======================================================================
> Fossil record will | Fossil record will | Fossil record shows
> show gradual change | show sudden appearance | sudden appearance
> between current | of completed forms; | of completed forms;
> kinds and past kinds | No gradual transitions | No gradual
> | | transitions

Lie #1: Evolution does not involve 'kinds'.
Lie #2: There are gradual transitions in the fossil record.

Lie #3: Archaeology reveals no such thing.

Lie #4: New features/abilities have evolved.

Lie #5: Evolution does not state that mutations are good.
Lie #6: Most mutations are not harmful.
Lie #7: Some mutations do cause new features/abilities.

I stopped counting at this point, except for

Lie #8: You didn't write this.

Roy

John Harshman

unread,

Apr 5, 2003, 10:32:11 AM4/5/03

to

Nowhere Man wrote:

> Do the facts agree with evolution theory or Biblical creation? Let us
> examine the evidence.
>
> Evolution Model Creation Model Observed Facts
> ======================================================================
> Fossil record will | Fossil record will | Fossil record shows
> show gradual change | show sudden appearance | sudden appearance
> between current | of completed forms; | of completed forms;
> kinds and past kinds | No gradual transitions | No gradual
> | | transitions

Sorry, but aren't you a flood geology supporter? Your observed facts, if
true, would falsify flood geology. This is an exercise in
self-contradiction. Of course we have a great many transitional fossils,
so your "observed fact" is simply incorrect. Care to start with
Archaeopteryx?

This shows that you are ignorant of both archaeology and linguistics.
How do you tell a "primitive" language? What are its features? How do
you tell from the archaeological record when language appears? And if
you were correct, how do you explain the long history of human culture
before the appearance of that first preserved, manmade structure?

New features have evolved within historical times. Like nylonase, for
example. And much evidence, from fossils and from the morphology and
genes of modern organisms, supports the evolution of new features in the
past.

Strawman. Most mutations are neutral or nearly so. Some are harmful, and
a few are advantageous. And whether a mutation is harmful, helpful, or
neither depends on environment, which changes. You are 0 for 4 here.

> Why believe the theory of evolution? Does it not make more sense to
> follow the facts where they lead? Yes it does.

We're agreed on that. We disagree on where the facts lead.

> Then why is the theory
> of evolution held by many scientists? It is because many scientists do
> not want to accept the Bible's story of creation. It means that they
> have to accept that miracles took place in ancient times and that the
> Bible is the ultimate authority.

Sounds like a grand conspiracy to me. Why hasn't even a single member of
this huge, 150-year conspiracy ever spilled the beans, even after (as
with a very few of them) converting to creationism? Your explanation is
fantasy, unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.

> Students are criticized by teachers for pointing out the problems of
> evolution theory.

Evidence for this claim, please.

> They are not allowed to see opposing ideas. Academic
> groups do not accept those who hold opposing views such as the Bible's
> account of creation. Scientific theories are supposed to be held
> tentatively. Supporting scientists say that the theory of evolution is
> not to be challenged. Does that sound scientific?

Not every opposing theory is worthy of consideration. You need to
explain the facts as least as well as the standard theory. Or would you
like hindu creation myths to be taught in schools?

> The theory of evolution has been around for over 100 years and it is
> still doubted by many. Do people still doubt that gravity exists? Or
> that the earth revolves around the sun?

Why, yes. As a matter of fact there is a movement within creationism to
doubt heliocentrism. And there was also (and may still be) a flat earth
movement too. People don't doubt gravity because it doesn't interfere
with their religious prejudices.

> So how could we be so sure
> about the theory of evolution that it is not to be challenged? The
> truth is, we can't. The theory of evolution simply does not stand up
> to the facts.

Present a fact or two and let's see which theory stands up.

Steven J.

unread,

Apr 5, 2003, 12:28:05 PM4/5/03

to

some_wh...@yahoo.com (Nowhere Man) wrote in message news:<cb65864a.03040...@posting.google.com>...

> Do the facts agree with evolution theory or Biblical creation? Let us
> examine the evidence.
>
> Evolution Model Creation Model Observed Facts
> ======================================================================
> Fossil record will | Fossil record will | Fossil record shows
> show gradual change | show sudden appearance | sudden appearance
> between current | of completed forms; | of completed forms;
> kinds and past kinds | No gradual transitions | No gradual
> | | transitions
>

As has been pointed out to you, there are a host of hominid species
which, on the "creation model," must all be "fully-formed apes" or
"fully-formed humans." There are also a host of creationist experts to
tell us which are which, but who can't agree with one another.
There's no place to draw a line in the fossil record between the human
"kind" and ape "kinds" that doesn't have an "ape-man" skull straddling
it. The same problem exists for many genera and higher taxa --
there's no sharp dividing line between one horse (equid) genus and
another, or between horses and primitive condylarths, or between
whales and artiodactyls. There's no sharp dividing line between birds
and feathered theropods. *Species* often (but not always) appear
without transitional forms between them and other species -- but the
"creation model" allows for new species to evolve from old ones, so
here the fossil record is missing evidence of the one sort of
evolution your "model" allows.

I would not have thought that *language* (as opposed to writing) would
leave clear archaeological traces. There are, of course, "gradually
advancing man- made structures," whether you limit "structures" to
buildings, or include the slow gradual advance in tools over millions
of years. Note that "simpler in syntax" is not synonymous with "more
primitive."

Actually, the theory deals with all kingdoms of life, not merely with
animals. One must wonder what the "creation model" makes of all those
fossil whales with legs (and the complete absence of living whales
with legs, if they were such a good design), or fossil snakes with
legs, or fossil *fish* with legs....

One must wonder what the "creation model" predicts about the ability
of polar bears and brown bears to interbreed. If the bears are the
same "kind," and polar bears evolved from brown bears, then the hollow
white fur, the adaptions for cold weather and swimming, etc. are all
new abilities evolved by bears.

The ability of plants to survive the concentrated poisons near
abandoned mines, or of bacteria to resist antibiotics, are all new
features and abilities.

A few mutations are good, most are neutral. Many are bad, and lead to
the early death of the mutants -- but then, as an observed fact, most
individuals born die before passing on their genes anyway. Only the
beneficial alleles are likely to make it into the next generation.
Observed mutations for everything from the ability to digest nylon in
bacteria, to resistance to coronary artery disease in humans,
contradicts the "creation model" on this point.

>
> ======================================================================
>
> Why believe the theory of evolution? Does it not make more sense to
> follow the facts where they lead? Yes it does. Then why is the theory
> of evolution held by many scientists? It is because many scientists do
> not want to accept the Bible's story of creation. It means that they
> have to accept that miracles took place in ancient times and that the
> Bible is the ultimate authority.
>
> Students are criticized by teachers for pointing out the problems of
> evolution theory. They are not allowed to see opposing ideas. Academic
> groups do not accept those who hold opposing views such as the Bible's
> account of creation. Scientific theories are supposed to be held
> tentatively. Supporting scientists say that the theory of evolution is
> not to be challenged. Does that sound scientific?
>

Scientific theories are supposed to be opposed with science, not with
pseudoscience, dogma, and populist ignorance. "Creationism" consists
of irrelevant facts and invented facts, strung together with fallacies
and random assertions, and immunized to any sort of testability.

>
> The theory of evolution has been around for over 100 years and it is
> still doubted by many. Do people still doubt that gravity exists? Or
> that the earth revolves around the sun? So how could we be so sure
> about the theory of evolution that it is not to be challenged? The
> truth is, we can't. The theory of evolution simply does not stand up
> to the facts.
>

For what it's worth, the Missouri synod of the Lutheran Church
contained many people who doubted, as recently as 100 years ago, that
the Earth orbited the sun. Indeed, there are still Christian
creationists today who doubt it, and surely there were many, many such
Christians 150 years after Kepler. That people doubt a thing is not
evidence against it.
>
> NM

-- Steven J.

Dana Tweedy

unread,

Apr 5, 2003, 4:11:38 PM4/5/03

to

"Nowhere Man" <some_wh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cb65864a.03040...@posting.google.com...

