The California Collection/TheCaliforniaCollection.cdr/his065/evolu225.arj/EVOLU225.TXT

Text File | 1985-11-20 | 98KB | 1,958 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 151       Tue Aug 08, 1989
CHERNOFF [Paul]              at 06:43 EDT

 If there is so much evidence for the Bible's story of creation, why
 did geologists in the 19th century stop believing in the "creation
 story"? These were men who set themselves to find proof of the Word in
 the World. During the 1800s these religious men found that the proof they
 were looking for showed that the Bible did not match the physical
 world.

 The "Genesis rocks" theory is an example of unscientific reasoning to
 explain something. No mechanism beyond "God did it" is proposed. Is
 there any way to check rocks which are really old with rocks God just
 made to look old?

 I don't see the evidence that the world was created in an instant. Not
 that this should be important to you, since whenever you encounter
 evidence to the contrary (such as old rocks) you can just say "God made
 it that way."

 Paul
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 152       Tue Aug 08, 1989
H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm]           at 19:05 EDT

I don't really understand where Harry gets his "Genesis rocks," but the main
reason for the change in belief of the Biblical creation is the radio-carbon
clock.  I do not put much trust in this "clock," their "billions" of years
seem too easy to say.  When they find a dated sample and can check this clock
I will be ready to believe the results scientists claim it gives.  I don't
really see thias a possible remedy so I would say the scientists will be safe
for a while.                           Herm
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 153       Tue Aug 08, 1989
MPIASKIEWICZ [Mark P]        at 23:58 EDT

  John,

  I don't think that saying that the universe evolved is all that much of a
leap of faith. The theorists saw that the Universe was (is) expanding and
simply extrapolated back to see what the conditions were way back when. They
then made predictions based on their calculations, and looked for verification
of the predictions. In the most part the predictions were correct (the
microwave background radiation was one that was verified many years later).

  The theory of evolution works the same way; look back in time using the
fossil record, make some predictions, and dig some more fossils up to check
your theory. One can also look to other branches of science for verification
of the theories. Genetics shows a great similarity between human DNA and
primate DNA (1%-2% difference). The further away on the evolutionary tree that
we look, the more different is the DNA.

  Your statement on the lack of a known mechanism for building enzymes from
non-biological components may be right. I have no knowledge of this aspect of
chemistry, so I'll leave it to the chemists here to comment on. I do know that
amino acids were produced in experiments that were designed to mimic the
conditions that are thought to have existed in the early days of the planet.
The article in which I read this is ~25 years old, so I don't know what the
current findings are.

  You're right that the current unification theories predict particles far too
massive to be produced in any accelerator that we can build. However, as in
the case of the intermediate vector bosons that mediate the weak force, the
massive bosons predicted by the SU(5) theory would exist as virtual particles,
and would produce certain interactions (Proton decay among others) that would
(theoretically) be measureable. Weak interactions were seen many years before
the mediating particles were produced in accelerators. So far there haven't
been any unambiguous results for the search for proton decay (Hey, we ain't
right all the time! :-} ), but the predictions were made by the simplest
version of the SU(5) theory, and there are other versions of that theory to
test. There is also the relatively new superstring theory that seems to answer
a lot of questions that SU(5) tends to ignore. This is all at the forefront of
physics, and you have to expect problems. Look at the convoluted way  quantum
theory was formulated. Theories were formulated and discoveries were made in a
very random manner. Only in retrospect can one follow what went on and make
sense of it. (Computers and CD players, among other things, are a result of
quantum mechanics.)

  I'm not sure how or if science could explore spirituality. I don't think
spirituality is measureable.

  Yeah, I guess I am a purist, but I agree with you. Science is coming up with
a lot of neat ideas that I feel we don't have the wisdom to deal with.
Naturally the bombs come to mind, but there are a lot of other technologies
that are being implemented without regard for their long term effects on the
enviorment.

  Back to spirituality for a sec.. I strongly suggest reading "The Tao Of
Physics" by Fritjof Capra. The Physics may be outdated, but the parallels
between physics and Eastern phylosophy are quite thought provoking.

  --Mark
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 154       Wed Aug 09, 1989
MPIASKIEWICZ [Mark P]        at 00:00 EDT

  I believe that someone here mentioned that Gentry's theories were disproven
in a subsequent article in the the same journal in which they were origionally
published.

  Isn't it amazing how a creationist will latch onto a bit of scientific data
(even though it was proven false) and use it against scientists, and then
completely ignore all scientific data that disproves his view of reality?

  The Bible may be a great source of inspiration, but as a source of
scientific ideas, it leaves much to be desired.

  --Mark
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 155       Wed Aug 09, 1989
MPIASKIEWICZ [Mark P]        at 21:38 EDT

  About a year ago I read "In Search Of The Double Helix" by John Gribbin.
(This is a bit out of my field of interest, which is particle physics as most
folks can tell from my earlier ramblings :-) )

  The author points out that the majority of the DNA molecule has no apparent
function. He then speculates that DNA is the predominant life form on this
planet, and we ("we" meaning all living things) were made by the DNA to serve
as "luxury accommodations" for itself.

  --Mark (just thought I'd toss a bit of gasoline on the fire ;-})
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 156       Fri Aug 11, 1989
E.HAAS                       at 01:51 EDT

     Several experiments have been performed simulating conditions believed to
exist on the Earth several billion years ago.  If left alone for several days,
organic compounds will form, including amino acids.  If left alone for a
longer time, these amino acids will assemble hemselves into proteins.  Enzymes
are nothing more than proteins that serve specific purposes within an
organism.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 157       Fri Aug 11, 1989
PANICHOLLS [Phil     ]       at 23:56 PDT

Gentry's findings were discussed in the journal _Science_ and the errors in
his reasoning pointed out time and time again.  This did not stop him from
expanding his thesis into a book, a book published by a creationist press and
not one of the major publishers of scientific works in his field.

There is at present NO scientific evidence to make creationism a valid
scientific idea.  If someone has such evidence, please tell me, as I can most
certainly make my scientific reputation with it.

Carbon-14 dating is used in archaeology, but not geology or paleontology. The
accuracy of Carbon-14 dating has been cross-checked with other     methods,
such as dendrochronology.  It's accuracy depends mostly on the size and age of
the carbon sample.  These limitations have been overcome to some extent by
accelerator / mass spec calibration of the C-14/C-12 ratio.

The debate over evolution initially took place more than 100 years ago. The
creationists lost.  Like those who claim the earth is flat, they  are but a
historical curiosity, an anachonism.  Creationists today  remind me of those
isolated Japanese soldiers found on remote islands after WWII had ended.  The
war is over, but on the fight, with the zeal of any good fanatic.

There are many more important questions that need answers.  Within the large
body of evolutionary theory, much work still remains.  In my own field
(physical anthropology) the origins of bipedialism, language and tool use are
still open to discussion.  The sequence of hominid evolution becomes more
focused, but still needs work.

With all of this, the only real danger of creationism comes not in its
imagined challange to the scientific orthodoxy, but it the attempt to sneak
their views into the arena of public education.  Creation "science" is bad
science and, according to the world council of churchs, it is also bad
theology.  We need to remind those who represent us in government that this
war is over in the scientific community.  Legislation will not make it less
so.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 158       Sat Aug 12, 1989
HJOHN [Harrison]             at 19:00 EDT

The theory of origins is by no means a subject that has been definitively
proven by so-called scientists.

No one can prove that life began spontaneously although many evolutionists
would have us believe that it did so over a period of millions and billions of
years.

If in the view of the evolutionist the creation of this earth by divine fiat
is ludicrous, I can say no less for the theory that the proper mix of various
elements led to the appearance of a living organism over millions of year.

Can any scientist prove that today? Of course he can't, yet he expects us to
believe by faith that it did happen.

Well, thank you, I prefer to believe by faith that God created the world as he
has revealed it to us in his Word.

There is ample evidence that creation scientists have unearthed about the
evidence of a short geological record.  But unfortunately too many of these
scientists are not given the respect that they deserve.

If you don't believe this, read Gentry's book to see how an eminently
qualified researcher is discriminated against by the scientific community.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 159       Sat Aug 12, 1989
MPIASKIEWICZ [Mark P]        at 21:21 EDT


  The frightening thing, HJOHN, is that people like you teach science.

  --Mark (off on vacation)


 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 160       Sat Aug 12, 1989
DRMIKE                       at 23:45 EDT

Gentry is not an "eminently qualified researcher" discriminated against by the
scientific community. He simply is not an eminently qualified (or in any way
qualified) researcher.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 161       Sun Aug 13, 1989
PANICHOLLS [Phil     ]       at 13:03 PDT

If HJOHN teaches science, then perhaps one of the first things he  needs to
learn is that in science nothing can be "proven."  Every theory, every idea is
subject to challange and falisification.  This is what makes scientific
theories different from dogma.

Evolutionary theory is subject to falsification.  Find precambrian rocks with
human fossils, for example and you have falsified one of the major components
of the system.  As the number of inconsistencies accumulate, younger
scientists, less committed to the current  paradigm, begin to look for better
paradigms.   This has happened to evolutionary theory several times.  As new
information is uncovered, the theory is modified.  That is how science
proceeds.

Creationism is NOT a scientific theory because there is one provision of
creationism that cannot be challanged or examined- the existense of the
creator.  Don't you get it?  If it can't be falsified, it is not science.
Period.  End of discussion.

Is all truth scientific truth?  No, of course not.

Is their no place in a discussion or origins for a creator or diety?

