The California Collection

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ The California Collection / TheCaliforniaCollection.cdr / his065 / evol_end.arj / EVOL_END.TXT

Wrap

Text File | 1985-11-20 | 80KB | 1,689 lines

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ (C) Copyright 1991 by the Religion & Ethics RoundTable of GEnie. All rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted to not-for-profit groups to print this in its entirety AS IS provided that this notice is included: To sign up for GEnie, follow these steps: 1. With your computer and modem, dial 1-800-638-8369 2. When you connect, type HHH and press the RETURN key 3. The computer will respond U#= 4. You respond by typing the following: XTX99669,GENIE 5. Now answer the questions on the screen and you will be able to use GEnie the next working day. Have your credit card or checking account number handy. ======================================================== ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 301 Wed Sep 27, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 at 18:22 CDT Sorry there Herm but it there was lots of stuff that I thought needed saying. Phil, I'm going to be no help at all on the Bio end. I was just barely able to pass bio 100 in college! Bob ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 302 Wed Sep 27, 1989 E.RAMSEY2 [SYNTHESIS] at 20:57 EDT TO RICKOLSON, RE: CAT 12, TOP 7, MSG 16 So you have read all the Bible *AND UNDERSTAND* all the Bible? Then by all means, you should write a book and let us all fully understand it as perfectly as you do. Then this topic will die from inactivity But will the Lord be praised? I think not! SYNTHESIS Research ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 303 Wed Sep 27, 1989 E.RAMSEY2 [SYNTHESIS] at 20:59 EDT Has anyone read *The Twelfth Planet* by Z. Sitchin? It should provoke debate here for months to come! It is based on Sumerology (the study oof the Sumerian Civilization/Culture) and has some pretty strong sscientific evidence supporting the idea that humans were genetically created by ???? No one knows. SYNTHESIS Research ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 304 Thu Sep 28, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 00:22 PDT E.RAMSEY, Such evidence would have to be very strong indeed. What sort of evidence and how could Sumerology possibly have anything to say about human genetics? ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 305 Thu Sep 28, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 18:23 CDT Well, I had intended this to be a start for replies to my long message but there seems to be none. Be it known that I am NOT attacking all of creationism. If you want to believe that the Earth was created 10,000 years ago (or even one second ago) I will not dispute it except with that argument in my first message about having a God that is deliberatly decieving us. What I AM attacking is the arguments that claim there is a scientific base to creationism. It just aint so. Anyone who tells you it is so is lying or has recently made a very new and very radical discovery. Bob ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 306 Fri Sep 29, 1989 TSG1 at 09:50 EDT They are lying, to be sure, but they don't realize it. They have reached a conclusion, and are now desperately grasping at "facts" that support it. The real facts, those that prove them wrong, are either ignored or discredited. They have no need to find the truth, they are already sure that they have found it, and will reject anything that contradicts it. ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 307 Fri Sep 29, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 21:41 CDT Gads, they really arn't responding. OK, time to give the bad guys some ammo so the game can continue. You might want to check out _The_New_Geology_ by somebody Price. It's geology and I don't know much about it. Bob ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 308 Fri Sep 29, 1989 TSG1 at 23:33 EDT They probily don't either. ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 309 Sat Sep 30, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 00:05 EDT As I said that was a well-put-together defense and was based on reading smessages from the "creationists" on the board. I mentioned back in message 149 the reason I am NOT a creationist although I do believe that man was directly created by God. As for our/there taking some time to give an intelligent answer to your message, I say you are not very patient! Besides I asked two questions: Message # 201 and # 209 which are very simple yet have not yet had an answer to. I am uploading the 300 messages of this topic to the Library tonight in ARCed form. You will find that much of this discussion has weaved in and out of the same argument. I think if all have the latter messages in their entirety it would help keep the discussion progressing. Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 310 Fri Sep 29, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 23:04 PDT Herm, It sounds as if you position is similiar to that espoused by the Catholic church. I am glad you are not a creationist, thought sometimes you talk like one :-). In the latest issue of Science there is an article by EL Simons on Human Evolution. It is a very up-to-date and well written. No need for a PhD in anthropology. ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 311 Mon Oct 02, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 18:23 CDT Was it just me that got the "inconplete message" statement or did everyone? It reset all messages here to new. ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 312 Thu Oct 05, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 18:20 CDT First I'm going to get real basic and list off just what the scientific method is. ~ 1. Think up a theory. 2. Figure out what some physical results of the theory might be and from this figure out an experiment that would show if your theory is true or false. 3. Check your theory with nature. Preferably SEVERAL times. 4. If nature agrees, then use the theory until nature doesn't agree. The more times nature agrees the more confidence you have in the theory. 5. If nature DOESN'T agree then you can either try to fix the theory and start at 2. or just trash it and go back to 1. ~ Now, Harry, what is all this about a TRUE science as opposed to the one we are using? You really got me confused there last night! ~ Note that the scientific method never proves anything. It can increase you confidence to amazing proportions but never leave no doubt. Also note that science checks only with nature. Thus, if something is supernatural, science will not work. Let's say the mankind was created by God. Then the scientific method should not work because something supernatural has happened. Science, however, does seem to have worked and has given us a good (high confidence) theory on how mankind came to be. It could be that the way in which God created mankind made it look, to the scientific method anyway, like evolution has happened. ~ What we have been seeing on this board, however, is supposed to be scientific evidence for creation. When subjected to the scientific method these theories have all died. Now, some were never treated because they were either forgotten or nobody on our side felt capable of trying. ~ Harry, the lack of even considering the supernatural may be what led you to throw out that bit about science having a hidden agenda against God. I assure you, scientist don't wake up every morning and think "How can I make more people declare that God doesn't exist." ~ Tom said last night that science is doomed from the start because they throw out the Bible. That may well be, but science has done mighty well so far. As long as science doesn't run up against anything supernatural it should do well. ~ Harry, their are plenty of things that are Bogus! When I say something is bogus in this topic I mean that it dies fast under the scientific method. Because the arguments are supposed to be scientific and obviously arn't I call them bogus. They could still be true, but science isn't going to discover it unless we find out that quite a bit of our confidence was unfounded. ~ Say we get a theory that shows that the Earth is young because the great lakes arn't big enough. They/he/she says something like: Rivers are always flowing into the Great Lakes but no water is flowing out so the Lakes should be much deeper than they are now if the Earth is to be billions of years old. Of course, rivers DO flow out of the Lakes (Niagra Falls) but the theorist has managed to miss this fact. This I would label either bogus or an out & out lie. ~ This may seem a foolish argument to anyone who knows anything about the Great Lakes, but many of the "creation scientists" arguments seem just as foolish to anyone who knows anything about the area of science the creation scientist is talking about. Not only that, they like to repeat the argument OVER and OVER to anyone who will listen. If the listener is lucky he/she will know something about what the creationist is talking about and will ignore him/her. But if the listener doesn't know the particular area of science under discussion he/she will find it hard to refute the arguments. What if you didn't know anything about the Great Lakes? Would you believe the fellow that told you the bogosity? Many would. ~ I am not a free thinker. My thinking costs time and a few calories. <grin> ~ <say, is there a Death Penalty topic somewhere in here? If so where?