> Do the facts agree with evolution theory or Biblical creation? Let us
> examine the evidence.
>
> Evolution Model Creation Model Observed Facts

More correctly, that should be "Theory of Evolution" "Creationist's
Beliefs", and "Observational evidence"

Actually you need to get your "facts" straight. First of all, evolutionary
theory doesn't predict that there will be a gradual record of change, but
that there will BE a record of change. Scientists are aware that the fossil
record is in no way complete, and it's unklikely that we will find all the
intermediates. That being said, in some cases gradual changes have been
observed in the fossil record. Also there are plenty of transitional forms,
which, according to the "Creation" belief, should not exist.

As I showed you before, your claim is wrong. We have evidence of man made
tools going back 1.5 million years, and other evidence of human habitation,
(hearths, cut marks on bones made by stone tools, etc ) going back to 2
million years. Also, Creationists claim that all languages come from the
"tower of babel", so that we shouldn't be able to find clear relationships
between language groups. However that is what linguists do find, that
languages spread with the people as they spread out across the globe. BTW,
what "new languages" are more primitive than old ones, and how do you
determine what language is more "primitive"?

The fossil record, as well as the genetic record, not to mention direct
observation has shown this claim to be wrong as well. New features, such as
hard skeletons, jaws, notochords, backbones, jaws, teeth, legs, shelled
eggs, feathers, fur, mammarlary glands, opposible thumbs, and complex brain
functions have all evolved since the beginning of life. You really need to
get out more, if you think that animals only "vary".

The fact is, most mutations are neither "good", or "harmful". Most are
netural. "Overall effect" of mutations is change, not "improvement".
Mutations do cause new features, as can be seen easily in animal breeding,
and in farming.

> ======================================================================
>
> Why believe the theory of evolution?

Because the evidence supports it. That is the real evidence, not your
heavily edited, and ill informed "list".

> Does it not make more sense to
> follow the facts where they lead? Yes it does.

That's why all working scientists accept evolutionary theory.

> Then why is the theory
> of evolution held by many scientists?

Because the evidence supports the theory. Not very hard to figure out.

> It is because many scientists do
> not want to accept the Bible's story of creation.

No, it's because many scientists wish to follow where the evidence leads,
not hang on to wishful thinking.

> It means that they
> have to accept that miracles took place in ancient times and that the
> Bible is the ultimate authority.

Accepting the Bible as the ultimate authority means that the evidence they
can see with their own eyes is either wrong, or the God that put it there is
cruel and deceptive. Scientists don't take any ancient religious writing
as "the ultimate authority", rather they accept the evidence as the ultimate
authority.

>
> Students are criticized by teachers for pointing out the problems of
> evolution theory.

No, they are not. You have been reading Jack Chick Tracts again.

> They are not allowed to see opposing ideas.

Wrong again. No one has produced any opposing idea that is scientific.
Whining that evolutionary theory goes against your religious beliefs is not
going to win any points in scientific literature.

> Academic
> groups do not accept those who hold opposing views such as the Bible's
> account of creation.

That's because they haven't shown any physical evidence to back up their
claims. Academic groups don't exist to protect people's religious beliefs
from having to face reality.

> Scientific theories are supposed to be held
> tentatively. Supporting scientists say that the theory of evolution is
> not to be challenged. Does that sound scientific?

No one claims that the theory of evolution is not to be challenged. Any one
who presents a successful challenge to Evolution will undoubtedly win the
Nobel Prize. What scientists are rightly opposed to, is those who don't
want scientific inquiry to upset their personal religious beliefs. If one
challenges the theory of evolution, one need present some physical evidence
that causes problems for the theory, or present some other theory that
explains the evidence better. Creationists do neither.

>
> The theory of evolution has been around for over 100 years and it is
> still doubted by many.

Only by those who's religious Ox is being Gored. Most Christians don't
have a problem with evolution, and most scientists are not interested in
"disproving God".

> Do people still doubt that gravity exists?

Yes, some do. For religous reasons.

> Or
> that the earth revolves around the sun?

Yes, some religious fundamentalists do doubt that, based on a strict reading
of the Bible.

> So how could we be so sure
> about the theory of evolution that it is not to be challenged?

Challenge it all you like. Just be aware that any challenge you present
needs to be supported by physical evidence. Whining about science being
"anti-God", and presenting a lot of false claims just doesn't cut it.

> The
> truth is, we can't. The theory of evolution simply does not stand up
> to the facts.

The theory stands up fine, it's your "facts" that don't stand up to
examination. Most of your claims are simply wrong. The rest are
misinterpetations, and out right falsehoods.

DJT

Forest Ghost

unread,

Apr 5, 2003, 8:24:06 PM4/5/03

to

John Harshman wrote:

>
> Nowhere Man wrote:
> > Students are criticized by teachers for pointing out the problems of
> > evolution theory.
>
> Evidence for this claim, please.

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp

--
-Forest Ghost

"Pleased to meet you,
hope you guess my name.
But what's troubling you
is the nature of my game."

~Rolling Stones, "Sympathy for McCoy"

Frank J

unread,

Apr 5, 2003, 9:11:44 PM4/5/03

to

stev...@altavista.com (Steven J.) wrote in message news:<127ccf2e.03040...@posting.google.com>...

> some_wh...@yahoo.com (Nowhere Man) wrote in message news:<cb65864a.03040...@posting.google.com>...
> > Do the facts agree with evolution theory or Biblical creation? Let us
> > examine the evidence.
> >
> > Evolution Model Creation Model Observed Facts
> > ======================================================================
> > Fossil record will | Fossil record will | Fossil record shows
> > show gradual change | show sudden appearance | sudden appearance
> > between current | of completed forms; | of completed forms;
> > kinds and past kinds | No gradual transitions | No gradual
> > | | transitions
> >
> As has been pointed out to you, there are a host of hominid species
> which, on the "creation model," must all be "fully-formed apes" or
> "fully-formed humans." There are also a host of creationist experts to
> tell us which are which, but who can't agree with one another.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html

And as you know, and as "everywhere man" (aka Glenn) pretends not to
know, the "creation model" (aka any of the mutually contradictory
creation models) is entirely consistent with a fully-formed (modern)
ape giving birth to a fully-formed (modern) human.

(snip)

Lilith

unread,

Apr 6, 2003, 12:51:26 AM4/6/03

to

> The theory of evolution has been around for over 100 years and it is
> still doubted by many. Do people still doubt that gravity exists? Or
> that the earth revolves around the sun? So how could we be so sure
> about the theory of evolution that it is not to be challenged? The
> truth is, we can't. The theory of evolution simply does not stand up
> to the facts.

Fact: All genomics scientists in biotech companies use the theory of
evolution to develop new drugs (among other methods). They use the
theory of evolution (mutation and natural selection) to track down
fast-evolving human genes in genomic locations that show high
mutational frequency, and through comparison with other primates and
"model organisms" they can infer co-evolutionary pathways with other
linked genes.

Fact: This strategy enables companies to produce patents on genes as
these novel genes are mined out of the genome using the concepts of
natural selection and mutational drift.

Fact: This gives a company Intellectual Property in the form of the
newly discovered genes, and gives the company possible profits down
the road.

Fact: Evolution is used because it works and on the bottom line, helps
discovery and produces intellectual property from the genomic
sequence.

Show how Creationism can be used to discover new drugs and any
profit-sensitive biotech company will use the creationist strategy.
Anyone up to make a few suggestions?

Nowhere Man

unread,

Apr 6, 2003, 4:19:49 AM4/6/03

to

Eric Gill <eric...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<Xns9353E9340118E...@24.28.95.190>...

It is interesting that you accuse me of lying but yet cannot show how
I am lying or what precisely I said that was untrue. It is interesting
indeed.

NM

Nowhere Man

unread,

Apr 6, 2003, 4:15:53 AM4/6/03

to

Roy <rthe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3E8EDAAA...@hotmail.com>...

I am not lying. I can assure you I completely believe every word I
wrote. Can you back up even one of your accusations?

> I stopped counting at this point, except for
>
> Lie #8: You didn't write this.