Yes, there is a place.  The majority of organized religions have been able to
avoid conflict with science by placing creators and gods in the position of
first cause, prime mover, in the universe.  Religion addresses the 'whys' or
origins, something that is beyond science. Science can only address the 'how.'


HJOHN, if you truely are a science teacher, you have a responsiblity to your
students to bring them to an understanding of what science is that is free
from the distortion of your own religious belief.  What you actually do, I do
not know, but if you postings are any indication of the content of you class,
what you are doing is illegal and destructive.

 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 162       Sun Aug 13, 1989
HJOHN [Harrison]             at 23:31 EDT

FYI: I am not a science teacher, thank God!

What perplexes me is that many so-called scientists will not accept the
scientific proofs presented by non-evolutionary scientists as worthy of
discussion.  That is sheer arrogance!

Many on this board are quick to pontificate on Gentry, perhaps without even
having read any of his works or his book!!

Boy, some of you guys give scientists a bad name!
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 163       Mon Aug 14, 1989
HJOHN [Harrison]             at 20:28 EDT

One of the most vexing issues for the evolutionist is the subject of the
"missing links."

Creation scientists believe that the missing links will remain missing because
there really is no evolution from one form to another.  A dog is always a dog.
There may be various breeds of dogs yet they remain dogs.  We see no evidence
in nature of dogs evolving to a higher form of life.

The same applies to almost any other form of life. The supposed evolutionary
connections are just not there.

Problems such as these lead creationists to regard the theory of evolution as
unacceptable.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 164       Tue Aug 15, 1989
CHERNOFF [Paul]              at 07:09 EDT

 HJOHN,

 Flat-Earth theorists complain that scietist refuse to take their evidence
 seriously. Should we be teaching that the Earth is flat in school?

 The so-called creationist evidence is the same material recycled over and
 over and over again. And has been responded to many times. After a while
 you get tired of responding to the same weak arguements.

 The "missing link" is a red herring. Punctuated equilibrium theory of
 evolution does expect to find them. Rather, the missing link is the
 result of our culture's belief that all is gradual and that jumps and
 leaps are not possible. However, transitional forms are being found
 all of the time.

 Paul
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 165       Tue Aug 15, 1989
DRMIKE                       at 07:55 EDT

I hadn't been aware any scientist was any longer concerned about missing
links.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 166       Tue Aug 15, 1989
HJOHN [Harrison]             at 20:31 EDT

Isn't it surprising that some here are suggesting that the study of "missing
links" is obsolete when that is exactly the proof that is needed to show the
evolution for example from ape to man let alone from a one-celled organism to
the homo sapiens of today.

Can anyone here give us some convincing proof that man evolved from an ape?
That should be easy enough if one is to accept the principle of evolution.  Or
does that also require evidence accumulated over a million years!
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 167       Tue Aug 15, 1989
H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm]           at 22:09 EDT

I can give a good example that the obverse is true Harrison.  Evolutionists
say that man is the highest form that living things have "evolved" to.  So why
do we still have "lower" forms of life?  If all are evolving upward there
should be none.  This also says that man will someday be alone on  earth as
the only species, because a some time all forms will have evolved to their
max.                            Herm
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 168       Wed Aug 16, 1989
PANICHOLLS [Phil     ]       at 22:33 PDT

HJOHN,
  I think we can all breath a sigh of relief knowing that you are not a
science teacher.  As for your "missing links", as you say, creationists
predict that none will be found.  Unfortuantely for them, many have been
found.  If you will go back and read some of the earlier discussion, I
mentioned that the transition between reptiles and mammals has pretty much
been filled out.  Transitionary fossils have been documented now for most
major vertebrate groups.  You folks really should pay attention to recent
developments in paleontology.  Then again, you have already decided and I
doubt if anything as mundane as a fossil with a reptilian and mammalian jaw
articulation would mean much to you.

Herm,
  You have some strange notions about what the theory of evolution would
predict.  I am well read in the subject, and I have never seen anyone make
those kinds of predictions.   Life forms exist because they are adapted to
their environments.  Each organism has carved out for itself its own role,
called a niche.  Over time, more complex life forms have evolved, often to
expliot new niches.  Mammals, for example, were around at the time of the
dinosaurs, but were rather insignificant until the dinosaurs became extinct.
Many new niches, once occupied my reptiles, were now open for mammals.

C'mon you guys.  Get real.  I have gone out of my way to read the creationists
literature.  I have read more Morris and Gish than you can shake a stick at.
I also read Gentry's articles in science and nature.  Now, please read this
next bit carefully. It is important. I will use small words and short
sentences so you will not be confused. There is no such thing as "scientific
proof" when it comes to a theory. There is data.  The data can confirm an idea
or it can disprove an idea.  Nothing in science, not even evolution, is every
proved to the point that it cannot be questioned.   You can disprove
something, but you can't prove it.  Understand?

Gentry's findings were challanged.  Errors were pointed out in his
interpretation of the data.  It happens all the time.  Articles in scientific
journals are subject to something called peer review. If someone disagrees
with you conclusions, well, that is the way science works.  Gentrys
conclusions were rejected in 1968.  It is Gentry who, refusing to accept this,
gives science a bad name.

Now, I would really like to see some fresh material here.  You guys keep
circulating the same tired information.  It is wrong then, it is wrong now.  I
think you know it is wrong, and you are being dishonest.  This missing link
thing is a good example.

Get a new act.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 169       Thu Aug 17, 1989
CHERNOFF [Paul]              at 06:44 EDT

 Harrison, nowhere in any evolutionary text does it say that man evolved
 from apes. Instead, it is clearly stated that man and ape have a common
 ancester way back in time. This may seem like a minor point to you, but
 these types of mistakes affects your credibility in these types of debates
 since one has to wonder how much you have bothered to read much about
 evolution (unfortunately, when schools have the guts to teach about
 evolution, they do a very poor job, so self-eduction on the subject is
 a requirement).

 Hermes, your commen about "higher" life forms replacing "lower" is one
 of the most common misconceptions about evolution. As Phil points out,
 life forms fill nichs in the environment. New niches are created over
 time. A new life form might be better filling an exisint niche (are replace
 a previous life form) or it might fill and niche previously unfilled.

 Paul
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 170       Thu Aug 17, 1989
H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm]           at 21:48 EDT

So what you two are saying is that before the niche is filled the particular
being that fills it is already there?  Does this leave any room for evolution?
Where do you suppose those original beings came from.  Do they just pop in to
fill a gap?  If I am mistaken it is because I read a different theory than you
did.                         Herm
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 171       Thu Aug 17, 1989
HJOHN [Harrison]             at 23:33 EDT

I think some of you fellows are denigrating the efforts of your evolutionary
colleagues!

Scholars like Haeckel, Dubois, Leakey have spent entire lifetimes trying to
show the links between apes and man - and so far they have failed!

These scholars have done an impressive amount of research trying to prove
something that at best is speculative theory.

The Bible states it rather succintly and with great insight: "Lo, this only
have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many
inventions." Ecclesiastes 7:29
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 172       Fri Aug 18, 1989
H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm]           at 00:08 EDT

And I will second that thought with Psalm 100:3 "Know ye that the LORD is God:
it is he that made us, and not we ourselves:"          Herm
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 173       Fri Aug 18, 1989
PANICHOLLS [Phil     ]       at 01:01 PDT

To folks such as you, there is of course no way that they could succeed.  A
pity that neither of you have bothered to understand the theory that you
condemn.  I have read most of the current creationist literature and
understand what creationists consider "evidense" very well.  A wish that you
would take the time to keep yourselves current, at least in the popular
literature. I wish you would just read the my postings.

First of all, you CAN NOT PROVE a theory.  You can only disprove it. Proof
means there can be no doubt and all theories can be questioned. Do you
understand this?  I have repeated it constantly, yet you seem to keep
repeating the same "you can't prove this,  you can't prove that."

Second, intermediate forms do exist in the fossil record for most vertebrate
groups.  The fossil record for human evolution is much better today than it
ever was.   You can keep claiming the evidense isn't there, but it is.  But
then again, you wouldn't accept it no matter how clear it was.

Well, if there is anyone reading this who is open minded, please HJOHN is
lying.  There are "missing links", but he and his fellow creationists are
trying to ignore it.   The evidense for evolution is overwhelming.
Creationists do not understand the theory they attempt to critique.  They do
not understand how science is done. The are fighting a battle that was won by
Charles Darwin more than 100 years ago.    I can give you pages of references
if you like.

"To ask a question, you must first know most of the answer"
                             -Robert Sheckley
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 174       Fri Aug 18, 1989
WALTER                       at 21:34 EDT

Phil, don't get too exasperated. The forces of ignorance and superstition are
again on the rise. Reason is too frightening, too fragile.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 175       Sat Aug 19, 1989
PANICHOLLS [Phil     ]       at 04:07 PDT

Gosh, did it show?  :-)

I have been fighting this battle for ten years now.  I have come to realize
that I do not fight to convince the close-minded.  I fight it because there
are alot of people who can be easilier swayed by the smoothness of
creationists debaters.

Mostly, I would like to feel that these people are just very sincere in their
religious belief.  I know better, though.  The lying, the distortion, is
purposeful.  Attempting to sway the uninitiated, they betray themselves.   If
God does exist, I think she will hold them to account for this.

 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 176       Sat Aug 19, 1989
H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm]           at 08:13 EDT

I am NOT a creationist!  I do not believe all was done in 7 literal days I
think the Bible agrees with ALL the scientific findings but whereas
scientists look at the findings to prove evolution I look at the findings to
prove creation.  With this beginning assumption dissentions will exist.
          Herm
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 177       Sat Aug 19, 1989
CHERNOFF [Paul]              at 18:39 EDT

 Herm, Phil is more able to answer your message 170, but in case he does
 not, I will try.

