FROM: Stewart Leabman
TO: Jonathan Rogers
Subject: RE: EVOLUTION VS. CREATIO
Date: 15 Jan 90 23:50:55
We have proof of the Big Bang: some scientists at Bell Laboratoies
discovered the remnants of the Big Bang coming from all directions equally.
It's a very famous experiment. Evolution is proven by the fossil remains
that scientists have found. Some people do not want to accept the facts
and therefore, do not.
* Origin: Scooter's Scientific Exchange - 215-657-5586 (1:273/712)
FROM: Stewart Leabman
TO: Mike Bourne
Subject: RE: EVOLUTION VS. CREATIO
Date: 15 Jan 90 23:53:57
We have already left "fossils" of ourselves. Volcanic eruptions bury people
alive, who will become the fossils of the future. We have found the
preserved remains of people who were buried in mudslides, etc. They are
not fossils yet, but similar remains which are not uncovered now could be
the fossils of the future.
* Origin: Scooter's Scientific Exchange - 215-657-5586 (1:273/712)
FROM: Mike Steiner
TO: Jonathan Rogers
Subject: Re: RE: Evolution Vs. Creatio
Date: 13 Jan 90 18:28:25
JR> However, as I've not too long ago been in High School and had a
JR> couple science classes along the way I find the presentation of
JR> evolution as FACT extremely disturbing, they say it's a theory
JR> but then attempt to pass it off as fact. All I ask is that both
JR> "theories" be given equal reprentation so students can make up
JR> their own minds from there.
Johnathan, evolution is a fact. The "theory of evolution" is what is used
to explain how that fact happened. BTW, evolution does not explain how
life was created, just how it has evolved from its first existence until
the way it looks today. The reason that creationism is not taught in
schools is that there is no evidence at all to support it. If the only
choices were evolution and creation, there might be a reason to teach
creation as an alternative explanation that may have a basis for something
or another. However, there are as many creation stories as there are
cultures and religions. Why should the Jewish creation myths (that were
adopted by Christians) be shown any preference over the Norse, Greek,
Roman, Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Aztec, Inca, Eskimo, Amerind, or any
other creation myth? How do you KNOW that the story told in Genesis is the
correct myth? What right do you have to force your religious prejudices
upon anyone else?
* Origin: Palo Alto Writer's Mostly Echo OPUS. Come to talk! (Opus 1:204/29)
FROM: Sue Miller
TO: John Thompson
Subject: Re: Darwin's last words
Date: 14 Jan 90 10:24:12
I wouldn't worry about it (and I'm sure you really weren't). I've heard
this 'deathbed' story about Darwin a dozen times, and always by
evolution-bashers.
What they don't realize is that the validity of Darwin's work (and what has
been done since) doesn't depend on what Darwin's opinion of it ultimately
might have been. :-)
* Origin: Palo Alto Writer's Mostly Echo OPUS. Come to talk! (Opus 1:204/29)
FROM: Henry Shaw
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: RE: EVOLUTION VS. CRE
Date: 15 Jan 90 18:54:14
>the arguments offered by ICR are far more sophisticated than what was
>believed in Darwin's time.
Not really. For example, in Daryl Schoop's list of "evidences", we have the
ICR trying to calculate the age of the earth on the basis of the salinity of
the oceans. This is *exactly the same* argument that was being tried in
Darwin's time. The ICR is simply a dishonest shop. If they were dealing in
financial securities the SEC would have shut them down long ago (well, maybe
not Ronnie's SEC). Their tactics are the same as the sleaziest boiler-room
phone-sales operation: they present half-truths, distortions of fact, and
outright lies to people who do not have the background, tendency, or
opportunity to know better. The dissagreement is *not* a matter of an
difference of opinion between honest men and women, but rather, borders on
fraud.
This is not a dogmatic statement of opinion, but is simply a statement of fact,
one that you can easily check by trotting over to the University of Arizona
geology library and *looking* at some of the references they claim as
"evidence" for their position YOURSELF. I have several friends/colleagues in
the UA department. If you would like an "introduction" it can be arranged.
I have no problem with someone believing that the earth was created in 4004
BC, just as I have no problem with someone believing that the Holocaust
never occurred in WWII. Maybe all those Jewish survivors are lying, maybe
it was all a frame, maybe... God created all those camps and those memories
to confuse us when it created the earth 2 minutes ago. I would no more
want the first person teaching my child science than I would the second
teaching my child history. What the ICR calls "science" and wants taught in
school bears as much resemblance to Science as my other example does to
history.
* Origin: Diablo Valley PCUG-BBS, Walnut Creek, CA 415/943-6238 (1:161/55)
FROM: Pat Goltz
TO: Dee Lamzaki
Subject: fertility & viability
Date: 14 Jan 90 12:28:51
I would think that the viability of the human race is lowered more by the
use of contraception than by men wearing tight pants and having
correspondingly lower fertility. Contraception has lowered the birth rate
to below replacement level, but only about 30% of couples cannot conceive,
of which 20% are not natural problems, i.e. they are due to things like
sterilization and previous abortion.