Now that's a lie. I put a good amount of effort and consideration into
this.

NM

Mark VandeWettering

unread,

Apr 6, 2003, 4:28:07 AM4/6/03

to

"Did not", not "cannot".

> NM

David M. Cook

unread,

Apr 6, 2003, 4:36:39 AM4/6/03

to

In article <cb65864a.03040...@posting.google.com>, Nowhere Man
wrote:

> The theory of evolution has been around for over 100 years and it is
> still doubted by many.

Christianity has been around for over 2000 years and... no, I'm not going
there.

> Do people still doubt that gravity exists?

Did anyone ever doubt the existence of gravity aside from some solopsists.
If you mean the Theory of Gravity (either Newtonian or Einsteinian), most
folks couldn't even state it let alone doubt it. Newtonian physics is not
intuitive, by the way, and it is not well understood by the general public.

> Or
> that the earth revolves around the sun?

There *are* folks that still doubt this.

A large percentage of the population doesn't know that the earth takes a
year to revolve around the sun. Unfortunately, much of population does not
have the intellectual tools to evaluate any scientific claim.

Dave Cook

Mark VandeWettering

unread,

Apr 6, 2003, 4:47:17 AM4/6/03

to

In article <cb65864a.03040...@posting.google.com>, Nowhere Man wrote:

> Do the facts agree with evolution theory or Biblical creation? Let us
> examine the evidence.

Remarkably, no facts or evidence are contained in the rest of this post.

Darwin originally hypotesized that evolution proceeds via gradual changes.
Even he knew that the fossil record didn't present a clear record of this
gradual change, which is why he gave it special treatment in
Origin of Species. Even if the changes in living forms _were_ gradual,
the fossil record may be incredibly incomplete, as we know that the
conditions which yield fossilization are remarkably rare.

Of course we do observe gradual transitions in the fossil record, as can
easily be seen by refering to the transitional fossil faq on talkorigins.org.
What creationists have to explain is why we see these transitions.

Addendum: the idea of "completed forms" is meaningless. All forms which
survive are complete. You aren't going to find half wings, and no model
evolution of evolution would say differently.

Absurd. The evidence clearly shows an increase in technology of mankind
beginning over 100K years ago.

Animals are evolving new features. Witness the bacteria which can
eat nylon, or the human in Italy who've developed an increased resistance
to heart disease.

Most mutations are probably selectively neutral. No scientist would
claim otherwise. The two examples above are obvious counterexamples.
Of course the idea that "good" and "bad" can be judged separately from
environment is somewhat silly. Is the sickle cell anemia mutation good
or bad?

>======================================================================
>
> Why believe the theory of evolution? Does it not make more sense to
> follow the facts where they lead? Yes it does.

Which is why we've arrived at the theory of evolution. Creationism
was discarded as meaningless over a century ago, and no recent developments
are likely to reverse that trend. Why? Because it is creationism which
is not scientific.

> Then why is the theory of evolution held by many scientists? It is
> because many scientists do not want to accept the Bible's story of
> creation. It means that they have to accept that miracles took place
> in ancient times and that the Bible is the ultimate authority.

I could see why they might not wish to accept it. Accepting things which
are nonsense offends me as well.

> Students are criticized by teachers for pointing out the problems of
> evolution theory.

Yes, because the "problems of evolutionary theory" are nothing but empty
soundbites advanced by unscrupulous members of the religious right in an
attempt to circumvent the protections of the Constitution establishing
separation of church and state. They aren't interested in freedom of
religion, and are perfectly willing to lie to establish their own beliefs
as a state religion.

> They are not allowed to see opposing ideas.

How, pray tell, could any teacher keep students from seeing such opposing
ideas?

> Academic groups do not accept those who hold opposing views such as
> the Bible's account of creation.

That's because it simply isn't an supportable position in any academic
sense.

> Scientific theories are supposed to be held
> tentatively.

They are. But they aren't to be discarded because some group of slack-jawed
mouth breathers find it offensive.

> Supporting scientists say that the theory of evolution is
> not to be challenged. Does that sound scientific?

Creationism doesn't challenge the theory evolution. It's a moot point as
to whether scientists say that it is not to be challenged: it simply isn't.
But if you'd like to support your claim against "supporting scientists",
perhaps you could tell us who they are and where they said that...

> The theory of evolution has been around for over 100 years and it is
> still doubted by many.

Not by many biologists.

> Do people still doubt that gravity exists?

Most people don't understand gravity any better than they do evolution.
Of course gravity doesn't contradict the delusions they have of their
invisible friend, so they don't care so much.

> Or that the earth revolves around the sun? So how could we be so sure
> about the theory of evolution that it is not to be challenged? The
> truth is, we can't. The theory of evolution simply does not stand up
> to the facts.

The fact is this: you haven't presented any facts. You've presented
things which we know to be false as if they were facts. This means you
are either ignorant or a liar.

Mark

>
> NM

Dana Tweedy

unread,

Apr 6, 2003, 8:32:25 AM4/6/03

to

"Nowhere Man" <some_wh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:cb65864a.0304...@posting.google.com...

Just because you believe a lie, doesn't make it true. And, yes, he can
back up his accusations, with evidence. In fact, anyone can,.

1. Evolution doesn't include "kinds". The term "kind" is a creationist
term which has no useful meaning to scientists.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/species.html
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evolution/blfaq_evolution_basics4.htm

2.There are gradual transitions in the fossil record
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html
http://www.carnegiemuseums.org/cmag/bk_issue/2000/marapr/feat7.html
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/zeno.htm

3.Archeology reveals no such thing. (Such thing, being "Archeology reveals
sudden appearance of man made structures and complex languages; New
languages often more primitive than old ones")
About stone age buildings
http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/w/x/wxk116/habitat/
http://www.ebooks2go.com/histpub/paleolithic.cfm
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gerald_larue/otll/chap6.html
http://www.president.kz/articles/history/history_container.asp?lng=en&art=pa
leolit

One wonders how archeologists are supposed to have found a sudden appearance
of "complex languages", as the first languages were undoubtedly not written
down. Language skills in ancient hominids is linked to the development of
Broca's area of the brain. Endocasts of hominid brains indicate that
language may go back 2 million years.
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/anthro/bioanth/ch15/chap15.htm

Language and writing are of course entirely separate inventions. Writing
doesn't begin until such a time where agriculture made food surpluses
available, and the need to keep track of the distrubtion of goods. The
earliest known writings are pictograms, and more abstract alphabets don't
develop until much later.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/334517.stm

What you mean by "New languages often more primitve than old ones", is
puzzling. In language, primitive doesn't mean "less complex". Perhaps you
could explain what you mean better.

4. New features and abilities have evolved. This is obvious from the
fossil record, and from other sources. The earliest fossil life froms were
very similiar to bacteria. Since then, a multitude of new features and
abilities have been recorded in the fossil and genetic record. Among these
are multicelluar life, sexual reproduction, photosynthesis, aerobic
respiration, the nervous system, hard shells and skeletons, the notochord,
spinal cord, vertibrae, gill arches, jaws, teeth, fins, legs, quadrapedal
locmotion, lungs, scales, the shelled egg, mammilian jaw, feathers, wings,
fur, endothermacy, internal gestation, mammilary glands, placentas,
opposible thumbs, bipedal locomotion, and, in humans, an enlarged brain.
These features didn't appear all at once in the record of life, but
sequentally, over millions of years. Consult any basic text on biology,
for more information.

5. Evolution doesn't state mutations are good. Well, evolution doesn't
state that ALL mutations are 'good'. Mutations normally have three
effects, most often they are neutral. Some are harmful, and some are
beneficial.
http://natureniche.tripod.com/mutation.html
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/ukatheist/articles/harmfulmutations.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html#types

6. Most mutations are not harmful. As we can see above, most mutations are
in fact neutral in regards to fitness.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html#Q1

7. Some mutations do cause new features/abilities. Again, this is obvious
if you are the least bit familiar with the literature.
http://camel1.umbi.umd.edu/camel/
http://www.eurekalert.org/features/doe/2002-05/dbnl-tmm061302.php
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DailyNews/darwingene020207.html
http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc99/2_6_99/fob3ref.htm

>
>
> > I stopped counting at this point, except for
> >
> > Lie #8: You didn't write this.