 New niches arise over time. Think of the free market. 100 years ago
 there was no known need for a personal computer. But as PC companies
 arose (a sort of mutation) they started filling a niche which they just
 discovered. A number of PC companies competed with each other to best
 fill this niche, and many early companies died, with a few surviving.
 The PC market today can support a number of companies (but not an
 unilimted number) because the companies fill different sub-niches.
 Now, we can overextend this metaphor and come up with some odd stuff.

 A mutation can also take over a niche previously held by an existing
 organism. The mutation would not have to beat up its predicessor, but
 would just have to be a better competitor. For example, it might be
 more efficeint in gathering food, or it might have a higher rate of
 reproduction.

 The environment is constantly changing. Niches disappear and appear over
 time. A niche can go empty if no existing organism is fit to fill it.

 The appearance of new organism comes from mutations. While most mutations
 die, a few succeed. There is evidence that mutation is not a gradual
 process, but that we have had periods of mutations occuring in organisms
 (these periods are very large to us humans and can seem to the untrained
 to be gradual changes).

 I hope that this answers your remarks. Phil, if I made any mistakes please
 feel free to correct them.

 To another subject, why does Phil beleive that many creationist debaters
 are liars. Based on my own review of the literature, many creationists
 have 1) lied outright 2) misrepresent themselves and 3) twist what they
 read.

 Going on to 2), you can read stuff written by Dr. this and Dr. that.
 The impression given is that Dr. this and that are medical doctors.
 In reality they have honorary degrees (and should never use Dr. in
 any situation), have degress in theology, economics or some other
 subject unrealated to biology or geology or any "hard" science. Anyone
 is welcome to the debate, but no one should ever mis-represent themselves.

 3) Twist what they read. To try to prove their own case they take
 sentences of evolutionists out of context (or even just half-sentences)
 to prove their own point. This, I believe, comes more from grasping at
 straws and self-delusion than from evil intentions.

 In addition, they add new terms to the scientific nomenclature without
 defining these terms. The most blatant example is the word "kind", which
 is used alot but never defined.

 1) Perhaps this is the least important of the 3. This comes up most with
 laws to teach "creationism." The laws are religiously motivated, but they
 go out of their way to convince people that religion has no motivation.
 Look at the debates in state legislattures for the true purpose of
 "creationism" which is not to teach it in the schools, but to remove
 "evolution" from the schools.

 Sorry for the extralong message.

 Paul
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 178       Sat Aug 19, 1989
PANICHOLLS [Phil     ]       at 22:10 PDT

More to the point, I can dismiss someone claiming that intermediate forms do
not exist (missing links) as someone who is uninformed about paleontology.  I
have posted here extensively on this one creationist myth, citing references
and giving descriptions of fossils.  Once I have done this I feel it is the
persons responsiblity to either check and critique my examples or stop
claiming the transtional fossils do not exist.  When HJOHN mentioned Gentry, I
went to the library to find this references.   HJOHN continues to make the
claim that intermediate fossils do not exist.  I can only assume now that he
is lying.

I apologize if I have sounded somewhat shrill on all of this.  This is my
life, you see.  This subject represents not only an interest but a passion.
These questions are among the most important a person can ask.  What am I?
Where did I come from?  Why am I here?  Biology and anthropology can provide
good answers to the first two questions. The answer to the third must be
sought elsewhere.  In a science classroom, only scientific evidense for
answers to the first two should be presented.  For the present, evolution has
no real competition. This may change, but before it does, evidense must be
presented.  I have yet to see such evidense (Gentry was a nice try, but no
cigar).

 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 179       Sun Aug 20, 1989
ARNIEBELL                    at 11:07 PDT

Phil, I'm not a creationist, and I agree that the evidence for at least some
amount of evolution is pretty overwhelming.  But if you don't mind my asking,
I'm a little curious as to your point of view on the origin of consciousness.
Do you believe that consciousness, intelligence, our very essence evolved from
amino acids in the primordial soup, or are you one of those who believes in a
God who created everything through the mechanism of evolution?
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 180       Mon Aug 21, 1989
PANICHOLLS [Phil     ]       at 00:28 PDT

ARNIEBELL,
  You will have to give me your definitions of intelligence and c
consciousness before I can answer this question.  I am writing my thesis on
early primate brain evolution.  There is a good deal of evidence indicating
that the complex functions like intelligence and consciousness are tied to the
development of cerebral dominance in the human brain.   Consciousness, in the
sense that we use it to refer to human self-awareness, is somehow related to
partitioning of brain functions.

  Evolution does not exclude god or gods from the process.  It just removes
them to primary causation.  God, if one chooses to believe in god, can be seen
as the prime mover in the universe, one acting through evolution and natural
processes.  This view is compatable with certain intepretations of genesis.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 181       Mon Aug 21, 1989
MPIASKIEWICZ [Mark P]        at 20:49 EDT

  Wow! Gone for a week, and 21 new messages!

  Phil,
  You mentioned that creationism isn't a science. You forget that creationists
will herniate themselves ignoring that! :-)

  Can you recommend some books for the layman on evolution?

  --Mark
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 182       Mon Aug 21, 1989
ARNIEBELL                    at 18:36 PDT

Phil, don't worry about MY definitions of intelligence and consciousness. I'm
interested in YOURS.  Purely as a matter of interest, and recognizing that
your point of view (and mine) are unprovable assumptions, do you believe that
some part of you--some form of intelligence/consciousness/identity-- continues
to exist after physical death, and do you believe that what we commonly refer
to as "life" is strictly a biochemical process, to the exclusion of any
souls/spirits/other non-measurable entities?
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 183       Mon Aug 21, 1989
HJOHN [Harrison]             at 23:33 EDT

Isn't it rather interesting that while some evolutionists contend that a
theory cannot be proved, that is exactly what they seem to spend their
lifetime trying to do - provide "empirical, scientific" proof that their
theories are correct!
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 184       Tue Aug 22, 1989
H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm]           at 02:06 EDT

Mark,
     I have a very well written book called "Life--How did it get here? By
evolution or by creation?"  Any interrested in a free copy send me your
address.          H.GRIFFITH1    (Email)            Herm
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 185       Tue Aug 22, 1989
HJOHN [Harrison]             at 20:13 EDT

Herm: Who is the author and publisher? Hope it is not WT stuff!
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 186       Tue Aug 22, 1989
CHERNOFF [Paul]              at 20:19 EDT

 Harrison, I think I have a copy and that it is WT stuff.

 Stephen J. Gould's books are very good. He is an expert on the subject
 and most of his writings are for the layman. Plus he has a very good
 sense of humour.

 Paul
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 187       Tue Aug 22, 1989
HJOHN [Harrison]             at 21:00 EDT

Some of us could use a sense of humor rather than listening to a lot of the
shrieking here!
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 188       Tue Aug 22, 1989
PANICHOLLS [Phil     ]       at 23:50 PDT

You still haven't responded to the issue of intermediate forms.

Let us say we have two fossils separated by a signficant span of time.

     Fossil A                               Fossil B

Creationism predicts that, since these forms are the products of special
creation, no intermediate organs will exist.  If an intermediate form is
found, what happens.  If creationism were a science, such a find would be
considered an a anomaly.  Many such finds would constitute a point favoring
disproof of evolution. This is not what happens.  When the find is made:

Fossil A             Fossil C             Fossil B

Creationists will then point out that no intermediates exist between A and C.
When one is found:

Fossil A  Fossil D  Fossil C              Fossil B

Creationist then announce that no intermediates exist between A and D or D and
C (not to mention C and B).

Intermediate fossils do exist.  Creationism cannot explain the fossil record,
except to claim that the entire thing is mis-interpreted. The only other
possible position is to invoke the inscruitable mind of the creator.

If you feel creation is better at explaining the fossil record, then please
share your information with us.  I won't hold my breath.

(Is that funny enough?)
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 189       Tue Aug 22, 1989
PANICHOLLS [Phil     ]       at 23:55 PDT

HJOHN,
  You really don't get it, do you?  Let me try another approach.  What is a
scientific theory?  Give me your definition.   Is creationism a scientific
theory?

  What is it you really dislike about evolution?         Why is it you always
put "scientists" in quotes?
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 190       Wed Aug 23, 1989
PANICHOLLS [Phil     ]       at 00:09 PDT

If I don't know what you mean when you use these words, we may talk past each
other.  Consciousness and intelligence are certainly real phenomena, even if
they are difficult to define.  I intepret consciousness as self-awareness in
the sense that I exist and am separate from other  forms of existence.
Intelligence is tricky.  One could be strictly biological and express
intelligence as a measurement of brain volume exceeding that necessary to
maintain body functions.  This definition (called an index of encephalization)
is a good interspecies measure of intelligence.

I am incline to view the human mind as differing in degree, rather than kind,
from other animals.

You question about the soul I shall dodge.  I am an agnostic when it comes to
this question.  As a human, I am aware of my own mortality (something that may
distinguish human consciousness from other animals) and would very much like
to believe that some aspect of my consciousness continues after death.  That
is comforting.  However, I have no reason to believe that it does.  All belief
must have a foundation in something.  I have had no mystical experiences
giving me insights into what happens after death and much as I would like to
believe, well, as the saying goes, "You can't throw yourself a surprize
party."  To sum up, I just don't know one way or the other.  I have nothing
upon which to base a believe.