> Da Sloth ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 313 Thu Oct 05, 1989 HJOHN [Harrison] at 21:56 EDT Hey, who am I to argue with scientists! I thought that when something doesn't pan out the way scientists want it to, they don't call it bogus; they say maybe the method was faulty, or perhaps we made a miscalculation and so on. We don't expect you to accept a short time frame for the universe just because we say it is so. But then neither should you expect us to swallow your explanations for the development of the universe over millions or billions of years! Furthermore, since when has the scientific method included the kind of mud- slinging and personal attack as has gone on on this board. I don't mind arguing issues but I don't like this juvenilish behavior of name- calling as some have indulged in on this board. ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 314 Thu Oct 05, 1989 ARNIEBELL at 21:51 PDT Harry, those of us of the scientific persuasion object most STRONGLY to people who ignore the facts. Science deals first and foremost in observable facts, and the facts themselves are by definition not in dispute. Science then starts examining those facts, trying to come up with the best possible explanation for them. As more facts are discovered, the explanation is either modified or discarded altogether. But the facts don't change. You choose to ignore facts and observations. That's your right. This head-in- the-sand mentality is pointless, but you're entitled to it. But when you try to use the scientific method to validate your point of view, you're out of line. Why? Because you only want to use bits and pieces of the raw data, and because you aren't willing to use the scientific method. That's what we object to. Believe anything you want to, whether or not it makes sense to the rest of us. But once you step into the scientific arena, you must play by the generally accepted rules of science. If you're not willing to do that, then stay in the arena of pure faith. ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 315 Thu Oct 05, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 22:32 PDT Yes, Harry, that is the way science works. Saying that you are wrong is part of the game. Pointing out mistakes is also part of the came. Continuing to ignore evidence and constant repetition of data you must know to be false will get you called a name. If someone deliberately distorts information, that will get them called a name also. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 316 Fri Oct 06, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 20:48 CDT I'm sorry if I have been too nasty here, but these guys really get my canines growin. Let me see if I can show you what I mean. ~ ~ Gen 1:13 "And a strange light then shone on many peoples so that those peoples could only bear children by others that recieved the light. Those children of those that were shone upon were of purer soul and won the favour of God." ~ This appears to me (Rev. Sloth of The Church of The Holy Understanding) that this is a very strong argument for evolution. I have tried to point this out to religious leaders of all kinds but they just send me empty arguments or, more often, ignore me entirely. ~ ~ Now, the above Bible quote is pure bogus. Gen 1:13 says no such thing at all. What if I were to put this quote up on the board (without this explanation) and start claiming like that? You would, I would guess, calmly say that the quote is not at all what is in the Bible. Say I then do an IGN 7 PERM and go and upload the same message in topic 10. You will repeat your argument, possibly with a little hint that I really am not doing the right thing. I then respond with a nasty letter about "orthodox fundamentalist," never to return to the religion RT. ~ But it doesn't stop there! I then start mailing out random GEmail letters with the quote. Many of those reading it write me to inform me of my vlagerant misquote and bad spelling, a few however, who don't have a Bible on hand, believe it. ~ This was designed to reflect my view of some of the "scientific" creationist's (not the ones here on this board, but I had better not name names or I may get in dutch) way of doing things. To someone who is not educated in the particular disciplin of science that the creationist is using his arguments may seem reasonable, but to someone who knows what he is talking about they are not at all reasonable. ~ By the way, what DOES Gen 1:13 say? This green back Gideon doesn't have it. Da Sloth ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 317 Fri Oct 06, 1989 HJOHN [Harrison] at 23:22 EDT For your edification, Genesis 1:13 says: "And the evening and the morning were the third day." BTW, a nice text for the fact that the days of creation were literal days, not aeons as some believe! ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 318 Fri Oct 06, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 23:33 EDT Harry, Were there any humans on earth at the time mentioned above? Who is naming the "day?" And how long is a "day" to God? (Psalm 90:2,4) Further at Genesis 2:4 Moses lumps ALL the "days" into one day! "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the DAY that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens." (Genesis 2:4) Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 319 Sat Oct 07, 1989 E.RAMSEY2 [SYNTHESIS] at 20:57 EDT Hear, hear Arnie and Da Sloth. For you bystanders, the above is some- what of an extension of the Wednesday nite RTC after 11:00 pm. The file was saved and will be the last file in the library any moment now. ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 320 Sat Oct 07, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 21:46 EDT I think Harry turned off the "Steno" at 11pm, so the notes will only run to that point. Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 321 Sat Oct 07, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 23:13 CDT But our capture buffers went on! I still have the files saved if somethin messed up. ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 322 Sun Oct 08, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 11:11 CDT Almost forgot, HJOHN could you tell me what this "True Science" thing is? ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 323 Wed Oct 11, 1989 R.LEE11 at 17:37 CDT I uploaded a file to the libarary called GENEWARS.TXT that might be relevant to this topic. Please read and comment if you want. ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 324 Sat Oct 14, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 14:33 PDT Interesting report in Science. Stone tools dated to 1.5 million years old (perhaps as old as 2 million) and similiar to the Olduvwan type tools, have been found in Europe. Some disagreement as to if the rocks in question are manufactured. The dates are fairly good- cross checked by faunal dating and Potassium-Argon Dating. ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 325 Sat Oct 14, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 18:47 EDT Phil, pL your dating processes are as invalid as the Bible is to you. Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 326 Sat Oct 14, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 22:35 CDT Why Herm, keep forgeting to ask? If the water is stopping the cosmic rays then it will also fall apart. Cosmic rays are gennerally powerfull enough to blow the beehoovies out of the ox/hyd bonds! <Beehoovies is the scientific term for...weelll..OK.. it isn't a scientific term but it gets the idea across!!> DDa Sloth ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 327 Sun Oct 15, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 13:18 EDT Sloth, With the heat that is currently in the thermosphere the oxy/hydrogen bond would be nonexistent and there would be much ionization to absorb the cosmic rays. I'm not sure, though, what could have occured to cause the atoms to reform into water from the canopy, but I do know that once a catalyst was introduced, (like platinum), it would be a chain reaction of violent proportions. Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 328 Sun Oct 15, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 15:19 CDT Now things are getting tricky! Many people think that science can dispose of the Creationists easily. Unfortunately, it just aint so. Things may get a bit technical here. ~ Hydrogen is the lightest element there is on a per molecule basis. Just one electron and one proton. Also, at the 80 miles Herm is talking about, the temperature is pretty warm (though you have to watch yourself as there isn't all that much up there TO be warm) at about 400K (or something like 250 deg F) and rising quickly as you get higher. ~ Cosmic rays will be bombarding the water band. The water will absorb these rays at the expense of the bond between the hydrogen and oxygen. The oxygen is heavy enough (again, per molecule) that it should have little trouble, but the hydrogen atom will! ~ The reasons why get a bit techincal, involving escape velocities, random walks, and the Jean's escape problem. If you really are interested (and already know a good bit of physics) you can look in Shu's _The_Physical_Univirse_ for a good explination. [actually, I tried to write out an explination but it was getting very long and I was pretty sure that all those that would understand it would already be on my side.] Anyway, it turns out that you will be loosing a large number of hydrogen atoms to space, never to be seen again. In oversimplified terms, your hydrogen will be evaporating off of the Earth at a pretty good clip. ~ Now don't dispair yet! You can always start off with extra water. As a matter of fact you are going to need it if you want to throw radioactive dating off by factors of a thousand. But then you come up against the lighting problem again. Figuring just how much water you will need to still have enough left over (after 5000yrs was it?) to cause a Flood and figuring how much you will need to throw off radioactive dating (of all types I should guess) by a factor of 1000 and then seeing if we get any visible photons down on the surface afterward would be a very hairy problem. Say 8 or 9 hours if I had lots of books handy. I'm sorry but I just don't have that kind of time! Maybe I can fit it in later. ~ I wonder about the water throwing off radioactive dating. I'm not so convinced that your water band (and other things maybe? I really got to get that book!) would throw off all the types of radioactive dating by the same factor. Water is good for absorbing some types of cosmic rays, but I shouldn't be surprised if some other types got through without a hitch. Phil, perhaps you know more about this?? Da Sloth <Hope this was the same topic that Herm's message was in!> ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 329 Sun Oct 15, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 23:43 EDT Sloth, To address the problem of light getting through all the water up there at the thermosphere, consider this: At 80 miles high there would be a sphere with the radius of 211200 feet and circumference of 663504 feet. with just a foot of water at this area there would plenty of room to hold all of the water you /I am suggesting. This would allow plenty of light in as well. Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 330 Sun Oct 15, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 23:45 EDT Actually the number for the circumference should be a much larger number in the message above. Herm PS. Too late to think! ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 331 Sun Oct 15, 1989 ARNIEBELL at 20:46 PDT I have a technical question about these temperature extremes we are discussing. We start on the surface of the earth at a normal temperature. As we go higher in the atmosphere, it gets progressively colder. Then, apparently, there is this region where the temperature is quite high (although I would ask, the temperature of what?--the minimal atmosphere that is up there?). But then we get out into space, where it is exceedingly cold. Why is there this band of high temperature? ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 332 Mon Oct 16, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 18:47 CDT Like I said Herm, your water is getting pulverized into oxygen and hydrogen and the hydrogen then floats off into outer space. You need LOTS of extra water up there if you want to still have enough to Flood the Earth. Oh, I made a rather large mistake (sometimes called an accidental lie;) last night. Even though the temperature at 80 miles would be somewhere near the boiling point of water AT ONE ATMOSPHERE pressure, it would be way past it at 80 miles up. It would be well into the gas phase. ~ Arniebell, the temperature jumps up and down as you go higher because of varius effects. Heavy duty atmospheric physics to tell you exactly why. In the end the tempurature goes up to something like 1000 deg C. The reason it is so cold in space (as I think you were starting to think of) is that there is very little there TO warm you. The temperature of the average particle that hits you is plenty high, but when you only have a few dozen particles per cubic centimeter, they don't warm you much. Note that the light from the sun will still warm you up just fine, but the side of you away from the sun will be freezing fast. Of course, the lower pressure will be vaporizing the those parts that boil at low pressure also. All around nasty. ~ <Still reading ICR stuff here, if I see them use the 2nd law of thermo completely wrong one more time I may throw up!> <I strongly suspect that I will so I am keeping a bucket handy;> Da <1/590-1> Sloth ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 333 Wed Oct 18, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 21:12 PDT I wonder, Herm, if you have ever heard of something called Occam's Razor? By the way, I write tonight from San Francisco. We are still here. ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 334 Thu Oct 19, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 18:12 CDT Wish ya could have gotten to the RTC last night Phil! On Gaps. Please see Cuffey's "Paleontologic Evidence and Organic Evolution" in the _Journal of the American Scienctific Affiliation_ or better yet see the reprint in Mantagu's _Science and Creationism_. The latter may very well be in public libraries. This article gives many referances to transitional forms. Hopefully this will convince some of you that insist on saying there have been no transitional fossiles something to read. They HAVE been found. These are very interesting as Gish has said that In other words, the really crucial evidence for evolution must be provided by the palaeontologist whose business it is to study the evidence of the fossil record. As a matter of fact, the discovery of only five or six of the transitional froms scattered through time would be sufficient to document evolution. Well, Cuffey's article points to far more than five or six transitional forms. Closer to fifty I would say. Let there be no more doubt, transitional forms are there for the viewing. <If you are feeling very ambitious, you may be able to actually go and Tom wanted to see this but I forgot his mail address! Da Sloth <who is learnin more and more about the palent. side> ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 335 Thu Oct 19, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 19:34 EDT Phil, Glad to see you made it! I was thinking of having an RTC just for the stories you people could tell about the earthquake. (Any interrested?) About "Occam's Razor", I had heard the phrase before I think but never investigated it. Should I? Sloth, what for instance have they transisted into? I mean sure a dog changes into a "German Shepherd", or Collie, or whatever, but do they have fossils of the transition from a dog to a goat for instance? Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 336 Thu Oct 19, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 19:54 CDT Lez see here, lots of latin words I don't know. They are transitions between, for example, reptiles to birds and such. ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 337 Thu Oct 19, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 19:35 PDT I discussed this article at length above, in response to one of harrison's repetitions of the "no transitional fossils" myth. The point is that creationism, if it is to considered scientific, predicts that transitional fossils should not exist between the major taxonomic groups. The article by Cuffey cites articles from the paleontological literature that documents transitions between successive specids within the same higher taxon (genus), transitional individuals grading continouosly between sucessive species and crossing from one higher taxon to another, successive species within the same higher taxon, successive species crossing from one higher taxon to another and succesive higher taxa. He presents a massive amount of evidence to refute this creationist claim. I have made the charge in the past that creationists know about these (since I have mentioned them many times), yet continue to ignore them. After a few months, we see this claim again. Either they have very short memories or they are counting onthe average reader having a short memory. If they want to reject this evidence, the need to address their objections point by point to Cuffey's article. ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 338 Thu Oct 19, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 22:40 EDT I would think that since the transition from a dog (or doglike animal) to a horse was fairly recent that there should be plenty of evidence. Instead what the evolutionists show are birds that look a little reptilian, and reptiles that look a little birdish. What I want to know is WHAT HAPPENED to those transitions between those less spectacular changes? If a dog can survive then why not what its next step was? If a horse can exist then why not the previous step? Yet what we find is that the creatures that exist now cannot in any way share genetically with ANY other type of creature. Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 339 Thu Oct 19, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 23:09 EDT I don't forget your replies Phil, but usually they are just the request for us to read a certain book. Well I ask you to quote the strongest argument they have. I asked a simple question but obviously you have not presented a simple answer. Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 340 Fri Oct 20, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 20:23 CDT A simple question implies a simple answer? WRONG!!! Do I really need to think of an example for it? Did Adam have a navel? Did the first trees have rings? Simple questions, but the answers are not so simple. Why did the most recent precursor to the horse die out? The environment changed slightly, favoring the newer horse. That is pretty basic natural selection stuff Herm. I see why Phil keeps asking you guys to read liturature. The truth is you know very little about evolution and natural selection. What's more, you don't seem willing to learn. There are plenty of "evolution-for-begginers" books out there, why not get one? You could even kill two birds with one cosmic ray by getting Kitcher's _Abusing_Science that I quoted above. Learn evolution and be ready for my answers, all in one book. Granted, evolution is no piece of cake to learn. I bet you can handle it though. What have you got to loose? It's free at the public library. <Or close to it> Da Sloth ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 341 Fri Oct 20, 1989 HJOHN [Harrison] at 23:45 EDT Actually some of us have so much material to grasp about true science and true religion that we honestly don't have time to indulge in man-made inventions about the evolution of the world. Remember the Biblical injunction quoted earlier. How true it is: God made man upright but they have sought out many inventions. Ecclesiastes 7:29 ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 342 Sat Oct 21, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 00:53 EDT Sloth, I keep repeating the question because I want you to hear how rediculous your answer is! To assume that the nearest relative of EVERY living thing was waisted just because of a simple change in landscape is inconcievable. How many times do landscapes chage the world over? Do you honestly believe that just because it was replaced in one section of the world that it would absolutely be replaced in every itty bitty nook and cranny, Island, and jungle and wilderness? This is madness. Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 343 Sat Oct 21, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 17:28 CDT Oh my, poor Harrison, doesn't have time to learn evolution. You sure seem to have plenty of time to talk about how wrong it is. I'm sorry but when someone goes on and on about how X is wrong without even knowing the most basic things about what X even is I tend to ignore that someone. Herm, you seem to have fallen for my little trap. I said there was a change in environment, not landscape. Much of the time a particular sort of animal will find itself being crowded out of a nitch as some mutant comes in and fills the nitch better. Why do I argue with people that won't even bother to find out what they are arguing about? Interesting to see how none of the other side has said something like "I _HAVE_ read a book or two on evolution" at any time. It would seem like the perfect answer to my charges that you haven't. Gads, even a freshman textbook would do it. I've bothered to go out and read Fossiles say NO! and some Acts & Facts and Impacts. It has really helped in anticipating your arguments and you will probably be likewise informed about my answers. Da Sloth ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 344 Sat Oct 21, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 16:20 PDT How comforting it is to have all the answers. How nice it is that no one can challange the foundations of your belief with silly little things like evidence. Harrison, you wouldn't know a scientific arguement if it walked up to you and offered a formal introduction. It is really too bad that neither of you feels that the actual evidence has anything to do with the answers to the question. This is why creationism should be kept out of the science classroom. You don't want the kids to ask questions, just accept your answers. You want some quotes? for Harrison: "I do not think about things I do not think about." "Do you ever think about things you do think about?" -Exchange between Brady and Drummond "Inherit the Wind." for Herm: To ask a question, you must first know most of the answer." Robert Sheckley (Science Fiction Author) One last thing. I wouldn't start talking about "man made inventions" to loudly. We might start to put God on that list. ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 345 Sat Oct 21, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 16:28 PDT Herm, No offense, but you questions don't make much sense. As long as you refuse to learn anything about what evolutionary theory is about, you will not only be unable to ask intelligent questions, you will be unable to understand the answers. Evolution is about ancestry. Your ancestors are no longer alive, now are they? Your ancestors lived along time ago and died. In doing so, some of what they are was passed on to you. Do you see the point. What if I recommended a short book on evolution for you? It stands to reason that if your understanding of what evolution is about is that poor, then you might not object to evolution once you understand it. ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 346 Sat Oct 21, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 20:58 EDT Phil and Sloth, I believe you are ducking the issue by saying I am uninformed. I posed the question as to why were the earlier "species" replaced by the newer in every instance. Phil you asked the question about my grandparents. Sure MY grandparents aren't around anymore, but that doesn't mean everyone else's grandparents are gone. What law says that since the horses in North America changed that the ones in Asia had to at the same time? Have you not heard that the shark is one of the few animals which scientists say have not changed since prehistoric times? This means that animals do NOT HAVE TO CHANGE. Since they do not have to change then there should be some very close ancestors of each and every species of animal we have, as well as some animals "mutating" from the same original parent into two separate types. Sure I read some evolution books, and it looks like so much nonsense and incredible ideas that it doesn't surprise me that they have to revamp the whole idea every 5 years. Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 347 Sat Oct 21, 1989 ARNIEBELL at 21:01 PDT Perhaps the best argument FOR teaching the scientific method in our schools can be found in the creationist responses in this topic... ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 348 Sun Oct 22, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 00:23 PDT Herm, I still am not sure what you are looking for. Do you want to know why the ancestor of the horse is not around? Well, I don't know exactly. I do know that Eohippus is clearly ancestral to Equus and I do know that Eohippus is extinct. From these FACTS I can form a hypothesis, but it appears that you want an absolute answer. There is no law that called for the extinction of Eohippus. Eohippus did become extinct, however. I don't know, what exactly are you looking for? ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 349 Sun Oct 22, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 12:56 CDT OK Herm I will go ahead and try and set you straight. I can see the answers well enough myself and I know next to nothing about evolution. Where does that put your knowledge of the subject? First of all, speicies don't have to change. No duh, what else is new? Evolution doesn't say they do and I rather doubt that it ever did. There are plenty of primitive creatures that do just fine despite the changing world, thus they perpetuate. No law says that horses in North America have to change at the same time as the ones in Asia. Australia has bunches of unique species. This is because the environment followed a different path there. Please remember that the environment includes all the other animals and plants, not just landscape and ice ages. How many different types of horses are there? Bet it is over 20 easily. All these are close genetic relations. If you are looking for closely related species, monkeys come to mind. Many different species can live side by side, filling the same nitch. "The whole idea" has never been revamped. Some particulars have been changed here and there, I admit. This is something we call GROWTH, I'm sure you heard of the concept somewhere way back when. Really Herm, this is why we would like you to read and at least try and understand evolution. Saying things like you did is equivilant to screeming out "I'm ignorant of evolution!" Da Sloth ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 350 Sun Oct 22, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 15:05 EDT Phil, So again the ancestor to the animal is extinct. Why couldn't that Eohippus just be another breed of horse. What you have said is that ALL Eohippuses have, throughout the world, randomly mutated into the same being. With millions of individual horses in the world, you do not find this to be a little hard to believe? Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 351 Sun Oct 22, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 13:14 PDT If the process was as you describe it, then it would be hard to believe. Have you ever seen these fossils? Do you know why they are said to be ancestral to the horse? I really can`t help you if you refuse to learn what the opposition`s arguements are. It seems to me you are reviewing a book you have not read. Do they have a Museum of natural history in your area? If you will wait awhile, I have might be able to write a small paper on evolution outlining the basics of the process. At least you should, perhaps, look over Alfred Romer's _The Vertebrate Story_ for some visual aids. Tell me why biologist feel Eohippus was ancestral to the modern horse, then tell me why you think this is incorrect. Then we can talk. ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 352 Sun Oct 22, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 20:05 EDT Phil, I spend much time on this board educating people as to the basis of the Bible for religious consideration. I feel you too are spending time educating us to understand the "religion" of evolution. I do not feel that evolution is "truth" but your efforts may persuade me (and others) to a different stand. Presently the only reason you have given for me to invest more time into the study of evolution is because "respected" scientists say it is so. I do not buy that. I see no reason why I should believe just because you or they say so. Doing what you said about writing a paper on evolution may be a good place for you to start. My attitude may sound rediculous to you, but I think if more were less shy to express their thoughts you would find that I am not in a minority. Most fail to see why they should put forth the effort. This topic kind of reminds me of the "trinity" topic where most "Christians" before were satisfied to just accept the clergy teaching of the "triune god." After patiently providing facts as to its validity many were helped to question and investigate this issue. Please understand that I realize you mean well in suggesting such and such material that we should read and I do not mean to belittle your efforts here at all. But unless you provide a basic value in reading them then it probably will not be done. Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 353 Sun Oct 22, 1989 ARNIEBELL at 20:13 PDT Herm, in order to be able to discuss a topic intelligently -- any topic--you must first understand the other side's arguments. That requires some study on your part, study of what the other side's position REALLY is, not what you THINK their position is. It's analogous to the "trinity" argument you raised: in order for you to argue whether the trinity doctrine is true, you must first understand what believers in the trinity doctrine BELIEVE it means. The difference is, of course, that the trinity doctrine has no physical evidence to prove or disprove it, and therefore reasonable people will differ. There is plenty of physical evidence to back up the claims of those who believe in evolution. But before you can refute their arguments, you must first understand in detail what they are proposing. Do the JW's require you to believe any certain way on the question of evolution, or are you free to believe whatever you want on this issue? ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 354 Mon Oct 23, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 00:05 EDT I read some Arnie, but not everything suggested. I do see your point, though. As a JW I agree with the file I just uploaded to the library ,#459. Although no one tells us we HAVE to agree, it is the most logical with the understanding of the Bible as presented by us. Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 355 Mon Oct 23, 1989 A.K.QUINN at 00:55 EDT Recently, in a RT conference on Genie's Religion Forum, I think perhaps I gave a wrong impression of my views and shocked some people who could not understand how a Christian clergyman could say he believed in evolution. Let me clarify: What I do NOT accept: that evolution means God did not directly create man. A former Pope, Pope Paul VI stated that, regardless of other life forms, Catholics must hold that mankind began with two people, as Genesis says. I believe that to be so, but it is not (at present) verifiable by science. But then, a scientist has no way of measuring Faith. Also, I have found that the dogmas about "survival of the fittest" and "inevitable progression of life forms" are not now held by the best minds in science. There is SOME development of Some life forms, but in no way is the old dogmas trustworthy. So, no use beating a dead horse. Of all the beasts in the jungle, man is by far the "unfittest." He is born very vulnerable, and takes a long time to mature. According to the old theory of evolution, man would never have made it. (My faith in science is not as great as that of folks who believe science has done away with God.) "Inevitable progression of life forms": The evidence is against it. It requires a great leap of faith to believe it in the face of newer, more recent studies of fossils. For some years now, in the Burgess Shale (a site in western Canada) scientists like Stephen Gould, who has just written "Wonderful Life", and others from America and Europe have been studying the remarkable fossils there. The fossils were discovered in 1909 by Charles Walcott, head of the Smithsonian. He was an old-time Darwinian, and interpreted what he found in the light of his concept of evolution. In other words, he had a pre- conceived idea, and made the data conform to it (probably unconsciouly.) It turns out he was way off the mark: a fossil he thought to be very prim- itive, turns out to be remarkable complex organism (called Opabinia.) There's lots more, but it comes down to this, and this is where I stand: the old idea of man coming at the end of a long line of ape and other "hominid" beings is outdated--wrong. Gould says the appearance of man on the earth seems to be random--accidental, not the end result of the inexorable grinding of an evolutionary force. These scientists (anthropologists and paleontologists) are NOT talking God, but science.) We religious people have met many pseudo-scientists and people who follow their lead by robotically repeating things long since refuted. There are still folks who debate abortion by claiming a fetus is not human, only a mass of "undifferentiated cells", and the like. They also invoke "science" and get away with publishing outrageous bunk in the news- papers. (Sorry if that seems harsh!) There is a long review of Gould's latest book in the New York Times Sunday Book Review section (October 22, 1989). I recommend it, especially for those who might suspect me of digging up some amateur scientist to give support for my views. One quote from the book: "We are an improbable and fragile entity ... an item of history,not an embodiment of general principles." So there is something to a creationist view that science does not contradict, even if it cannot support it. My Church for centuries has been home to many scientists of the highest rank. The great contribution of theologians like Thomas Aquinas (like the Greek Aristotle before him) has been to stress that the God of the Bible is also the God of science--and everything that is, and that God cannot contra- dict Himself, ever. But we religious people must not fall into an error on the other side by denying all science or even every theory of evolution. There is something to it, but not as much as people think. "The Scriptures were written to teach us how to move the heavens Not how the heavens move." -- Cardinal Bellarmine Kevin Quinn, an ordained Deacon of the Roman Catholic Church ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 356 Mon Oct 23, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 19:17 CDT Kevin, A scientist has no way of measuring faith. I'll buy that, but what has it got to do with anything? "Survival of the fitest" is not held by some of the best minds in science? Could you elaborate? Who are these best minds? Are they throwing the whole idea out or just making small changes? Mankind is not at all unfit! We may not look like much but we are smart enough to grab yonder stick and maybe even sharpen it! What's more we got the brains to use other animals furs. Is this Stephen J. Gould? The same guy that testified against the creationists in Arkansas' infamous act 590? I have two papers sitting here where he positively wails on the creation "scientists" and I believe one of them complains about the ICR and CRI taking his statements way out of context. I may have to seek out this _Wonder_Life_ book. Da Sloth ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 357 Mon Oct 23, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 19:56 PDT Herm, I am not trying to shake your faith in the Bible. I am not an authority on the bible. If you are critical of evolution, however, it is important that you understand that which you are critical of. It might just be that when you understand exactly what evolution is about (and from your statements, I can see that you don't understand it) then perhaps you will find your objects have no grounds. Once again, you give the impression of rejecting a book because it is bad. A.K., Do you know what Opabina is? You you realize how silly it is to attempt to use Stephen Jay Gould to argue against evolution? I met Gould once. He said it really pisses him off the way creationists "creatively" cut and paste his writings. Gould is often critical of certain aspects of evolutionary theory, but he is a selectionists and criticism of some aspect of a theory is what philospher Thomas Kuhn referred to as the "fine-tuning" of ideas that occurs during normal science. I keep current on developments in the field of paleontology and physical anthropology and can tell you that no one had found evidence to reject the general scenerio of hominid evolution. As more and more hominid fossils are uncovered, the story they tell becomes increasingly clear. Perhaps you had best check on the current Catholic position regarding evolution. I believe that it has been modified in recent years. The Church has learned a lesson from the trial of Galileo. ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 358 Tue Oct 24, 1989 A.K.QUINN at 00:28 EDT Folks: Let me make myself clear. I am not a "creationist" in the sense that I think the Genesis account of creation is in any way "science." That is, seven days, etc., must not be taken literally. I accept most of what we can call evolutionary "theory." (I am quite familiar with "the current Catholic position" on evolution--it does not conflict with faith. Yes, we have learned since Galileo: I hope others have as well. But respectfully I disagree with the idea that 'hominid evolution' is universally accepted. Gould's work is only the most recent demurring I have seen. (Is "physical anthroplogy" different from another kind? Like ...? (Everybody familiar with Anthony Standen's book "Science the Sacred Cow"?) I do not flinch when someone overwhelms me with the argument from authority; I'm not even sure Gould is right--if I had ever met him personally, I'm sure I'd be sure! ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 359 Tue Oct 24, 1989 R.LEE11 at 01:46 CDT In his Gifford Lectures, _The Living Stream_, Sir Alister Hardy (who was professor of zoology at Oxford and a respectable Darwinian) cites an odd phenomenon. A flatworm called )Microstomum_ has developed a unique defence system. It eats the polyp _Hydra_ for the sake of its stinging capsules (called nematocysts). When the _Hydra_ has been digested, the stinging bombs are picked up in the lining of the flatworm's stomach, passed through to another set of cells, which now carry them -- like builder's laborers carrying bricks -- to the flatworm's skin, where they are mounted like guns, ready to fire their stinging thread. It is a curious feature that the stinging capsules do not explode when the flatworm eats the _Hyrdra_. What is even stranger is that the flatworm does not eat the _Hyrdra for food_, but only to steal its 'bombs.' Once the flatworm has enough bombs mounted in its skin, it will not touch a _Hyrdra_, even if starving. Now, Darwinian evolutionists, explain this one to me, please. Thanks. ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 360 Tue Oct 24, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 20:55 CDT Phil, I don't know what Opabina is and neither does Webster's Collegiate! I had a feeling that was what was going on, though. Deacon Quinn (sorry, forgot your first name already) I think you will find that hominid evolution is agreed upon by mainstream anthropology. There is undoubtedly a few little bits that aren't agreed upon yet, but no one said it was. R.Lee11, explain what? Are you saying that this is too complex for evolution to handle? Please state your question a bit more clearly. Hmmm, this one is just too short so I think I will get off the defence and go on the attack again. Creations "Scientists" have an interesting habit. To "collect data" they go find some book on some type of science and start scanning it for anything that may support their cause. As soon as they do they start quoting it. Do they check the context it came from? Do they make an attempt to really understand where the data they have found is coming from? Of course not! Case in point (and coming soon to an RTC near you) the Moon Dust argument. The creationist side will probably point to the article by Hans Petterson in "Scientific American" 1959. In it Dr. Petterson measured the influx of dust to be 14 million tons per year. If the creationist's would have bothered to follow this number up they would have found that it was reduced when better measurements were made by satalites. Dr. Petterson worries about his data in the article but the creationist's had a number they liked so they ignored any further developments. Da Sloth ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 361 Tue Oct 24, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 22:03 EDT Sloth, I feel that that is exactly what the evolutionists do with the fossils and evidence--search through it till they find something that supports evolution and use it, while ignoring the obvious inconsistencies as unexplainable. Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 362 Tue Oct 24, 1989 R.LEE11 at 21:10 CDT Re: the flatworm/hydra takeover... please explain this unusual relationship to me, if you could, please, from an evolutionary standpoint. It seems that the data suggests the flatworm "thinks." How could that level of sophistication of planning come in the form of a flatworm's actions? Thanks... ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 363 Tue Oct 24, 1989 A.K.QUINN at 22:53 EDT There is often, on the part of 20th century man, a series of assumptions about science and about faith. To state a few: 1. Science is believable. Scientists are always careful, honest, concerned only with evidence, unbiased, rational, and darned near infallible. 2. Faith is not in the same category. Believers are vague, careless, biased, narrow-minded, and above all, irrational. 3. A scientist is rarely a man of faith. In other words, to be a scientist, one must be reasonable. To be a person of faith is to be gullible. The real scientist relies on instruments and verification. The believer relies on the Bible and mumbo-jumbo, and miracles like weeping statues. That means that scientists like Pascal, Descartes, Curie, Pasteur and De Chardin (no, I'm not partial to the French) all ardent believers, were either hypocrites or schizophrenics. Or else they are not UPTODATE like US. What if 1000 scientists once said that the universe is only 4 billion years old, were they defenders of unchanging truth? No questions asked? No, it is clear now that the figure is too low, so those 1000 must bow to new evidence, or lose the name of scientists. (If someone says to me that science is not always tentative and incomplete, I know immediately he is no scientist. he has some learning, perhaps, but not enough.) And so it is with people who think that the evolutionary explanation as developed in the 19th century must not be challenged, especially when, as Thomas Huxley believed in his simple faith, it does away with the "need for God." (A pity, he had such a good mind. But - this does not mean that a literal, or fundamentalist, view of Genesis must supplant what scientific truth we have up to now. it only means that scientism ( the heresy of science) must not be allowed to assume title to an infallibility far more sweeping than that held by the Pope. after all, his is a very limited one, at that. In the Nicean Creed the Christian prays, "I believe in God, the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth..." This means that whatever exists, in whatever form, under whatever conditions, was caused by God. it does not at all specify how the activity of the Creator took place: whether sudden or long drawn out, swift or slow, direct or indirect. Faith (and reason) do not say. --Let's not go to the Bible to understand the electron, nor to the biology text to understand God.-- ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 364 Tue Oct 24, 1989 A.K.QUINN at 22:59 EDT Sorry, folks, forgot to add that I am not an anthropologist or biologist, my only scientific success has been in my first career in electronics. I do confess to a love of the scientific method to go along with my love of theology and logic. (Too many careers: Army, Teaching, and now church work.) Hope I've not offended anyone... Kevin ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 365 Tue Oct 24, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 22:21 CDT What? Nothing good on TV tonight? Da <off to the capture buffer AGAIN> Sloth ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 366 Tue Oct 24, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 22:56 CDT I don't think so at ALL Herm. Do you have an example of an unexplained fossile that is being ignored? I can show plenty of examples of Creationists ignoring data that is readily available to them. (like the 2nd law of thermo) R.Lee11, children (and adults for that matter) like sugar. Do they like it because it is a great source of energy? No, they like it because it tastes good! Now, I'm not saying that the worm thinks the hydra tastes good, but I would bet that it is something similar. As to how the relationship came about, that would just be an example of the worm adapting to its environment. To give a more detailed step-by-step chronology of how the worm developed this usefull ability I would have to know the evolutionary history of both the worm and they hydra and maybe even the history of some other creatures in the worm's environment. Being a physicist, however, I don't even know the evolutionary history of the famouse horse so I won't even try to guess on the worm's. You might be able to find it in a Journal somewhere but it will probably have bunches of latin words as it will be written for other scientists of the field. AKQ, obviously 20th century man needs a kick in the head. Science reduces doubt but never can abolish it. Please understand that I am not saying evolution should not be challenged, I am saying that the challengers have failed in this case. What's more they have a tendancy to keep using arguments even though they have been shown to be based on false facts. That's when I start pulling out the liar lables. Da Sloth ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 367 Wed Oct 25, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 00:02 PDT Herm, Unless you have some example of a fossil that paleontologists are ignoring because it will somehow be disruptive, then I think your statement maligns some very dedicated, hard working people who have spent their lives digging in the ground to uncover the history of life on earth. The fossil record, the entire fossil record, supports the FACT that evolution has occurred. If you know something I don't, then please share it with me. Quinn, Physical anthropology is the branch of anthropology that seeks to understand human biology and its interaction with culture. Hominid evolution is based upon an ever increasing number of fossils dating back some 4 million years. While intepretations of the fossils is subject to some debate (that is putting it mildly), the relationship of this fossils to modern humans is not disputed. If that conflicts with the position of the church on hominid evolution, I don't know what to say. The question here is not the attempt to demonstrate the superiority of science of religion, nor to somehow show that religious people are fools. I do not feel that science has any buisness making statements about the nature or existence of God or gods or whatever one believes in. I do insist that religion show the same consideration. When dealing with matters of a material nature, science is the way to go. Evolution is based upon a vast array of empirical and experimental data. It is subject to revision and falsification. For these reasons, it is not a religion. Finally, Lee You have presented no evidence of thought, only a behavior that, appears to me to have a distinct selective advantage. ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 368 Wed Oct 25, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 21:01 CDT And as we have answered umpteen million times, you can't publish what isn't there. No creationist article has been submitted! Chris, quantum theory is not in the toilet seat. It is impossible (or is supposed to be) to get a BS in physics without knowing a good bit of Quant. Mech. Since the theory has been widely accepted for, oh, 50 years or so now, I wonder how you got this statement. True, everyone says it is Major Big Time wierd, but they also recognise that it WORKS! Da Sloth ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 369 Wed Oct 25, 1989 A.K.QUINN at 23:26 EDT Phil and DA Sloth et al.: I guess I didn't make myself clear. What you say about hominid evolution I accept. I believe it happened, all right. So did De Chardin, and he was a Jesuit priest who did all that work on Pekin man. No quarrel at all. But-- We draw a very fine distinction between hominid, which really means "man-like" and modern man, or homo sapiens. There is no problem in Catholicism in the development (which is all evolution means) of creatures from simpler forms to more complex, including the whole range of hominids. We don't want to repeat the Galileo disaster. All we say is that, to remain faithful to Christian doctrine on the creation of a "ensouled" man, we must hold to a point (unknown) at which some creature, at some stage of its development received from the Creator the "divine spark." Now, as I see it, this is not what is meant by "Creationism" these days. I may be wrong, but to me Creationism demands literal adherence (word-for-word) to the Genesis account. Catholic scholars do not hold to such a view. So I do not really disagree with you. Science cannot deal with the distinction mentioned above, nor should it be criticized for not being theology. On the other hand, religious people must give science its place, and science must not go beyond its competence. The reason I got into this brouhaha on evolution was really to express what I believe is tenable and rational. In my long life, I have dealt with many people in the scientific community. Only a few of them, I am glad to say, ever showed what I call an unseeming arrogance. Footnote: Many years ago I attended an afternoon tea at Princeton, where I met two great men: Albert Einstein and Jacques Maritain. The latter was a notable philosopher, biologist, and a convert to Catholicism. I was pretty young and dumb, so I didn't say anything--just listened to these two. I wish I could recall all of it; I remember only brilliant talk from brilliant men. But I certainly recall the respect and consummate courtesy of two geniuses. ("If they aren't both in Heaven when (if) I get there, I don't want to go." (Forgive me Lord, only kidding.) Kevin ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 370 Wed Oct 25, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 21:54 PDT I like this. It makes room for everything and "renders unto Ceasar..." striking a wonderful balance. Science stops when the soul is brought into play and can say nothing. The idea of evolution as the instrument through which god works is a powerful and satisfying one. As I have pointed out, being an evolutionists does not exclude one from being a christian. I just hope certain other so-called "christians" are listening. ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 372 Thu Oct 26, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 19:19 CDT Last night's RTC Despite the title of the RTC (New evidence for creation) we were treated to OLD evidence AGAINST astronomy. The creationist side still seems to think that disproving established scientific facts will automatically prove their side. But, false ads from sysops aside, lets look at what Harry and I said. First we had the Moon Dust argument. I already went over this a few messages back but did Harry read my message? Nope, he just parroted away regardless. I, of course, told him that the old data on dust influx wasn't correct and that NASA knew that the old data was a shot in the dark. New data has been gathered by satalites that suggests smaller numbers for the influx of dust. In it Herm made a significant statement. He said that there was really no way to convince a scientist of supernatural creation. That is practically true. Appealing to a "power beyond" is viewed as giving up in the scientific world. However, if ALL other explinations are exhausted, science will accept the "power from beyond." It is then interesting to note that Harry continues to go on like I said nothing at all. I said the the data NASA was working on was faulty a few times. Did Harry say something like "no the data was true to life, here is data showing it was"? Not at all. He just continues on in the typical creationist manner. Ignore what you don't believe. Isn't that the source of the word IGNORant? We then went on to meteorites. Harry says that we should find lots of meteorites in the Earth's crust. The answer was, of course, we do find lots of meteorites in the crust. Harry responed that the C.R.S. couldn't find the expected number of meteorites. We have discussed the C.R.S. already in this topic. They are simply a bunch of rationalists that wouldn't know a decent study if it bit them in the little toe! Next in line was dust around stars. (Yes it is the same dust that falls on the moon, btw) Harry said that all the dust in the solar system should be either blown out of it by the sloar wind or gobbled up by the sun because of the Poynting-Robertson effect. I maintained that the main source of the dust was from the sun passing through the galaxy. That means that, as old dust is ejected, new dust is being collected. Unfortunately I failed to recognise another source of dust, namely comets. They are the source of the zodical light. Harry, however, ignores my argument anyway and continues on. Comets are next. We observe many comets today that simply can't live for millions of years. The tail of a comet that you see are small bits of the comet getting blown of by the solar wind. Because comets are only 10 miles wide or less, they simply can't go on loosing so much of themselves and expect to survive. This is what Harry seemed to be trying to say and I wholeheartedly agree. What Harry assumes, however, is that the comets have been in the same orbits ever since the solar sytem was made. This is not at all likely. It is genneraly believed throught the scientific community that there is a very large number of comets orbiting the sun WELL outside of Pluto's orbit. This is called the Oort cloud. [Note that this far out the solar wind will not effect the comet at all] Now, every so often a star will pass by the sun (pass by meaning come within a few light years of). The comets near the star will be pulled out of the cloud but the comets on the oposite side of the sun will be pulled toward the sun. Those comets coming toward the sun would normally go into a very long period orbit but sometimes a planet will throw their orbit off a bit and shorten it. Thus is born a brand new short period comet. When I told Harry that the comets do die but new comets are formed from the Oort cloud he did not respond. I put it to him rather clearly also. He simply changed the subject. Now we come to an argument I really couldn't answer. Saturn's rings. Harry proclaimed for all that Saturn's rings were unstable. Now, the Voyager probes gathered lots of data that I never got wind of so maybe this came from something they saw. When I ask Harry for some specifics about the instability he simply ignores me. Now, how am I supposed to argue about something I know nothing about? Oh NOW I see! He thinks that I am going to act like him! Forget it Harry. I could easily say something nice sounding