Granted this one is impossible to prove or disprove, however we have seen
these same arguements time in and time out, so they are hardly original to
you.

>
>
> Now that's a lie. I put a good amount of effort and consideration into
> this.

If "good amount of effort" means "repeated lies someone told me". Perhaps
you would be willing to show where you got your information for your
"facts"?

DJT

Lane Lewis

unread,

Apr 6, 2003, 10:45:57 AM4/6/03

to

"Nowhere Man" <some_wh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cb65864a.0304...@posting.google.com...

> Roy <rthe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<3E8EDAAA...@hotmail.com>...
> > Nowhere Man wrote:
> > > Do the facts agree with evolution theory or Biblical creation? Let us
> > > examine the evidence.
> > >
> > > Evolution Model Creation Model Observed Facts
> > > ======================================================================
> > > Fossil record will | Fossil record will | Fossil record shows
> > > show gradual change | show sudden appearance | sudden appearance
> > > between current | of completed forms; | of completed forms;
> > > kinds and past kinds | No gradual transitions | No gradual
> > > | | transitions
> >

Take a look at trilobites , 15,000 species discovered and more being
found all the time. Note that some have lost their eyes and this can be
documented. But you of course want the transitional between these 15.000
species don't you and then you would want the transitional between the
transitional :O)

Nice try. Got any better arguments.

http://www.aloha.net/~smgon/ordersoftrilobites.htm

Lane

Ann Broomhead

unread,

Apr 6, 2003, 10:52:52 AM4/6/03

to

some_wh...@yahoo.com (Nowhere Man) wrote in message news:<cb65864a.03040...@posting.google.com>...

> Do the facts agree with evolution theory or Biblical creation? Let us
> examine the evidence.
>
> Evolution Model Creation Model Observed Facts
> ======================================================================
> Fossil record will | Fossil record will | Fossil record shows
> show gradual change | show sudden appearance | sudden appearance
> between current | of completed forms; | of completed forms;
> kinds and past kinds | No gradual transitions | No gradual
> | | transitions

*Sometimes* there is a "sudden appearance" of a new -- but more likely
of a *modified* form. Or, because of the spottiness of the fossil
record, it *appears* (for now) that the appearance is sudden.
*Sometimes* there are "gradual transitions". You can find many in the
talk.origins archives.

No. This is flat-out false.

We find use of caves seven hundred thousand years ago. The oldest
structure *yet found* is a crude stone windbreak in France, and is
over half a million years old. (There is no sign of fire.) We find
stone circles, the remains of simple brush or stick sleeping shelters
that, while less than half a million years old, are still over a
hundred thousand years old. Fire shows up, in China, over four
hundred thousand years ago. Later, real shelters start to show up.
We find traces of tents set up inside caves less than fifty thousand
years old. Less than thirty thousand years ago, traces of walls made
of clay and limestone show up in Europe. We find dwellings made of
the bones and tusks of mammoths later yet. I *could* go on. (I am
using _Smithsonian Timelines of the Ancient World_.)

The first record of written *communication* (and if you can tell me
about records of non-written language, I would most certainly pay
attention) are from the Neolithic, and are just tally marks impressed
in clay, plus the symbol for the goods they represent. It evolves
into accounting symbols around the Chalcolithic. To learn *all* about
this fascinating topic (the SLOW evolution of writing, to spell it out
for you), read the books and articles of Denise Schmandt-Besserat.

"No new features evolve" Very funny. What are backbones? Insect
wings? Flowers?

"Mutations are harmful"? Tell *that* to my first husband. He has a
mutation that keeps him from getting cavities. It may even have
helped him to reroot a tooth he had knocked out when he was a child.

Pfusand

That which does not destroy us
has made its last mistake.
-- Unspoken motto of the pantope crew

TomS

unread,

Apr 6, 2003, 11:18:08 AM4/6/03

to

"On Sun, 6 Apr 2003 14:52:52 +0000 (UTC), in article
<7418dcc4.03040...@posting.google.com>, broo...@world.std.com
stated..."

>
>some_wh...@yahoo.com (Nowhere Man) wrote in message
>news:<cb65864a.03040...@posting.google.com>...
>> Do the facts agree with evolution theory or Biblical creation? Let us
>> examine the evidence.
>>
>> Evolution Model Creation Model Observed Facts
>> ======================================================================
>> Fossil record will | Fossil record will | Fossil record shows
>> show gradual change | show sudden appearance | sudden appearance
>> between current | of completed forms; | of completed forms;
>> kinds and past kinds | No gradual transitions | No gradual
>> | | transitions

[...snip...]

This has been bugging me. I know that I've seen this before,
but I can't find the exact location. Something by Morris, I think.

Please, would someone be so kind as to tell me where.

(Not that I am expecting a creationist to name his sources.)

Tom S.

Eric Gill

unread,

Apr 6, 2003, 12:19:44 PM4/6/03

to

some_wh...@yahoo.com (Nowhere Man) wrote in
news:cb65864a.03040...@posting.google.com:

> Eric Gill <eric...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<Xns9353E9340118E...@24.28.95.190>...
>> some_wh...@yahoo.com (Nowhere Man) wrote in
>> news:cb65864a.03040...@posting.google.com:
>>
>> > Why believe the theory of evolution?
>>
>> I've got a better question. Why do you think blatantly lying about
>> the facts is going to win you any converts when five minutes of
>> search on the T.O. site will leave anyone who didn't already know
>> better completely outraged at the extremes you're willing to go to?
>
>
> It is interesting that you accuse me of lying but yet cannot

"Cannot?" Simple to the point of trivial, you mean, as has already been
shown. "Didn't waste the time" is the phrase you were looking for.

> show how
> I am lying or what precisely I said that was untrue.

Actually, it would take up fewer words to list what you said that *is*
true.

> It is interesting indeed.

What is even more "interesting" is that out of twenty or so replies to
your original message, the only two you replied to are those that didn't
include a complete rebuttal of your speciousness, and yet you act as if
no one has done so. Care to explain why that is?

Mark Isaak

unread,

Apr 6, 2003, 12:23:56 PM4/6/03

to

On Sun, 6 Apr 2003 08:15:53 +0000 (UTC), some_wh...@yahoo.com
(Nowhere Man) wrote:

>I am not lying. I can assure you I completely believe every word I
>wrote. Can you back up even one of your accusations?

"Bearing false witness" would be a better term than lying, then, and
entirely accurate. Does that sound better to you?

--
Mark Isaak at...@earthlink.net
Don't read everything you belive.

Frank J

unread,

Apr 6, 2003, 1:48:24 PM4/6/03

to

John Harshman <harshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<3E8ECEC8...@pacbell.net>...

> Nowhere Man wrote:
>
> > Do the facts agree with evolution theory or Biblical creation? Let us
> > examine the evidence.
> >
> > Evolution Model Creation Model Observed Facts
> > ======================================================================
> > Fossil record will | Fossil record will | Fossil record shows
> > show gradual change | show sudden appearance | sudden appearance
> > between current | of completed forms; | of completed forms;
> > kinds and past kinds | No gradual transitions | No gradual
> > | | transitions
>
>
> Sorry, but aren't you a flood geology supporter? Your observed facts, if
> true, would falsify flood geology. This is an exercise in
> self-contradiction. Of course we have a great many transitional fossils,
> so your "observed fact" is simply incorrect. Care to start with
> Archaeopteryx?
>

SSSHHH! The big tent is shaky already. Any more huffing and puffing
and it'll come crash.....Nah, on second thought, disregard that. P. T.
Barnum's famous quote brought me back to reality.

(snip)

Frank J

unread,

Apr 6, 2003, 1:56:46 PM4/6/03

to

some_wh...@yahoo.com (Nowhere Man) wrote in message news:<cb65864a.0304...@posting.google.com>...