 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 191       Wed Aug 23, 1989
H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm]           at 06:45 EDT

Phil,
     You always speak in millions of years.  But, have you seen an actual
species change in all of the past scientific research?  The fact that animals
even closely related cannot have offspring that are not hybrid shows that this
cannot happen.  If there was a species change through mutation it would have
to happen to many animals at once so that those "mutated" animals could have
offspring.  This is because hybrid offspring cannot reproduce!  The idea of
mutations filling the gaps or making links between animals we are familiar
with is NOT logical and is taken by scientists with more faith than we need to
believe in a God.                 Herm
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 192       Wed Aug 23, 1989
PANICHOLLS [Phil     ]       at 21:47 PDT

Well Herm, gosh you got me on that one.  Imagine how such a simple thing could
have slipped by all of those biologists for all these years.  How do you do
it?  Guess I'll drop out of grad school and enroll in divinity school.

Seriously, I really wish you guys would at least try to study some biology.  I
don't know where to begin in an attempt to untangle the above mess.  Where did
you get this from?

 1) No, I have not seen a species change.  I have not seen iron rust
   either.  I mean, I see the iron and I see the rust a few days later,
   but I don't really see the iron change to iron oxide.  Given the fact
   that evolution requires lots of time, and that the average lifespan is
   about 80 years (and that the theory of natural selection itself is only
   130 years old,)  perhaps it is surprizing that I personally have not
   seen such changes occur.  Now if you are willing to accept organisms
   that have a shorter generation time- insects (like fruit flies) or
   even some species of plants, there are documented speciation events.
   I can dig up the references if you want, but why bother, you wont
   read them.

 2) In most higher vertebrates, hy                             brid offspring
cannot reproduce.  In
   almost every other type of organism, this is not the case.  Better
   go back and retake your genetics class.

 3) Natural selection operates on variation within the population to
   produce changes in gene frequencies.   Natural selection can operate
   by reducing the amount of variation (stablizing selection) by shifting
   the mean within the total range of variation (directional selection)
   or by acting on the expreme ranges of variation with a population
   (disruptive selection).  Speciation may result from disruptive selection
   or can result from an isolation of two populations in such a way as to
   prevent migration (gene flow).  Over time, the two populations become
   more different.

If there are any other points over which you are confused, don't hesitate to
ask.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 193       Thu Aug 24, 1989
H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm]           at 20:49 EDT

So, if you make me look stupid, then you'll look intelligent, huh?!  You  are
no different than those clergy who invent rediculous doctrines to keep the
laity in "their place."  Excuse me, your excellence but I do have some
thoughts and if you disagree you may counter them and even suggest a book to
read--I'm not afraid to read, my B.Dalton bill is higher than my GEnie bill
anyway.
  (#1) Did you know that they have said that it takes millions of years for a
star to go supernovae also--yet we saw one in 1987.  The fruitfly examples
which they use are 'eye colr change' or 'moving a leg to the head' and some
other things, yet! they are STILL fruitflies!  They do not become  another
species, and scientist know that doing so would be an impossibility
 if they were to be expected to live long enough to mate.
  (#
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 194       Fri Aug 25, 1989
MPIASKIEWICZ [Mark P]        at 23:00 EDT

  Herm,

  I'm a guy who devoloped an interest in Cosmology / High energy physis a few
years ago, and I just had a theoretical physicist make me look very ignorant.
His intention was to inform me of some misconseptions I had, and not to inform
me how ignorant I am on the subject. It was a humbling experience, and lead to
to an expansion of my knoweledge of the subject. The experience was
unsettling, but in the long run, good for me.

  I feel that Phil is trying to do the same thing. He is obviously working on
some sort of degree in this field, and hates to see silly nonsense spewn forth
by ignorant people. Since this is obviously a very emotional subject, I can
understand his getting a bit 'evangelical' ;-) on the subject.

  Regarding your comment on the recent supernova: We've seen many before. A
star with a mass quite a bit greater than the mass of our sun may eventually
go supernove. It burns faster and hotter than our star, and if it doesn't dump
enough mass before it starts making iron, it will blow up. A star like this
has a shorter life than our star. The sun will die without doing anything more
exciting than turning into a red giant during its helium burning phase, but a
star with too much mass may go supernova. Massive stars are common, and
considering that the age of the Universe is 15 Billion years (+/- 5 Billion)
and the distances involved, I don't see your point.

  If you want more details about supernovae let me know.


---


  Re Books: I have a series of essays bu S.J. Gould' "Ever since Darwin" and
will read it soon. I also picked up "Scientists Confront Creationism" edited
by Laurie R. Godfrey. Looks pretty interesting!


---

  Re: All the biblical quotes (and I'd _really_ like to get an answer on this)
How can one differentiate between revelation and hubris? (If you're not the
one having the revelation)

  --Mark
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 195       Fri Aug 25, 1989
H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm]           at 23:39 EDT

Mark,
     I will try to take your remarks to heart as I try to explain my limited
understanding of the scientific belief of evolution.  I do see your point and
it is well taken.  The reason I mentioned supernovaes was because there are a
vast number of species of plants and animals, plus the fact that scientists
have been dealing on the genetic level to produce natural  mutations and for
the last 130 years none have taken place.  These facts would make the chance
of it happening (if it could happen) close to the chance of a star going
supernovae and our noticing it within our lifetime.
   I didn't quite understand your question: "How can one differentiate between
revelation anbd hubris?"  My main test for understanding is that it must  not
contradict with any other scripture in the Bible, if it does then the
understanding of it is obviously wrong.        Herm
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 196       Sat Aug 26, 1989
H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm]           at 01:17 EDT

Mark,
     Since you are studying this, I would like to ask a question that has been
bothering me for some time, if you don't mind.  We know that the universe is
at least 15 billion years old because the most distant star's light is finally
reaching us, and according to the doppler effect the red-shift shows that
these stars (or galaxies) are 15 billion miles away--thus they  are at least
15 Bibllion years old.
     My question is how long did it take for those stars to get to the
position they are at--obviously at the edge of the known universe--and
wouldn't this time/age be added to the age of the universe?      Herm
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 197       Fri Aug 25, 1989
PANICHOLLS [Phil     ]       at 22:22 PDT

First of all, Herm, if I thought you were stupid I wouldn't bother. No one can
know everything or be an expert in all fields.  I suggest that your rejection
of evolution is not based upon a lack of scientific evidence, but on your
feeling anything which contradicts scripture  cannot be correct (stated in the
passage above).  In that you are at least being more honest than most
creationists I have encountered.

I am working on a PhD in anthropology right now, so evolution is my field of
expertise.  When I point out the errors in your statements related to biology
and evolution, I do so because I don't want others who might read this to get
the idea that you have a point.  I have never questioned anything you have
said regarding the Bible.   I am a Jew myself, not a christian.

Now, you claim "they are still fruitflies!"  True, but there are now some 18
species of Drosophilia, including two produced by controlled mutation in
laboratories and 3 which appear to have formed in nature. Speciation in
Drosophilia is easy to detect, because interfertility between species results
from chromosome changes that do not allow for even chromsome distribution
during meiosis.  These chromsome alterations can be observed with a compound
microscope.

A Nova may take a million years to develop.  However, the increase in the
bightness and size of the star takes place in a matter of weeks.  They differ
from speciation, in that speciation takes place gradually.

 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 198       Sat Aug 26, 1989
R.LEE11                      at 02:15 CDT

A fundamental principle in evolutionary theory is that of  natural selection.
The niche is filled by that species which  is best capable of adapting to it.
A biome is a collection of  niches.

In evolution theory it is typically the case that speciation is  a function of
gene pool isolation or gene pool adaptability.  Simply,  a new species shall
usually arise if a multi-specied group is  somehow physically isolated or it
is subjected to environmental stress.  Each individual niche is capable of
supporting this evolutionary  adaptation provided that sufficient variation in
species exist to  enter said niche.  In cases where sufficient species
variation does  not exist then the statistical probability of a niche being
filled  declines contingent upon degree of physical isolation and/or
environmental stress.  As a consequence it is possible that some  available
niches may go unfilled.

It is typically the case that the success of the biome is directly  related to
the interdependence existing among various niches.  In  the event that the
interdependence among niches is disturbed it is  theoretically possible for
the entire biome to collapse.  The success  of any biome then appears to
ultimately depend upon the diversity of  competitors to occupy niches.
Natural selection is only capable of  successfully responding to environmental
stress if it has sufficient  numbers of species from which to select.  Should
it be the case that  diversity has become too confined evolutionary theory
dictates that  no species may successfully occupy a given niche.  As biome
existence  appears related to niche interdependence, decrease in species
diversity may  lead to collapse of the biome.  Upon the collapse of a biome it
is  possible that a new biome may emerge -- we see a model of this  occurring
in the southern movement of the Sahara into regions which  were historically
typically grasslands.

Over time it is likely that a new biome may emerge as a function of  the slow
selective filling of individual niches AND the emergence  of interdependent
relationships occurring among the niches.  If  sufficient variability is lost
in transiting from one biome to another  the likelihood of appearance of the
new biome is significantly reduced;  moreover, the development of inter-niche
interdependence, a prerequisite  for successful biome establishment, is
significantly delayed.  It would  therefore appear that evolution must, a
priori, premise its activities  on variability and time.  As it has recently
been suggested by science  that the global extinction rate shall be
approximately 1000 times faster  than background during the next several tens
of years we shall likely see  collapse of numerous biomes and decreased
probability for establishment  of new ones.  Extinction events have been
recorded occurring with some  predictable periodicity in the geologic record.
It may be that these  periodic extinction events are regulatory in nature.