like "the shepard moons stabalize it" or something but I won't. This is because I have no idea just what sort of destablization is going on. Should the rings be flying away from Saturn or toward it? Are the rings themselves the source of the destabling or the moons or something else? You have to show me that they are not stable before I can show you where you have made a mistake. Then the stenographer was turned off. That's probably a good thing because I was startin to get real sick of Harry ignoring what I said. He proposes something that may indicate a young solar system. I show him where a mistake was made. Harry changes the subject assuming the he won. That is downright ignorance and I was gettin mighty tired of it, particularly by 11pm. The main thing I think you can garner from this "discussion" is how the creationists, like the astrologer (and the hollow Earther and the follower of dianetics and the srict Freudian and channelers and...), ignore what science is doing. They don't have ANY desire to learn the truth, they simply want to learn that they have been right all along. If something disagrees with their unsubstatiated theories they ignore it. Eventually I imagine they will get out the old hebrew dictionaries and re-interpet until the Bible again agrees with science. Da Sloth ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 373 Fri Oct 27, 1989 E.RAMSEY2 [SYNTHESIS] at 18:58 EDT Da Sloth: I commend you and empathize with your above concerted effort. May I humbly suggest a question? What is Truth? SYNTHESIS RESEARCH [Ernest] ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 374 Fri Oct 27, 1989 HJOHN [Harrison] at 23:44 EDT Thanks for your "summary" of the RTC on evidences for a young earth theory. My purpose in discussing these issues is not to prove who "won" the argument as you and your evolutionist side-kick seem so often to infer. The RTC dealt with well-known scientific data and showed how this phenomena could be explained within the context of a "young earth" theory of origins. Literal creationists believe that the earth is relatively young. Evolutionists believe that the earth is millions, nay billions of years old. As the RTC notes will show, I took several examples and gave explanations as to how they could very well explain a young earth phenomenon. If you have good arguments to refute this view, then present them in a civil manner for all to mull over and enjoy. But resorting to ridicule and innuendo doesn't do much for your reputation as an evolutionist or a scientist! ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 375 Fri Oct 27, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 23:36 PDT You know, I think I have figured this out. Harry`s like an AM radio. He can broadcast, but he cannot receive. Perhaps he has a receive but it is broken or defective. Let's try again. Harry presented several arguements. Sloth pointed out the errors in his arguements (since the discussion was on astronomy, I didn't say much). Sloth refutes harry (check the steno notes). Harry ignores sloth, sums up by saying that there is lots of new evidence for young earth. We need to get harry fixed. ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 376 Sat Oct 28, 1989 ARNIEBELL at 10:01 PDT Phil, I think it's abundantly clear that Harry isn't interested in any arguments, no matter how well-documented, which conflict with or refute his preconceived religious notions. I understand your frustration, but you're wasting your time trying to get Harry to look at things rationally and impartially. All you're going to do is drive yourself nuts. It is, however, most worthwhile to continue pointing out the fallacies and inconsistencies in his statements, and I compliment you for being willing to do so. But when you do so, there's no point in getting irritated at Harry--it won't change his mind, and it only gets you upset. Your "target audience" is someone who doesn't know any better, who has an open mind, and actually thinks that what Harry says makes sense. Fortunately, I think your target audience is very small... ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 377 Sat Oct 28, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 14:50 EDT This only points out what the introduction to my library file #459 asserts-- I think they (creation "scientists") have actually helped the belief in evolution along because it not only asks for the belief in supernatural, (which I endorse), but also that the known laws of the universe were violated by the one who created them. Many knowledgable persons have been known to have a belief in God solely from the fact that they have studied his universe and seen the organization, come to understand his laws and see that chance could not have brought this about. This is what Paul meant when he said "God's invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are percieved by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship." (Romans 1:20) Yet creation scientists are saying: "Forget what you SEE, God just popped it into existance and broke every law which defines him as God!" Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 378 Sat Oct 28, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 14:11 CDT <Looks at Harry's message, shakes his head sadly, and ignores it> Why should I argue him? He destroys himself better than I could. Wish we could get more school boards to read this. ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 379 Sat Oct 28, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 15:50 PDT Herm, on the otherhand, is a gem. ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 380 Sun Oct 29, 1989 HJOHN [Harrison] at 20:30 EST This is a forum of ideas. You present yours, I present mine. Let the readers decide what they wish to take from here. If your views are "right," then you have nothing to worry about! It serves no purpose in attacking the person. Attack the ideas. Frankly, if evolution is such a verifiable, iron-clad, incontrovertible theory, then there is no need for you gentlemen to become so wound up over my "lies." Your readers can best make up their minds about it! ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 381 Sun Oct 29, 1989 A.K.QUINN at 21:21 EST Hjohn: Did you ever see a msg from me in any category referring to Dr.Lejeune, French geneticist? Dunno if I sent it or where!! Kevin ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 382 Sun Oct 29, 1989 H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm] at 21:42 EST Harry, You have to admit even we could learn something here, huh? Herm ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 383 Sun Oct 29, 1989 PANICHOLLS [Phil ] at 21:30 PST As I have said before, this is as much a political issue as anything. Creationists know they can`t win in the scientific community. Their arguements are not for scientists, who can generally see right through them. Ther The arguements are carefully crafted distortions that SOUND acceptible to someone who is not familiar with biology or geology or astronomy. They use the right buzz-words, but lack any real substance. I make use of my GENIE time, which I have to pay for, to make sure that the information you distribute here free of charge does not influence the large number of people who read but do not contribute. They need to know, from people who are in the fields, that your arguements are horse-hockey and why. ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 384 Mon Oct 30, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 18:12 CST Sure, I'm just going to let you lot throw out old, faulty data and let you claim it proves your point. Think again. I equate these creation "scientists" to con men, though I don't think they have the criminal intent. I am not about to sit around and let the lies spew forth. Why do you continue to put lies in quotes? The 2nd law of thermodynamics says that, in a closed system, entropy will tend to increase. Creation "scientists" say the same WITHOUT the closed system part. That is a falsehood. They have been told this often and yet they continue to leave out the closed bit. I then call them liars. Until I see them apologise for the VERY blatent error I will continue to call them liars. The 2nd law, of course, is not the only example of this by a long shot. Da <Harumph!> Sloth ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 385 Tue Oct 31, 1989 R.BINGHAM2 [Da Sloth] at 18:16 CST The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age. H.P.Lovecraft "The Call of Cthulhu" ------------ Category 12, Topic 7 Message 386 Tue Oct 31, 1989 R.LEE11 at 20:02 CST Any evidence of an extinct homonid species which is 12 or greater feet tall that you are aware of ANYONE? ------------ Harry then closed the topic at this point and restarted a new topic by the same name as topic #17. This topic quickly became huge and another topic was started. The creation/evolution debate still rages on to this day (5/12/91) though we are a bit short on creationists just now. GEnie's rates for the Religion/Ethics board (on page 8011) are very reasonable. FREE. Of course, you have to pay $5 or $6 per month (I believe) to keep your account alive and those in the boonies may have to pay additional connect fees but even then the rates are VERY reasonable. If you use the method of joining GEnie mentioned above you will get a sign-up fee. Free accounts aren't too very hard to find so you may want to poke around some magazines a bit before calling this number up.