Maybe you believe these fantasies, but many of your fearless leaders
who were kind enough to supply you with them probably do not:

http://reason.com/9707/fe.bailey.shtml

I have a better idea: To avoid this guilt by association, how about
some original ideas?

John Thomas Grisham

unread,

Apr 6, 2003, 4:53:30 PM4/6/03

to

some_wh...@yahoo.com (Nowhere Man) wrote in message news:<cb65864a.03040...@posting.google.com>...

> Do the facts agree with evolution theory or Biblical creation? Let us
> examine the evidence.

Let's not!

The evidence in the long term is irrelevent.

Whatever evidence is peer-reviewed, satisfies the process, gains
acceptance as observable, modifies the hypothesis, modifies the
theory, modifies the "fact" of evolution, modifies the "truth" of
evolution on an ongoing basis is "Evolution". Evolution evolves, it's
a "Catch 22" circular argument for the best pluralistic,
bureaucratically-made explanation of the origins of life. (For all it
matters, you might as well be arguing over the U.S. Federal Budget)

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

>
> Why believe the theory of evolution?

Why believe in the U.S. Federal Budget? No living elected
representative in modern times has ever completely read one. A speed
reader going 24 hours a day could not read the U.S. Federal Budget
within a year... it's too long. Elected representatives rely on the
bureaucracy to summarize the budget for them to approve, vote on and
pass into law. They accept on faith that the summary is correct.
Likewise 140 years of papers on evolution have been repeatedly
summarized and it's simply easier to accept on faith that the
summaries are accurate and that any inaccuracy will be eventually
caught and corrected. All criticisms of bureaucracies aside, it
encapsulates the modern methods of doing things.

> Does it not make more sense to
> follow the facts where they lead?

As large as the Federal Bureaucracy is, it pales in comparison to the
diversity of life over time, even if you were to contain it to a 6,000
year time frame. Any set of isolated facts may lead you to any set of
isolated conclusions. This is evident in the known manipulation of
statistics for various political purposes. Until you have all the
facts at all levels of comprehension, all conclusions are based on the
ignorance of facts beyond your paradigm.

> Then why is the theory
> of evolution held by many scientists?

It's a practical method of setting the parameters of the observable
universe and known evidence into a paradigm of marginally reliable
conclusions.

> It is because many scientists do
> not want to accept the Bible's story of creation. It
> means that they have to accept that miracles took place > in ancient times and that the
> Bible is the ultimate authority.

Oh! Ye of little faith!

Miracles arguably occur all the time. It is the very existence of
these miracles that leads science to more practical means of dealing
with the observable universe. The parameters of the scientific method
are set to disavow through the basis of repeatability all such
miracles. They are anomolies, superfiscial data unreliable for
scientific predictability. Miracles exist, but they can have no
authority in the scientific process (They create more questions, than
they solve).

>
> Students are criticized by teachers for pointing out the > problems of

> evolution theory. They are not allowed to see opposing
> ideas.

Students are taught what they're supposed to learn at the level of
education that they're being taught.

It used to be common practice (prior to Vietnam) to teach that the
U.S. had never lost a war. At University, I learn in 1922, the U.S.,
France and England invaded the Soviet Union (It is often
misrepresented as "The White Russian Revolt")... they kicked our
collective asses out. If, that's not losing I don't know what is, but
it wasn't taught, at all. You're unlikely to see any significant
opposing ideas on any subject until you get to university.

> Academic
> groups do not accept those who hold opposing views such > as the Bible's

> account of creation. Scientific theories are supposed to > be held
> tentatively. Supporting scientists say that the theory

> of evolution is
> not to be challenged. Does that sound scientific?

Yes! "Scientific" means a limited examination of the universe adhering
to the parameters of the scientific method. There is a great
dependence on the exact meanings of words and the differences between
common definitions and scientific definitions.

>
> The theory of evolution has been around for over 100
> years and it is

> still doubted by many. Do people still doubt that
> gravity exists? Or

> that the earth revolves around the sun? So how could we > be so sure
> about the theory of evolution that it is not to be
> challenged?

Until we are willing to completely review all papers on evolution,
reduce their component ideas to "formula", test these conponents as
formulas for falsification on every piece of new evidence and exclude
those ideas that are invalid in whole or in part, then we are
constrained by human ability to accept the summarized concepts and
work from them. It's not really the theory that's being challenged,
it's the bureaucracy that summarizes the theory. All bureaucracies
have little tolerance for being challenged.

On the whole, it would be more simple and a better use of effort to
challenge the U.S. Federal Budget bureaucracy and resolve more
threatening facts to the future of life under the burden of an
escalating National Debt. The influnce of evolution theory will be
fairly insignificant, when our economic irresponsibility leads the
world into a new Dark Age. But, that's just my opinion!

JTG 4/6/03

John Harshman

unread,

Apr 6, 2003, 6:43:12 PM4/6/03

to

Forest Ghost wrote:

>
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>>Nowhere Man wrote:
>>
>>>Students are criticized by teachers for pointing out the problems of
>>>evolution theory.
>>>
>>Evidence for this claim, please.
>>
>
> http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp

I didn't actually look this up, but I bet it leads to the classic "Big
Daddy", right? Creationist literature doesn't get any better than that.
Really.

Nowhere Man

unread,

Apr 6, 2003, 7:14:17 PM4/6/03

to

broo...@world.std.com (Ann Broomhead) wrote in message news:<7418dcc4.03040...@posting.google.com>...

> some_wh...@yahoo.com (Nowhere Man) wrote in message news:<cb65864a.03040...@posting.google.com>...
> > Do the facts agree with evolution theory or Biblical creation? Let us
> > examine the evidence.
> >
> > Evolution Model Creation Model Observed Facts
> > ======================================================================
> > Fossil record will | Fossil record will | Fossil record shows
> > show gradual change | show sudden appearance | sudden appearance
> > between current | of completed forms; | of completed forms;
> > kinds and past kinds | No gradual transitions | No gradual
> > | | transitions
>
> *Sometimes* there is a "sudden appearance" of a new -- but more likely
> of a *modified* form. Or, because of the spottiness of the fossil
> record, it *appears* (for now) that the appearance is sudden.
> *Sometimes* there are "gradual transitions". You can find many in the
> talk.origins archives.

Where is the animal that cats and dogs both came from? Where are the
full grown giraffe skeletons with half a neck? Two thirds a neck? A
third a neck? Three transitional skeletons? Is that asking too much or
did it all happen too fast? Where's the elephants with no tusks?
Where's the full grown elephants with half a nose? One transitional
skeleton? Is that asking too much?

> > | |
> > Archeology will | Archeology will reveal | Archeology reveals
> > reveal gradually | sudden appearance of | sudden appearance of
> > advancing man-made | man-made structures | man-made structures
> > structures and | and complex language | and complex lang-
> > language | | uage; New languages
> > | | often more primitive
> > | | than old ones
>
> No. This is flat-out false.
>
> We find use of caves seven hundred thousand years ago. The oldest
> structure *yet found* is a crude stone windbreak in France, and is
> over half a million years old. (There is no sign of fire.) We find
> stone circles, the remains of simple brush or stick sleeping shelters
> that, while less than half a million years old, are still over a
> hundred thousand years old. Fire shows up, in China, over four
> hundred thousand years ago. Later, real shelters start to show up.
> We find traces of tents set up inside caves less than fifty thousand
> years old. Less than thirty thousand years ago, traces of walls made
> of clay and limestone show up in Europe. We find dwellings made of
> the bones and tusks of mammoths later yet. I *could* go on. (I am
> using _Smithsonian Timelines of the Ancient World_.)

How do you date a "crude stone windbreak", "stone circles", "the
remains of simple brush or stick sleeping shelters", "traces of
tents", or "traces of walls"?

> The first record of written *communication* (and if you can tell me
> about records of non-written language, I would most certainly pay
> attention) are from the Neolithic, and are just tally marks impressed
> in clay, plus the symbol for the goods they represent. It evolves
> into accounting symbols around the Chalcolithic. To learn *all* about
> this fascinating topic (the SLOW evolution of writing, to spell it out
> for you), read the books and articles of Denise Schmandt-Besserat.