The fossil record of humanoid-related anthropods goes back many tens of
thousands of years; perhaps even hundreds of thousands to millions of years.
I am amazed by the apparent non-sequitor of the seemingly short existance of
civilization given the fossil record.  It would seem logical that with  the
long existance of humanoid-related anthropods that the likelihood of  a much
longer existence of civilization then what is recorded should be  the case.
That this is not the case suggests that civilization must  either be a recent
evolutionary development or there have been previous  civilization(s) which
have become extinct leaving no record of their  existence.  If civilization is
a relatively recent evolutionary adaptation  in the long history of the
species what would prompt such a radical  departure from the norm?  If
civilization is a recurrent humanoid-related  anthropod activity why does no
evidence of these previous civilizations  exist?  Any ideas?  From a
statistical viewpoint, it would appear  ethnocentric to assume that this
civilization is the only one that  humanoid-related anthropods have developed.
What do you think?
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 199       Sat Aug 26, 1989
HJOHN [Harrison]             at 07:52 EDT

I think if you used less gobbledegook, the discussion would be more fruitful!!
Just a suggestion!
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 200       Sat Aug 26, 1989
HJOHN [Harrison]             at 14:14 EDT

There are a number of people participating in this discussion who are avowed
evolutionists.

Would any of you be willing to share with us what scientific evidence exists
today about the synthesis of life from inert matter.

Since evolutionary scientists posit the theory that the earth evolved to its
present state over a long period of time and without an assist from a divine
creator, they must have some scientific, empirical proof for how life began.

After all, isn't that what they keep asking the creationists!
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 201       Sat Aug 26, 1989
H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm]           at 15:59 EDT

Phil,
     I appreciate your patience on my behalf and hope you will NOT take my
suggestions as forced opinions like of which are forced on children at  school
about evolution.
     I would like to know more about these fruit flies which you say have
mutated.  Has the mutation been benefitial for the species or can it be
described as a birth defect?  The reason I ask is because the Encyclopedia
Americana (1977) said "The fact that most mutations are damaging to the
organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of
raw materials for evolution.  Indeed, mutants illustrated in bilogy textbooks
are a collection of freaks and monstrosities and mutation seems to be a
destructive rather than a constructive process."
     When mutated insects were placed in competition with normal ones, the
result was always the same.  As G. Ledyard Stebbins said in the book: "
Processes of organic Evolution": "After a greater or lesser number of
generations the mutants are eliminated."  So I ask: Would any process that
resulted  in harm 999 times out of 1000 be considered benefitial?      Herm
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 202       Sat Aug 26, 1989
H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm]           at 16:11 EDT

R. Lee11,
     As for the first part of your message I ask: "What possible stress could
of developed to make man come about?  Granted they no longer say we descended
from apes, but what kept us from descending into apes?  Certainly the world
was a much wilder place.  Did we all of a sudden need someone who could write
down his history 5000 years ago to fill a certain niche?
     The fact that man only comes on the scene in the past few thousand years
is actually proof that he was created, and created last.  If man had come
along earlier then the world would have been dominated by him much earlier,
but history and anthropology does not show this.
     After rereading your message I may be answering incorrectly for I  cannot
discern whether you are supporting evolution or not.  Actually history and the
Bible does support a "TYPE" of evolution.  This is in the fact that  Noah did
not take two of every different type of dog, for instance he did not take a
cocker spaniel and a German Shepherd and a Dachsund--but he only took TWO dogs
and the different types "developed" from these.  Humans even developed
different races in different climates of the world.  But this is not the type
of evolution which changes an amoeba into a salamander.  Herm
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 203       Sat Aug 26, 1989
DHWEINSTEIN [Dave]           at 18:34 EDT

Herm:
    The last study I saw said that the average number of mutations in each
*human* is 6 per generation. BTW: Most mutations are micro mutations and do
not have any dramatic external effects, and most mutations are neither good
nor bad, they are irrelevant. It inly when circumstances change that the body
of mutations which have been built up over the years become important.
Furthermore, negative mutations which do not interfere with the ability of a
creature to reproduce (e.g. color blindness) will also remain in the gene
pool. It is only when (a) situations in the environment change drastically or
(b) a new niche opens up [i.e. an existing species dies out] that the pool of
differences becomes important.

   As for the sudden appearance of modern man, well...the ice ages were a
period of mass extinctions, an intelligent warm blooded omnivore had distinct
advantages. Furthermore, living in those circumstances made certain
characteristics of modern man (i.e. intelligence) extremely  important, and
members of the gene pool without it would be weeded out.

   And civilization is an extremely slow process (btw: current evidence
indicates that the primary change from a hunter/gatherer society to a n
agarian society was helped along a good bit by the need to cultivate grains
for fermented beverages). The technology of the hunter/gatherer society is
incredibly complex, and each jump along a "civilization scale" takes time.
Furthermore, until the invention of written languages (which had definite
advantages), it was difficult to keep records or trade information outside of
restricted areas (and written languages were not an "Evolutionary Goal" per
se, they were made possible by abstract intelligence, which was).

--Dave
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 204       Sat Aug 26, 1989
H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm]           at 21:31 EDT

Dave,
     I don't seem to understand much of what you said above.  What exactly do
you mean that every human experiences 6 mutations?  That I personally
have/will mutate 6 times in my lifetime?  If that is the case what is the
cause?
     As for the mass extinctions during the so called Ice age, I would think
that the first to be wiped out would be the warm blooded animals that would
become man.  Still this does not explain why man did not arise before the "Ice
age."  Nor does it explain why intelligence could replace instinct just by
changing a gene.  If intelligence were a possibility all through the life
history then something other than man should show intelligence associated with
instinct.
     Now for my last question:  You mentioned "Evolutionary goal."  How can
this be a possibility if evolution is based on chance and random factors?  If
there is a goal, then there has to be design!  Something has to "set up" or
arrange matters for a goal to be reached.  You cannot put a bomb in a printing
office if you want a dictionary to be printed.  Random factors always break
down substances.  The laws of atrophy disallow any goals to  be reached
randomly.  Even fractals rely on concise mathematical formulas and "designs"
are seen because of repetitive factors.  Herm
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 205       Sat Aug 26, 1989
R.LEE11                      at 22:36 CDT

Re evolution

In the last few years a type of invariant mitochonrial DNA has been
discovered in humans.  The method of inheritance of this DNA appears  to be
from the female of the species to either sex progeny across  generations.
This mitochondrial DNA appears to be the same in all  humans.  I am not sure
what this invariant mitochondrial DNA  means in regard to the present
arguments on this board but I have  heard this mitochondrial DNA referred to a
NOVA program which was  entitled, "In Search of Historic Eve."  The program
submitted data  which suggested that the originator of the specific type of
mitochondrial DNA was probably in Africa.  Does anybody know  anything more
about this mitochondrial DNA?

In other research I have seen which was conducted to attempt to  determine the
origin of man I have seen evidence suggesting an  East Asian origin.  Evidence
used to support this contention  was derived by DNA hybridization studies of
various species of  Old World monkeys and humans.

Certainly this Africa/East Asian inconsistency in reported origin  of man is
confusing and suggests that this area is not yet completely  resolved.
Perhaps new information on either of these two theorized  origins has come
forth of which I am not aware.  Does anybody know  anything new about this?

Another non-sequitor I have encountered which needs to be resolved is  the
advent of civilization.  It is generally accepted that civilization  was born
in Mesopotamia somewhere near the Tigress and Euphrates rivers -  the
Sumerians, I believe. One of the posters here said that during the last  great
mass extinction conditions would favor propigation of an intelligent  warm-
blooded omnivore. The last great ice age is suggested to have occurred
approximately 12 to 14 thousand years ago.  If no previous civilization
existed prior to the present one which began in Mesopotamia it would  appear
that we are talking of the evolutionary development of high  intelligence
occurring sometime within the last 12 - 14 thousand years.  In the recorded
history of homonid fossils, this period of time is but  a very small fraction.


Seemingly, if the present civilization is the only of all history, then
something categorically different occurred in human evolution within this
relative recent short epoch.  This seems possible as there have been  other
Ice Ages during which the record shows presence of homonids and  no subsequent
development of civilization has been documented.  What this  unusual causative
mutational phenomenon could have been which was  not operative in previous
mass extinctions in which homonids participated  but was operative in the last
mass extinction period is not currently  accounted for in any comprehensive
fashion to my knowledge.  Does anyone have  any input?

Should substantive evidence of existence of prior civilizations appear  it
would seem that no unique event occurred since the last great Ice Age  and
this present civilization is but a typical inter-glacial period  homonid
behavior.  In absence of same it appears probable a unique event  of some type
occurred which was unprecedented in the long history of  homonids.

Assuming this could be the case, what might account for the phenomenon of
high intelligence in this present inter-glacial period which did not  occur
during all previous inter-glaciations in which homonids participated  and no
civilizations evolved?  Any thoughts on this?  Do these questions make  any
sense from a scientific standpoint?  Am I mixing apples and oranges?  Is  this
line of thinking out in left field or does it make sense? I am trying to
approach the problem from a logical and statistical standpoint.

I do not claim to be either an evolutionist or a creationist  -- I am only
asking scientific questions (I think) which might help me  to resolve the
question in my own mind.  Ironically, if the natural experiment  of high
intelligence has only been tried once (in this present inter-glacial  period)
we do not yet know if this mutation will favor survival of the  species or
favor new organisms replacing our vacated niche.  It would however  appear
that nature's "final exam" of this mutation may be immediately ahead.  Perhaps
other traits, e.g., altruism, etc. of the species must be evolved to  high
levels prior to advent of high intelligence.  Does this make any  sense?
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 206       Mon Aug 28, 1989
MPIASKIEWICZ [Mark P]        at 22:41 EDT

  Herm,

  Please realize that I'm not a student of Physics/Cosmology, I'm just very
interested in the subjects, and have read a couple dozen books on those
topics. Your question about the a galaxy on the 'edge' of the Universe is a
good one and I'll try to explain.

  People have a tendancy to envision the Universe as a sphere. This isn't an
accurate representation due to the curvature of space. Think of a two
dimensional representation of a sphere, a circle. The circle has a center and
an edge. It is finite and bounded, and points in the circle can have preferred
positions. Now re-expand this to three dimensions. You can see that the 'edge'
was just an illusion brought on by looking at a model lacking one dimension.
The edge disappears and so does the concept of a point having a preferred
position. Any point on the sphere is as good as any other, and if a point is
moved in a straight line along the surface of the sphere, it will eventually
return to its starting point. The surface of a sphere is finite but unbounded.

  There is something called the Cosmological Principal which, simply put,
states that there is no preferred position in space, and space (on a _large_
scale) should look pretty much the same no matter where you're looking at it
from. An observer in a galaxy that seems to us to be at the edge of the
universe, would see our galaxy as seeming to be at the edge of the universe.
The Universe is finite but unbounded. If you travel long enough in a straight
line, you will eventually wind up where you started. This isn't to say that
there is an extra dimension we're not seeing, it's just that the geometry of
the universe is Non-Euclidean, and space curves back on itself like the
surface of a sphere curves back on itself. The Universe has no edge.

  The galaxy you mentioned isn't actually speeding toward the edge of the
universe, space-time is expanding and the galaxy is just being taken along for
the ride. Think of a loaf of raisin bread rising. From the viewpoint of one
raisin, all the other raisins are moving away from it and the further  the
raisin the faster it seems to be moving.

  Hope this helped. If you're really interested, there is a great book on the
subject called "The Big Bang revised and updated edition" by Joseph Silk,
published by Freeman Press. Joseph Silk explains it much more clearly than I
ever could.






  Re my comment about revelation vs hubris: The Bible was put on paper by
humans, and knowing human nature, well...
  What if science came up with a theory that possibly could point toward a
sign of a supreme being? Would you ignore it if it didn't agree with
scripture? Don't take this as an attack of the Bible. I just feel that when
faced with something we can't comprehend, we tend to look at it from a
perspective that we are comfortable with. Would we be able to comprehend
revelations from God, or would we try to understand them from a level more
accessable to humans? The way I see it, the Bible is to revelation as a circle
is to a sphere or a sphere is to the universe. A more easily accessable model
of what we are trying to understand.

  The reason I asked if you would ignore a bit of theory that might be seen as
possible evidence of a supreme being if it disagreed with scripture, is that I
came across an interesting bit of information in the previously mentioned book
that, depending on one's state of mind, could cause one to sprain an eyebrow.
To put as breifly as possible, theory states that in an early stage of
expansion, the universe contained an extremely homogenous cloud of gas.
Density fluctuations were needed for parts of this cloud to differentiate and
collapse into structures (galaxies or clusters of galaxies). Density
fluctuations in a gas are noise. There are many kinds of noise, white noise,
for example, static is composed of random fluctuations at all frequencies.
Correlated noise, like speech, is non-random. Computer simulations lean more
toward a correlated, non-random density fluctuation.

  Some theorists speculate that the correlated density fluctuations were
amplified quantum fluctuations, however my limited understanding of quantum
theory (and I mean _limited_) leads me to believe that quantum fluctuations
would be random. I'll leave you to speculate on the source of the noise.

  I was an atheist before I developed an interest in Physics/Cosmology. Now
I'm not.

  --Mark
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 207       Mon Aug 28, 1989
H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm]           at 22:51 EDT

Mark,
     I see what you are saying about the age/red shift idea.  You mean that we
really couldn't see the beginning of the universe because the universe is in
the way, right?
     I also have been reading the same type of book currently called "COSMIC
COINCIDENCES", by John Gribbin and Martin Rees.  He also mentions about  the
need for the fluctuations within the expansion of the first part of the "Big
Bang" and knows that it would have to be caused by "outside" influences.
     I actually feel th t the fact that the universe "had a beginning"
suggests creation.  How do any others feel about this?     Herm
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 208       Tue Aug 29, 1989
MPIASKIEWICZ [Mark P]        at 00:36 EDT

  Herm,

  Not exactly age/redshift, but the microwave background. In an early epoch of
the universe, the temperature was so high that photons interacted freely  with
matter. There then came a time when the density of the universe dropped to a
point where the density was too low for the photons to interact. The universe
became transparent. This is called a decoupling phase. The photons went on
their merry way without matter getting in the way. These are the photons we
see as the microwave background. This is thought to have happened about
300,000 years after the Big Bang.

  The age/redshift bit is a consequence of the universe expanding (the raisin
bread senario in my previous post).

  I wish we could get in sync here! I've got that book here but I'm reading
three other books, and a fourth might cause brain damage :-)! John Gribbin is
one of my favorite authors, and his book "In search of Schrodinger's Cat" was
_THE_ book that peaked my current interest in physics and cosmology! I'll
start the book tomorrow on the train on the way to work, but If by brain
starts to smoke, I'll know who to blame!

  --Mark
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 209       Tue Aug 29, 1989
H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm]           at 01:25 EDT

Ok Mark,
     I am on page 72 right now.  I just went through most of what you are
talking about and my brain is already smoking!  (No not drugs people ;) ) I
understand that we could not see all the way back because of the Photons
interaction, and that is logical.  But my main point in asking the question is
that one of your earlier messages said the Universe is 15 Billion +or- i of
what can be detected--we just don't know how many years to ADD .
     Also I see now that what you are saying is that we are actually deciding
from the red shift what speed that space is expanding and figuring how long it
took to get to that point, (at least.)  So I ask you this:  Is it verified
that there IS a center of the universe?  Could not space just be expanding out
from ALL matter?                       Herm
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 210       Tue Aug 29, 1989
MPIASKIEWICZ [Mark P]        at 23:17 EDT

  Herm,

  I think GEnie ate part of your first question, so I'm not sure what you're
asking.

  Re your second question: Theory actually states that there is _no_ center to
the Universe, and that space is expanding at an equal rate at all points in
the Universe. Space isn't exactly expanding away from matter, it's expanding
and taking the matter with it. It is expanding, but not expanding away from
anything except its beginning. All structures in space are moving away from
one another (at least non-gravitationally bound systems).

  Herm, don't worry about a smoking brain! Think of it as aerobics for the
mind :-).

  --Mark
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 211       Tue Aug 29, 1989
MPIASKIEWICZ [Mark P]        at 23:18 EDT

  Phil,

  Since you are far more informed on the topic of evolution than I can hope to
be, I'd appreciate if you could explain something to me. I just read an essay
by C. Loring Brace entitled "Humans in Time and Space" which states that the
Neanderthals were an early form of Homo Sapiens. I was under the impression
that they were a side branch (?) and existed at the same time as Cro-Magnon,
and were out evolved by Cro-Magnon (?). Help!

  --Mark
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 212       Wed Aug 30, 1989
H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm]           at 01:58 EDT

Good idea, let's get back to evolution and carry this discussion over to the
"Big Bang" topic.          Herm
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 213       Wed Aug 30, 1989
R.LEE11                      at 19:51 CDT

Sir Fred Hoyle, Royal Astronomer, has calculated the mathematical  probability
that life would emerge from the primordial soup.  He  reported that the odds
that this would occur are 1 in 10 to the  40,000th power.  To put this in some
type of context he then  said that the odds of picking a particular atom from
among all  the atoms of the entire universe would be 1 in 10 to the 80th
power.  Seemingly, it would appear, if one is to give the hard  science of
mathematics any credence, that the odds of life arising  from the primordial
soup are about as close to zero as one could  get.  His assumptions were based
on the premise that the entire  globe was covered by this primordial soup.  He
is not a deist to  my knowledge but is an empiricist.  Any comments on this?

Like I said, I am not professing to be either a creationist or an
evolutionist.  What I am trying to do is arrive at a logical  conclusion using
normally accepted scientific processes.  Your  help in interpreting Hoyle's
assertions would be most appreciated.

 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 214       Wed Aug 30, 1989
ARNIEBELL                    at 18:18 PDT

It would be interesting to see how he arrived at that figure.  All too often,
conclusions of that type are susceptible to compounding of error:  one little
miscalculation or bad assumption can snowball...
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 215       Thu Aug 31, 1989
DRMIKE                       at 06:52 EDT

Fred Hoyle, however, is one of those scientists who is more "beloved" than
"believed." He has followed some weird pathways in his day, and is not much in
the mainstream.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 216       Thu Aug 31, 1989
R.LEE11                      at 17:10 CDT

Here is another question that I have always wondered about  in evolution
theory that I'd like to get some input on.  If  we assume that humans have
evolved from lower life forms,  and if we assume that humans are still
evolving, what, then,  are we evolving to?  If we extrapolate evolution of the
human  species out to its farthest point in time it would appear that the
ultimate goal of evolution is to develop a species that would  be, what we now
call, God.  Is this a logical deduction?