I noticed that you didn't mention and dates.

Did you notice how all those things already exist! We don't see
anything today without a backbone starting to evolve a backbone. Or
anything without wings evolving wings. Or non-flowers evolving into
flowers. Now do we? All the features are already there are they not?

> > | |
> > Mutations are good; | Mutations are harmful; | Mutations are harm-
> > Overall effect is | Do not cause new | ful; Do not cause
> > improvement | features | new features; Often
> > | | cause death
>
> "Mutations are harmful"? Tell *that* to my first husband. He has a
> mutation that keeps him from getting cavities. It may even have
> helped him to reroot a tooth he had knocked out when he was a child.

Please tell me something. Does he have any children? Do all of his
children have this wonderful mutation so that they can pass it on to
their children? That's how evolution works right? Or is this another
chance to demonstrate evolution which slipped through the fingers of
science?

NM

Nowhere Man

unread,

Apr 6, 2003, 7:13:46 PM4/6/03

to

TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<b6pgk...@drn.newsguy.com>...

I wrote every word. I am the source.

NM

Andrew Arensburger

unread,

Apr 6, 2003, 8:51:00 PM4/6/03

to

Ann Broomhead <broo...@world.std.com> wrote:
> "Mutations are harmful"? Tell *that* to my first husband. He has a
> mutation that keeps him from getting cavities. It may even have
> helped him to reroot a tooth he had knocked out when he was a child.

Fascinating. Could you please elaborate, or at least give me
some references, or keywords that I could feed to Google?
Thanks,

(Note to creationists: the above is what's called a request
for supporting evidence, known in everyday life as "show me." The fact
that I'm making this request doesn't mean that I'm calling Ann a liar;
it just means that I don't automatically believe everything I read on
Usenet.)

--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@glue.umd.edu Office of Information Technology
In the beginning, God created the Baptists. And the Baptists looked at
themselves and said, "We good." And God saw it was too late.

Dana Tweedy

unread,

Apr 6, 2003, 9:27:07 PM4/6/03

to

"Nowhere Man" <some_wh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:cb65864a.03040...@posting.google.com...

> broo...@world.std.com (Ann Broomhead) wrote in message
news:<7418dcc4.03040...@posting.google.com>...

snipping

> > *Sometimes* there is a "sudden appearance" of a new -- but more likely
> > of a *modified* form. Or, because of the spottiness of the fossil
> > record, it *appears* (for now) that the appearance is sudden.
> > *Sometimes* there are "gradual transitions". You can find many in the
> > talk.origins archives.
>
>
> Where is the animal that cats and dogs both came from?

The earliest known carnivore is Cimolestes , which was ancestrial to the
Miacoids. The Miacoids were most likely the last common ancestor of Cats
and Dogs.
http://paleo.amnh.org/bjburger/fossilmammal/c2.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2a.html
http://www.biosci.ohiou.edu/faculty/heinrich/

> Where are the
> full grown giraffe skeletons with half a neck? Two thirds a neck? A
> third a neck?

Actually that animal still exists. It's called an Okapi. The fossil
record of Giraffes is actually pretty well represented.
http://www.biols.susx.ac.uk/ugteach/cws/evol1/giraffe%20lions.htm
http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/accounts/okapia/o._johnstoni$narrative
.html
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/tallblondes/infrasound.html

Glenn

unread,

Apr 6, 2003, 9:39:54 PM4/6/03

to

John Harshman wrote:

It is a fictional account of a classroom event. Among what is "wrong" with it

is that students should not take center stage; conversely, teachers
should not react adversely to criticisms of a theory and act in a way
that their religion is compromised.

No evidence would satisfy you, you're already satisfied...

You're all so afraid of the consequences of teaching what science really
is. The only conclusion I have been able to see as to why that is
ironically, is the same as evolutionists have about fundamentalism.

Dana Tweedy

unread,

Apr 6, 2003, 9:57:15 PM4/6/03

to

"Nowhere Man" <some_wh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cb65864a.03040...@posting.google.com...

> TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:<b6pgk...@drn.newsguy.com>...

snipping

> > This has been bugging me. I know that I've seen this before,
> > but I can't find the exact location. Something by Morris, I think.
> >
> > Please, would someone be so kind as to tell me where.
> >
> > (Not that I am expecting a creationist to name his sources.)
> >
> > Tom S.
>
>
> I wrote every word. I am the source.

Then I take it you admit it's based on nothing but your personal ignorance?

DJT

Dana Tweedy

unread,

Apr 6, 2003, 9:55:20 PM4/6/03

to

"Nowhere Man" <some_wh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cb65864a.03040...@posting.google.com...

> broo...@world.std.com (Ann Broomhead) wrote in message
news:<7418dcc4.03040...@posting.google.com>...

snipping

oops, hit the 'send' button too soon.

>
> Where is the animal that cats and dogs both came from? Where are the
> full grown giraffe skeletons with half a neck? Two thirds a neck? A
> third a neck? Three transitional skeletons? Is that asking too much or
> did it all happen too fast?

Here's a whole page of transitionals in the Giraffe family
http://www.il-st-acad-sci.org/mammals/mami004z.html

> Where's the elephants with no tusks?
> Where's the full grown elephants with half a nose? One transitional
> skeleton? Is that asking too much?

How about these:
http://www.il-st-acad-sci.org/mammals/mami004v.html
http://www.fmnh.helsinki.fi/users/haaramo/Metazoa/Deuterostoma/Chordata/syna
psida/Eutheria/Proboscidea/Proboscidea.htm
http://www.priweb.org/exhibits/babe/babemain.html

snipping

> How do you date a "crude stone windbreak", "stone circles", "the
> remains of simple brush or stick sleeping shelters", "traces of
> tents", or "traces of walls"?

I already gave you bunch of links about how archeologists date their finds.
Weren't you paying attention?? Ok, one more time:
http://killeenroos.com/link/archanth.htm
http://www.arts.ubc.ca/anso/pokotylo/anth103/chptfive.htm
http://www.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm
http://www.wkap.nl/prod/b/0-306-45715-6

From now on, do you own homework.

>
>
> > The first record of written *communication* (and if you can tell me
> > about records of non-written language, I would most certainly pay
> > attention) are from the Neolithic, and are just tally marks impressed
> > in clay, plus the symbol for the goods they represent. It evolves
> > into accounting symbols around the Chalcolithic. To learn *all* about
> > this fascinating topic (the SLOW evolution of writing, to spell it out
> > for you), read the books and articles of Denise Schmandt-Besserat.
>
>
> I noticed that you didn't mention and dates.

I notice you didn't provide any citations for where you got your
"information" in your original posting.

| |
> >
> > "No new features evolve" Very funny. What are backbones? Insect
> > wings? Flowers?
>
>
> Did you notice how all those things already exist!

Yes, they do now. The didn't in the earliest life forms.

>We don't see
> anything today without a backbone starting to evolve a backbone.

Why should we? Evolution isn't a directional process. There is no reason
why invertibrates today would be expected to evolve a backbone.

>Or
> anything without wings evolving wings.

That depends on what you mean by "evolving wings". there are many
different animals today who use gliding techniques, which, could potentally
evolve into wings. These animals range from frogs and snakes, to fish and
mammals. In any case we have fossil evidence showing, at least partially
how feathered theropods evolved wings on their way to becoming birds.

>Or non-flowers evolving into
> flowers. Now do we?

Again, why should we see this happening today? It happend once already, and
is observed in the fossil record.

>All the features are already there are they not?

They weren't there in the earliest forms of life. Vertibrates aren't seen
before the Cambrian. "Wings",( at least in birds), weren't seen before the
late Jurassic. Other flying animals, such as pterosaurs, and insects,
didn't have wings in their earliest forms. Primitive mammals appear before
bats got their wings. Flowering plants didn't appear till the Creataceous,
long after the first plants appear in the fossil record.