This goal would appear not unlike that which is suggested by the  Hindu
religion's notion of Karma/Nirvana, i.e., souls are suggested  to be in
continual progress toward the Godhead in each of an  unknown number of
incarnations until, hypothetically, the Godhead  is reached.  It seems to me,
unless I'm confused, that there is a  certain similarity in the two notions.
Is this a logical comparison?

Now, the confusing part to me is that Karma is to be worked out and,  in turn,
is accumulated in each incarnation.  Karma is supposed to  be the learning of
various lessons which are necessary for advancement  up the spiritual ladder
toward eventual merger with the Godhead.  In  the evolution paradigm, the
analogue would appear to be the continual  evolution of species to exactly the
same end.  Is this right?

Seemingly, we could combine the two by saying that evolution is karma  on a
species level rather than an individual level.  Does this make  sense?  By
juxtaposition we could say that each species has its lessons  to learn during
its period of existence.  Logical?  This would then  suggest that "natural
selection" operates on both a species and  individual level; i.e., group and
individual "karma."  The corollary is  that evolution is nothing more than
metalevel natural selection.  Does  this make sense?

Here comes the hard part for me to understand.  If karma is worked out  and
accumulated in each incarnation it would appear that there is a  steady state
(+- = 0).  While one existence may yield a net positive  yet another may yield
a net negative.  The overall effect over many  incarnations being no
advancement toward the godhead.  Is this an  appropriate deduction?  Now if we
can equate evolution with karma as  similar phenomenon then I am wondering
wondering if evolution is  a process which will reach its implied goal, i.e.,
at the logical  extension, becoming God.  It could be that evolution is the
"wheel  of karma" on the metalevel which implies the antithesis of the
assumed goals of evolution.

If this is so, it would seem that some other process is operative and/or  some
other theory is more elegant to account for phenomena as evolution  theory may
be too limiting.  If evolution is the "wheel of karma" on the  species level
what, then, is the purpose of it?  Seeming the goals of  evolution are short-
circuited by its very nature.  It is a built-in limiter.  Does this make
sense?  We could use current many-leveled global problems  as an indication of
the possibility of operation of a built-in limiter  in evolution.  Each age
comes to a close just as every species eventually  becomes extinct -- the
wheel of karma goes round and round.

If this makes sense so far, then it would appear that the goal of science
would be to examine evolution to ascertain why there is a built-in limiter.
Why is it that evolution seems to maintain finite limits -- in other words,
how is it that Nirvana can be reached and evolution escape from the wheels  of
karma?  Is this possible or is it an inherent part of the larger machine?  The
nature of karma suggests it is an integral part of the whole, i.e.,
evolution, by its very process, must constantly create and destroy species
with no great probability that quantum leaps occur.

Does this mean that evolution constrains evolution?  I am confused.  What  do
you think?  If this is true then evolution self-destructs.  If that is  the
case then it would appear that we are confined within system-specified
limits.  The rebellious part of me says that there must be some way that  this
endless wheel can be left behind.  There must be some system which  allows the
freedom of a non-self-destructive/constraining process.  Do  you have any
opinions as to whether a system like that could or does  exist?  Just
stumbling around and trying to figure it out....
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 217       Thu Aug 31, 1989
MPIASKIEWICZ [Mark P]        at 20:14 EDT

  I've been reading "Scientists Confront Creationism" edited by Laurie R.
Godfrey. This is a compilation of fifteen essays by scientists from fields
ranging from anthropology to astrophysics. The comment on the back cover by N.
H. Horowitz, California Institute of Technology, says it all.

    "This book systematically takes up the major creationist arguments and
     pulverizes them one-by-one. Most of the chapters will be readily
     accessable to the layman, all of them are informative, and some are
     inspiring. It should be read by every parent, teacher, school-board
     member, and legislator who has any doubts about where the truth lies
     in this debate."

  While pulverizing their arguments, this book also shows how some leading
creationists distort and misrepresent facts. I highly recommend that all
interested parties read this book. Evolutionists will love it for the arsenal
of information it provides, creationists should also read it to get an idea of
the distortions being fed to them by their leaders.

  --Mark
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 218       Thu Aug 31, 1989
HJOHN [Harrison]             at 21:41 EDT

Mark: Please share some of those pulverizing arguments for us here.  Thanks.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 219       Thu Aug 31, 1989
MPIASKIEWICZ [Mark P]        at 23:09 EDT

  HJOHN,

  I'd wind up typing in the entire book. Why don't you go to the library and
get a copy? I'm a 'hunt and peck' typist and couldn't do justice to the book,
and still have time left to go to work!

  Don't you think that you owe it to yourself to read the book? Don't you want
to know if you are being lied to?

  Without typing in an entire chapter, I'll try to give an example. H. Morris
(a big honcho in the creationist community) holds a Ph. D. in Hydaulics. He
gives explanations for the fossil deposits based on the Flood that are
falsifiable using his own field of hydraulics! In another chapter, Morris is
quoted as saying that EVERYTHING in the Bible is true. In another chapter of
the book you can find some biblical quotes that point to a geocentric view of
the universe. It ain't so.

  I could go on and on, but I hate to type. Read the book and _THEN_ we can
have a serious discussion. If you are serious in your beliefs then read the
book to see far better arguments than you'll get here. I'm not about to type
in the whole book, go through a bit of effort, think for yourself, don't let
other people do your thinking for you.

  --Mark
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 220       Thu Aug 31, 1989
ARNIEBELL                    at 21:15 PDT

R.LEE11, I understand most of what you were trying to say about the
similarities between karma and evolution, but I got lost at the end when you
suggested that evolution has a built-in limiter.  Perhaps you could elaborate.

Lower species do not always evolve into higher species.  The great white
shark, apparently, hasn't evolved at all for tens of thousands of years
because there's been no need for it to do so:  it is an optimized design for
its particular niche of "marine predator".  Similarly, I don't think it's
necessarily a part of evolutionary theory that man evolves into God.

Since you brought karma and reincarnation into this, we're going to be talking
on a metaphysical level rather than on a hard-science level...

Man, as a species, doesn't "evolve" into God because God is not confined in a
human body:  God is everywhere in creation and also beyond creation; it would
be biologically impossible for man to evolve into God.

Let's clarify some points concerning karma, reincarnation, and the nature of
man--from a Hindu perspective, anyway.

You and I are not human bodies; we are souls--children of God who only inhabit
bodies temporarily.  We change them regularly, in much the same way as we
would put on a new suit of clothes.  We are not bound by the laws of
biological evolution, since we are not biological organisms.

When we are reincarnated, we are placed in a specific body, in a specific
family, nationality, and era which is most in accordance with our own past
actions -- our karma.  The system is generally meant to be educational, but
it's strictly up to us whether we want to learn our lessons, or continue to
suffer.

Do you love to fight?  You'll be reborn in an environment where you can do it.
Do you hate "niggers"?  Next life, you may be reborn as one, so you can
understand what it's like to be on the receiving end of racial prejudice.  Are
you deeply in love with money?  Then it is unlikely you will be reborn in a
land of highly spiritual people.  And so on.

So, the evolutionary processes which operate on the biological organisms here
on earth really have nothing to do with your "spiritual evolution". You create
your own future through your own choices today.  Choose wisely, and you may
find yourself reborn in an advanced society.  Choose the ways of violence, and
you may find yourself reborn on another planet, in another type of body, where
you and others like you will have the opportunity to hack each other to death
with swords.

If you want to get off the "endless wheel" of karma, you must develop a closer
relationship with God.  God has no karma, and when you realize your identity
as a child of God, you will have no karma either.  You do not have to "become"
perfect, you have only to realize that God is already dwelling right inside
your heart, waiting patiently for you to discover Him.

 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 221       Fri Sep 01, 1989
R.LEE11                      at 19:49 CDT

Arniebell,

I'm glad that my parallel of evolution and karma made some sense.  I thought
they seemed to be very similar types of processes.  You mentioned biological
evolution and spiritual evolution.  That was what I was thinking about when
the great similarity of the two notions appeared to me.  The only difference
between the two that I could see what a matter of "what is evolving" rather
than any difference in process.

When I mentioned that biological evolution's goal for man appeared to be  to
become, what we now consider God, I was assuming that at some point  in time
it would behoove biological evolution to transcend biological  limitations --
thus moving into, I guess, a spiritual environment.  Now  this is metaphysics,
true, but it would appear to make some sense from  a scientific extrapolation.


I am confused though about why reincarnation would need occur and karma  would
be gained/lost if God is in all.  If God is in all then are we not  already
God?  And, if already God and God has no karma, what then is the  purpose for
reincarnation and moving closer to God?  If a species were  evolved to occupy
the most favorable niche possible why then would that  species seek to occupy
less favorable niches?  This is confusing to me.  Does this make sense or am I
missing something?  Applying the metaphysical  to evolution, it would appear
that a species could, at best, maintain  its present state or devolve to some
evolutionary lower form of life.  This was what I was thinking about with the
notion that evolution has a  "built-in limiter."  It is the "wheel of karma"
process applied to  evolution -- a process-similar system.  I'm examing things
on a "systems" level  (or at least trying to).

Now if this is a logical way to go, and if the system supercedes the  two
paradigms, then I am really confused.  Why would evolution limit  itself on
the top limit but allow variance below?  If the purpose of  biological
evolution is not to eventually transcend biological  limitations and become
spirit I wonder what its purpose is?  By  corollary, if the purpose of
reincarnation/karma is not to eventually  transcend karma limitations, because
only God can have no karma and  we, by definition, must have it, I then wonder
what its purpose is?  Do  these questions make any sense?  I don't see any
vehicle whereby either  evolution or reincarnation can reach their apparent
goals.  What then  is the meaning of both?  Are they both an exercise in
futility and without  purpose?

Why would purposeless activities be conducted in nature?  Natural selection
would seem to favor organization/order as most likely to survive.  Purposeless
activities would cease to exist.  If biological and spiritual  evolution are
only processes and not goal-directed actions they don't  seem to be adaptive
processes and hence favor their extinction.  If the  notion of "top-limit
barrier" is true (if the biological cannot become  the spiritual and if the
spiritual cannot become God) then both processes  could be entropic.

It comes back to the old rebel in my mind saying, "There's got to be some
process through which the "built-in top limit" can be overcome.  I must
confess however that I am at a loss to explain what that process/activity
could be.  Does evolutionary biology/science suggest any theories/
corollaries which are more complete and/or elegant that might apply here?  If
the system's approach here in this meta-analysis is valid it then  suggests
that evolution theory is not yet complete/comprehensive.

It is good to have some input on these ideas as they have been bouncing
around my mind for a long time.  Thanks.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 222       Fri Sep 01, 1989
MPIASKIEWICZ [Mark P]        at 21:40 EDT


  HJOHN,

  I was in a rotten mood when I replied to your last message. Sorry about
that. I'll be glad to post a few quotes from the book. (I still hate to type,
though :-))


  In his essay "Ghosts from the Nineteenth Century: Creationist Arguments for
a Young Earth" Stephen G. Bush (Ph. D. in theoretical physics) refutes the
theories of Thomas G Barnes who proposes that the decay of the earth's
magnetic field is a good method of estimatind the age of the earth. He also
demonstrates how these "scientists" distort facts.


  -----

  'Acording to Barnes, "In 1883 Sir Horace Lamb proved theoretically that the
earth's magnetic field could be due to an origional event (creation) from
which it has been decaying ever since" (1973, p. viii). This is not a correct
discription of Lamb's 1883 paper, which dealt only with electric currents and
did not mention geomagnetism at all; Barnes assumes that the same mathematical
equations apply to magnetism.'

  -----

  The next few pages offer a technical discussion of the earth's magnetic
field, and would be too much to type in. One point worth mentioning is the
following:

  -----

  'Barnes rejects the possibility that the earth's magnetic field has reversed
itself...'.

  'The most striking example of Barnes's use of obsolete evidence is his use
in a 1981 paper (p. iv) of a long quotation from a 1962 book by J. A. Jacobs
on difficulties with the reversal hypothesis. In a later edition of this book,
Jacobs states that "the evidence seems compelling" that such reversals _have_
occured (1975, p. 140). Barnes, however, omits the date of the publication he
quotes from, and completely ignores the fact that Jacobs changed his position
in the 1975 edition.'

  -----

  Speaking of geomagnetism:

  -----

  '"Changes in cosmic radiation produced by reversal of the earth's magnetic
field could change the uranium decay rate (see Morris 1974, p. 142)."

  No evidence is presented for this hypothesis, so it does not seem worthwile
to refute it. However it should be noted that according to creationist Thomas
Barnes's theory, which is one primarily relied upon to support their own ten-
thousand-year time scale, there have not been any reversals of the earth's
magnetic field'

  -----

  To further illustrate the ignorance of these creationist 'authorities':

  -----

  '"Experiments have shown that the decay rates of cesium 133 and iron 57
vary; hence there may be similar variation in other radioactive decay rates
(see Slusher 1981 p. 22, 49)"

  There are no such experiments; both are stable isotopes, not subject to
decay at all! This claim merely reveals Slusher's ignorance of neuclear
physics.'

  -----

  Back to Morris for a sec...

  -----

  'Morris tells his reader that radiogenic argon 40 is indistinguishable from
argon 40 "formed by unknown processes in primeval timesand now dispersed
arround the world" (1974 p. 148), so it is impossible to use potassium-argon
ratios to detect true ages. But, in fact, the proportion of atmosphrric argon
incorperated into the rock can be easily estimated by measuring the amount of
argon 36 present and using the known isotopic composition of atmospheric argon
to make this correction. Neither Morris nor Slusher even mentions this point,
so we must assume that they are unfamiliar with one of the most elementary
parts of the procedure they are criticizing'

  -----

   A bit more of Morris.

  -----

  "It is completely consistant with the philosophy of creationisn to reject
the randomness of natural processes (Morris 1974, pp. 15, 16, 22, 33, 59). But
neither Slusher nor Morris informs the reader that his critique of radioactive
dating methods involves the rejection of two of the most spectacularly
sucessful theories of modern physics--relativity and quantum mechanics. ... To
attack the theory of radioactive decay by abandoning quantum mechanics seems
almost suisidal; one can only suppose that the creationists know nothing about
modern atomic physics (despite their "qualifications"), or they hope that no
one notices the absurdity of their position.'


  -----

  Please read the book, this took me almost two hours to type! (damaged tendon
in my left arm (my arm squeaks! YIK!!))

  --Mark
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 223       Fri Sep 01, 1989
H.GRIFFITH1 [Herm]           at 22:30 EDT

We appreciate the effort Mark.  Also I can understand why you would be in such
a "rotten" mood, look at what hope an evolutionist has for the future!  You
live an empty life and don't even realize it.             Herm
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 224       Fri Sep 01, 1989
MPIASKIEWICZ [Mark P]        at 23:46 EDT

   Herm, that was pretty nasty. I'm in a rotten mood because my arm has been
in pain for a week now and using it to type hurts. Personally, I feel that God
doesn't need lies to prove his existence, and creation scientists seem to feel
that He needs their help. Don't you think God is clever enough to come up with
something like evolution? Read the book I quoted. Read some other books on
science. See how powerful God REALLY is. As I said before, I was an atheist
before I devoloped an interest in science, now I'm not!

  Do you have such a meager opinion of God that an almost stone-age account of
his will is sufficient to describe Him? Do you think that those people were
advanced enough to understand Him? Do you feel that we are? Only by studying
his creation (the Universe (and not the creationist definition of the term
'creation')) can we hope to see His purpose.

  Why do you think he provided the mechanism (evolution) that caused us to
develope intelligence? Or don't you give Him the credit for that?

  --Mark
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 225       Fri Sep 01, 1989
ARNIEBELL                    at 21:31 PDT

R.LEE, I still don't see how you arrive at the conclusion that species seek to
occupy less favorable niches, and that the best a species can hope for is to
maintain its present state.  Leave karma out of it for a moment; how about
explaining this belief strictly from an evolutionary standpoint.

I don't think it's logical to assume that biological evolution can transcend
biological limitations.  That would imply that a biological process can
eventually produce a non-biological result--a soul, a spirit, or some sort of
consciousness whose existence is not dependent on the existence of the
biological organism which created it.

Back to Hindu religious beliefs, the nature of God, and the purpose of
reincarnation.

God is in each one of us, but that does not make us God.  We are a subset, if
you will, of God's consciousness -- individualized expressions of a much
greater Consciousness which exists both within and beyond creation. You are
the wave, but God is the ocean.  The ocean has become the wave, but the wave
cannot claim to be the ocean.

Since we are "made in the image of God", our true nature is the same as God's:
ever-existing, ever-conscious, ever-new bliss.  The problem is, we don't
realize it!  We think of ourselves as limited human beings, we act
accordingly, and we get ourselves into all kinds of trouble because of it.

Why don't we see who we really are?  Because in order to have a creation at
all, God had to prevent us from seeing through the game.  Who could get
interested in making a buck if we could actually see that the entire universe
was only a dream in the consciousness of God?  There could not be a world as
we know it if everyone were omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient!

So, God has put blinders on us so that we do not see through His game too
easily.  We start thinking that things like money are real, and that they are
the most worthwhile things to pursue.  We start believing that we are bodies,
and we start to fear the death of the body.  We perceive ourselves as separate
from all our fellow souls, and we start to believe that we are better, more
important than they are.

All of these beliefs are untrue!  But weird things start happening when people
think and act as if they were true--just look at the world around you!

But God has built in a safety net:  when you believe in things which are not
true, you suffer the consequences.  It is our desires which force us to
reincarnate.  If you like it here, you get to come back.  But, since we are,
by nature, infinite consciousness, we can never be satisfied with the things
of this world.  But we sure keep on trying, don't we!

Sooner or later, we grow tired of this world, since we find no lasting
satisfaction in it.  And this is often where people turn to religion, hoping
to find more lasting happiness.  Since God is the only Reality, God is the
only one who can truly satisfy us.

So, the soul's journey to perfection is not really a matter of self-
improvement, but rather of rediscovering its own true nature.  While you are
dreaming, you can dream you are in prison or in great pain, and while you are
dreaming, the suffering seems quite real!  And then you wake up, and you
realize you were never really hurt at all.

This creation is God's hobby.  Since God is not a static, but rather a dynamic
being, God's creation is constantly changing as well.  The mechanisms of
biological evolution reflect this, and keep things from getting stale.  So
long as there is a creation, there will always be a need for lower life forms
(in a biological sense), just as there will always be a need for trees and
flowers.  Can you imagine a "perfect" world with no animal life?

From this perspective, there is no "end result" to biological evolution, in
which everything eventually evolves biologically into the highest possible
form of life.  In God's great drama of creation, there must be bit players as
well as stars.

But your own spiritual evolution is under your own control.  You can choose to
play the game of this world, and you will obtain some pleasure in the short
run, along with some suffering.  Or, you can choose the path which will take
you back to God, the only One who can banish all pain and suffering forever,
and fill you with permanently satisfying Joy.