Snip of more of NM's ignorance

DJT

Steven J.

unread,

Apr 6, 2003, 11:38:27 PM4/6/03

to

John Harshman <harshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<3E8ECEC8...@pacbell.net>...
> Nowhere Man wrote:
>

> > Do the facts agree with evolution theory or Biblical creation? Let us
> > examine the evidence.
> >
> > Evolution Model Creation Model Observed Facts
> > ======================================================================
> > Fossil record will | Fossil record will | Fossil record shows
> > show gradual change | show sudden appearance | sudden appearance
> > between current | of completed forms; | of completed forms;
> > kinds and past kinds | No gradual transitions | No gradual
> > | | transitions
>
>

> Sorry, but aren't you a flood geology supporter? Your observed facts, if
> true, would falsify flood geology. This is an exercise in
> self-contradiction. Of course we have a great many transitional fossils,
> so your "observed fact" is simply incorrect. Care to start with
> Archaeopteryx?
>

Nowhere Man (apparently Glenn Sheldon) has not, AFAIK, stated whether
or not he is a flood geology supporter, but he's posted several
extracts from Jehovah's Witness tracts, including some that speak of
the JWs as "we" -- implying that he himself is a JW, like our beloved
Jabriol. The JWs tend to be progressive creationists, traditionally
believing in a 48,000 year-old-earth (the "days" of creation being
7000 years long). I am given to understand that some of them,
nowadays, are straight old-earth-creationists, so it's possible that
Nowhereman accepts faunal succession, but not evolution as an
explanation for it.
>
-- [snip]
>
-- Steven J.

Bigdakine

unread,

Apr 7, 2003, 1:38:18 AM4/7/03

to

>Subject: Re: What do the facts say?
>From: some_wh...@yahoo.com (Nowhere Man)
>Date: 4/6/03 1:14 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <cb65864a.03040...@posting.google.com>

>
>broo...@world.std.com (Ann Broomhead) wrote in message
>news:<7418dcc4.03040...@posting.google.com>...
>> some_wh...@yahoo.com (Nowhere Man) wrote in message
>news:<cb65864a.03040...@posting.google.com>...
>> > Do the facts agree with evolution theory or Biblical creation? Let us
>> > examine the evidence.
>> >
>> > Evolution Model Creation Model Observed Facts
>> > ======================================================================
>> > Fossil record will | Fossil record will | Fossil record shows
>> > show gradual change | show sudden appearance | sudden appearance
>> > between current | of completed forms; | of completed forms;
>> > kinds and past kinds | No gradual transitions | No gradual
>> > | | transitions
>>
>> *Sometimes* there is a "sudden appearance" of a new -- but more likely
>> of a *modified* form. Or, because of the spottiness of the fossil
>> record, it *appears* (for now) that the appearance is sudden.
>> *Sometimes* there are "gradual transitions". You can find many in the
>> talk.origins archives.
>
>
>Where is the animal that cats and dogs both came from? Where are the
>full grown giraffe skeletons with half a neck? Two thirds a neck? A
>third a neck?

Actually this animal was to known to western science from the fossil record
before being discovered in the wild.

its called the "Okapi"..

Three transitional skeletons? Is that asking too much or
>did it all happen too fast? Where's the elephants with no tusks?
>Where's the full grown elephants with half a nose? One transitional
>skeleton? Is that asking too much?

Don't know about elephants. Just gave you one for Giraffes.

Knock yourself out.

>
>
>> > | |
>> > Archeology will | Archeology will reveal | Archeology reveals
>> > reveal gradually | sudden appearance of | sudden appearance of
>> > advancing man-made | man-made structures | man-made structures
>> > structures and | and complex language | and complex lang-
>> > language | | uage; New languages
>> > | | often more primitive
>> > | | than old ones
>>
>> No. This is flat-out false.
>>
>> We find use of caves seven hundred thousand years ago. The oldest
>> structure *yet found* is a crude stone windbreak in France, and is
>> over half a million years old. (There is no sign of fire.) We find
>> stone circles, the remains of simple brush or stick sleeping shelters
>> that, while less than half a million years old, are still over a
>> hundred thousand years old. Fire shows up, in China, over four
>> hundred thousand years ago. Later, real shelters start to show up.
>> We find traces of tents set up inside caves less than fifty thousand
>> years old. Less than thirty thousand years ago, traces of walls made
>> of clay and limestone show up in Europe. We find dwellings made of
>> the bones and tusks of mammoths later yet. I *could* go on. (I am
>> using _Smithsonian Timelines of the Ancient World_.)
>
>
>How do you date a "crude stone windbreak", "stone circles",

"thermal luminescence dating or ESR dating" might be of use here. At any rate
is not necessary to date the actual rocks themselves, but date other objects
within the same stratigraphic layer. Like many creationists, you come here
half-cocked but unarmed.

"the
>remains of simple brush or stick sleeping shelters",

brush or stick sleeping shelters could be dated from the sticks themselves if
preserved, by C-14.

<snip>

Stuart
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to really foul things up
requires a creationist"

John Wilkins

unread,

Apr 7, 2003, 2:38:26 AM4/7/03

to

Bigdakine <bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip> wrote:

> >Subject: Re: What do the facts say?
> >From: some_wh...@yahoo.com (Nowhere Man)

...

> >
> >Where is the animal that cats and dogs both came from? Where are the
> >full grown giraffe skeletons with half a neck? Two thirds a neck? A
> >third a neck?
>
> Actually this animal was to known to western science from the fossil record
> before being discovered in the wild.
>
> its called the "Okapi"..
>
>
>
> Three transitional skeletons? Is that asking too much or
> >did it all happen too fast? Where's the elephants with no tusks?
> >Where's the full grown elephants with half a nose? One transitional
> >skeleton? Is that asking too much?
>
> Don't know about elephants. Just gave you one for Giraffes.

Paleomastodon had a much smaller trunk. The Moeritherium were pig-sized
with protosnouts (but probably not in the direct line of ancestry to
modern elephants). Trilophodon had a trunk about half the length of the
current African Elephant (of which there are perhaps three species)

Here is more information on the evolution of elephants as found in the
fossil record:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2b.html

And this site - a Catholic apologetics site, shows a scan of Ken
Miller's diagram of elephant evolution

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p14.htm

--
John Wilkins
B'dies, Brutius

Nowhere Man

unread,

Apr 7, 2003, 7:22:02 AM4/7/03

to

"Lane Lewis" <lanej...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<k7Xja.80954$j8.22...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...

So you found a bunch a trilobites. The only change you can show us is
loss of function? You can't show us a trilobite turning into a fish or
mouse? Doesn't sound very transitional to me.

NM

Ann Broomhead

unread,

Apr 7, 2003, 10:45:11 AM4/7/03

to

Andrew Arensburger <arensb.no-...@glue.umd.edu> wrote in message news:<b6qi6t$2ao$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu>...

> Ann Broomhead <broo...@world.std.com> wrote:
> > "Mutations are harmful"? Tell *that* to my first husband. He has a
> > mutation that keeps him from getting cavities. It may even have
> > helped him to reroot a tooth he had knocked out when he was a child.
>
> Fascinating. Could you please elaborate, or at least give me
> some references, or keywords that I could feed to Google?
> Thanks,
>
> (Note to creationists: the above is what's called a request
> for supporting evidence, known in everyday life as "show me." The fact
> that I'm making this request doesn't mean that I'm calling Ann a liar;
> it just means that I don't automatically believe everything I read on
> Usenet.)

Well, you're not going to find a reference to my husband and "teeth"
on the net. (I just checked.)

Originally, I hadn't believed that my husband could have been telling
the truth when he came back from the dentist saying that the dentist
hadn't filled his cavity because it wasn't there any more. (We all
'knew' Terry was a mutant, but that was too much.)

Then I read _Dead Men Do Tell Tales_ by William Maples, and there, at
the end of Chapter 6 ("When the Sickness Is Your Soul") was a
description of a person with youthful teeth. Maples then went on to
explain that it was a feature that some "lucky few" people had, due to
"upwellings of dentin" throughout their lives. He didn't give his
sources, or say whether his subject had descendents, so his reference
is maddeningly tantalizing to me, too.

You'd have to ask an odontologist, I'd say.

Ann Broomhead

unread,

Apr 7, 2003, 11:05:53 AM4/7/03

to

some_wh...@yahoo.com (Nowhere Man) wrote in message news:<cb65864a.03040...@posting.google.com>...
> broo...@world.std.com (Ann Broomhead) wrote in message news:<7418dcc4.03040...@posting.google.com>...

(snip)

> > *Sometimes* there is a "sudden appearance" of a new -- but more likely
> > of a *modified* form. Or, because of the spottiness of the fossil
> > record, it *appears* (for now) that the appearance is sudden.
> > *Sometimes* there are "gradual transitions". You can find many in the
> > talk.origins archives.
>
> Where is the animal that cats and dogs both came from?

Others have answered this. I will note that this and the following
comments are non-responsive.

> Where are the
> full grown giraffe skeletons with half a neck?

Isaac Asimov once annoyed a student who had asked a similar question.
He handed the student a piece of chalk, and asked the lad to give him
back half a piece of chalk. He snapped the piece of chalk in two, and
handed Isaac one piece. Isaac pointed out that this was an entire
piece of chalk.

Please take the example of the okapi to heart.

(snip)

> > No. This is flat-out false.
> >
> > We find use of caves seven hundred thousand years ago.

(snip)

> > (I am using _Smithsonian Timelines of the Ancient World_.)
>
> How do you date a "crude stone windbreak", "stone circles", "the
> remains of simple brush or stick sleeping shelters", "traces of
> tents", or "traces of walls"?

The various techniques used have already been pointed out to you by
others.

> > The first record of written *communication* (and if you can tell me
> > about records of non-written language, I would most certainly pay
> > attention) are from the Neolithic, and are just tally marks impressed
> > in clay, plus the symbol for the goods they represent. It evolves
> > into accounting symbols around the Chalcolithic. To learn *all* about
> > this fascinating topic (the SLOW evolution of writing, to spell it out
> > for you), read the books and articles of Denise Schmandt-Besserat.
>
> I noticed that you didn't mention and dates.

Hey! "Chalcolithic". It's the period from about 3600 bce to about
3000 bce. I trust that is sufficiently precise to make you very
uncomfortable. ("Neolithic" comes before that, and "Old Bronze Age"
comes after it.)

AND! If you had bothered to do a search on "Denise Schmandt-Besserat"
in this very group, you would have found that I used dates in my other
post on this subject.

(snip)

> > "No new features evolve" Very funny. What are backbones? Insect
> > wings? Flowers?
>
> Did you notice how all those things already exist!

As you should be painfully aware now: They didn't always. Deal with
it.

(snip)

> > "Mutations are harmful"? Tell *that* to my first husband. He has a
> > mutation that keeps him from getting cavities. It may even have
> > helped him to reroot a tooth he had knocked out when he was a child.
>
> Please tell me something. Does he have any children?

I certainly hope not.

> Do all of his
> children have this wonderful mutation so that they can pass it on to
> their children?

He inherited it from his father's side of the family, and since his
father has had nothing to do with him since he was a child, I can
answer no further questions about that side of his family.

> That's how evolution works right?

Yes.

> Or is this another
> chance to demonstrate evolution which slipped through the fingers of
> science?

No.

As I mentioned in another reply, the trait is present in other people.
When we get to the point where we can identify and transfer gene loci
between people, I expect that some enterprising person will track it
down and offer it to the general public.

Mark Isaak

unread,

Apr 7, 2003, 2:01:51 PM4/7/03

to

On Sat, 5 Apr 2003 04:36:32 +0000 (UTC), some_wh...@yahoo.com
(Nowhere Man) wrote:

>Do the facts agree with evolution theory or Biblical creation? Let us
>examine the evidence.

Others have commented on your mangling of evolution and the observed
facts. Your creation model also has some problems.

The creation model says that the fossil record will show sudden
*simultaneous* appearance of completed forms, with *absolutely* no
gradual transitions.

The creation model has been falsified. The fossil record shows new
forms appearing at times scattered througout a more than 500,000,000
year history, not over three days. And there are transitions, both
gradual and less fine grained.

The creation model does not predict sudden appearance of man-made
structures, which is lucky for it, since we don't observe a sudden
appearance, either. You are correct that a sudden appearance of
language is part of the creation model.

The evolution model does not predict that animals will vary. As a
result of the Flood, there should be extremely little variation within
species. (And however you choose to define "kind", kind would mean
species *after* the flood.) Obviously, the creation model is false on
this point.

You made this up. The Bible says nothing about mutations.

Lane Lewis

unread,

Apr 7, 2003, 4:34:33 PM4/7/03

to

"Nowhere Man" <some_wh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:cb65864a.03040...@posting.google.com...

> "Lane Lewis" <lanej...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<k7Xja.80954$j8.22...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...

snip

> >
> > Take a look at trilobites , 15,000 species discovered and more being
> > found all the time. Note that some have lost their eyes and this can be
> > documented. But you of course want the transitional between these 15.000
> > species don't you and then you would want the transitional between the
> > transitional :O)
> >
> > Nice try. Got any better arguments.
> >
> > http://www.aloha.net/~smgon/ordersoftrilobites.htm
> >
> > Lane
>
>
> So you found a bunch a trilobites. The only change you can show us is
> loss of function? You can't show us a trilobite turning into a fish or
> mouse? Doesn't sound very transitional to me.
>
> NM
>
>

No they developed eyes too, even complex ones and then lost them again.
After losing the eyes completely some developed a more streamlined body
shape for swimming or for moving thru silt and sand. Trilobites are the best
documented of all the transitional as they lived for hundreds of millions of
years and changed dramatically over that time. Some trilobites even
developed spines as a protection device. Definitely not a loss of
"information".

Whales though not as well documented developed from a land creature and
ended up with a entirely new body shape complete with sonar. Hardly a loss
of "info" there either.

But you missed the point of my post, no matter how many fossils I point
out, you just keep asking for the transitional between the latest two but
evolution doesn't work always in that way. Say a trilobite who normally had
large eyes acquired a mutation that prevented any eye growth. This trilobite
may indeed have an advantage in the silt and may even replace those with
eyes. Now if you came along and asked for a transitional between the two
there would not be one would there. Evolution doesn't always move in
discrete steps that you may have imagined.

Lane

AC

unread,

Apr 7, 2003, 5:42:23 PM4/7/03

to

You seem to have lost the theory of evolution somewhere. Now you are
working with a straw man.

--
A. Clausen

maureen...@nospam.alberni.net (Remove "nospam." to contact me)

Bjoern Feuerbacher

unread,

Apr 8, 2003, 5:27:36 AM4/8/03

to

some_wh...@yahoo.com (Nowhere Man) wrote in message news:<cb65864a.03040...@posting.google.com>...

> "Lane Lewis" <lanej...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<k7Xja.80954$j8.22...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...

[snip]

> > Take a look at trilobites , 15,000 species discovered and more being
> > found all the time. Note that some have lost their eyes and this can be
> > documented. But you of course want the transitional between these 15.000
> > species don't you and then you would want the transitional between the
> > transitional :O)
> >
> > Nice try. Got any better arguments.
> >
> > http://www.aloha.net/~smgon/ordersoftrilobites.htm
> >
> > Lane
>
>
> So you found a bunch a trilobites.

You didn't even look at the website mentioned above, right? You prefer
to walk around with closed eyes - after all, looking at the evidence
could show you that you are wrong.

> The only change you can show us is
> loss of function?

No. There are lots of examples of changes mentioned at the website
above. Try looking at it for a change.

> You can't show us a trilobite turning into a fish or mouse?

Why do you expect to see this?

> Doesn't sound very transitional to me.

What does "transitional form" mean to you?

Robin Levett

unread,

Apr 8, 2003, 7:02:00 AM4/8/03

to

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de>
wrote in message
news:4bb90092.03040...@posting.google.com...

"Whatever scientists can't show me?"

--
I don't trust camels - or anyone else that can go for a week
without a drink.
(Use rle...@ibmrlevett.uklinux.net - deleting big blue -
for email)