* Origin: UA Today (University of Arizona, Tucson) (1:300/3)
FROM: Trygve Lode
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: ENTROPY
Date: 14 Jan 90 11:06:22
Ok, then, let's deal with mutations and DNA transcription from an
information theoretical standpoint.
You suggest that my box-o-pennies analogy is inaccurate because "in order
to come up heads, pennies have to have heads." Fortunately, pennies do have
heads, in much the same way that DNA positions have bases. A change in one
of those DNA bases (a mutation) is not unlike a flipping of a coin and I
haven't seen any evidence to date that random changes of bases is
impossible.
You also mention quite accurately that, if these random substitutions of
bases (mutations) were occuring (without any additional input of information
into the process), that no increase in information content could occur.
This is entirely true, such as it is. However, no organism on the earth
exists in a vacuum, apart from any external influences. The environment in
which an organism exists is a rich source of information, and one of the
less subtle ways the environment has of telling an organism that this new
mutation really isn't all that well suited to survival is by killing it.
Organisms with favorable mutations are more likely to survive while those
with unfavorable mutations are much less likely to survive; over a span of
billions of years, this "decision process" adds a huge amount of
information to the DNA. And so, the evolution of complex organisms from
simpler ones mediated by external forces is in no way prohibited by
information theory.
* Origin: The Comm-Post - Denver - (303) 534-4646 Multi-Line HST/DS (104/666)
FROM: Trygve Lode
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: THE CREATION AND EVOLUTION MOD
Date: 14 Jan 90 11:26:44
It seems to be a necessary tactic to anyone trying to disseminate an idea
that cannot be justified on rational grounds to somehow assert that "all
knowlege is really faith anyway" and, by stating this, imagine that they
have thereby proven that they have reduced all ideas to the level of their
own.
Faith is unnecessary to a rational being. Some assumptions must be made in
order to derive any knowlege about the universe, but these may be kept to a
manageable and justifiable set. My own personal epistemology includes the
following assumptions:
1) Sensory data reflect an existing reality. This is justifiable
because, without it, no knowlege could be gained about the universe. As
such, since we lose nothing epistemologically by accepting it and stand to
gain everything, faith is not required.
2) The principle of consistency. It is possible to form theories
about the future behavior of the universe based on its past behavior with
some reasonable expectation of these theories working. Again, without
this, no knowlege about the universe is possible, and so it is justifiable.
3) The transitive property of knowlege. Necessary for reasoning and
also justifiable.
4) Any statement for which no supportive evidence exists is not true.
If you wish to call reliance on axioms like these faith, then it is an
entirely different order of faith than an axiom of the form "there exists a
large, white-bearded anthropomorphic diety that, despite being all-knowing,
all-powerful, and all-everything else, nonetheless manages to embody my own
personal petty prejudices and personality defects and is wholly described by
the inputting of my personal feelings about what I do and don't like into a
rather poorly edited book written thousands of years ago by people who had
no knowlege of science or the scientific method or even much of a concept
of the difference between myth and reality."
Axioms of the first type (non-faith) are sufficient for Atheism;
axioms of the second type (things taken on faith that, were it not for a
level of cultural acceptance that blinds us to their ludicrous nature) are
necessary for theism.
* Origin: The Comm-Post - Denver - (303) 534-4646 Multi-Line HST/DS (104/666)
FROM: Mike Bourne
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: handed molecules and time
Date: 14 Jan 90 23:31:24
PG> Thank you very much for the recent information about
PG> the difference between right handed and left handed
PG> thalidomide. I was not aware of this, and it is really
PG> interesting! It casts a whole new light on things for
PG> me. One of the questions that obviously arises is
PG> whether or not if some of these molecules arise
PG> spontaneously, in both forms, this does not throw a
PG> further stumbling block in the way of the evolution of
PG> life!
No not at all, as others have already describe here. "Life as we know it"
works with one form. Perhaps, if things were started a bit different, it
would have used the other form. I see that as giving us *TWO* chances for
life to form.
[Much material about Mt. St. Helens deleted for brevity.]
I am quite familiar with the situation in the Mt. St. Helens area. When we
lived in that area we used to go to Spirit Lake for picnics. I flew over
(not directly over but could see inside) the volcano a week after the
eruption. I have seen the ash flows there and other ash flows at several
other fairly recent volcanos.
The trees were not knocked down by "splashing water" as Spirit Lake wasn't
that big. Most of the damage was done by the pyroclastic flow of gases and
ash at near supersonic speeds. No parallels to the "Great Flood" were
involved. The effects on the logs may result in some preservation. Acid
bogs in Great Britain are formed the same way. Peat doesn't take long to
form, but it is a very poor form of fuel. Besides, coal is most often
found in sedimentary rock, not volcanic ash or under lava flows.
Sedimentary rock takes much longer to accumulate.
The layering that you might see in an ash flow is on a completely different
scale than would be shown in the Grand Canyon, for example. We went to see
the Grand Canyon this summer. Literally hundreds (thousands?) of cubic
miles of rock has had to be eroded away to form that canyon. The canyon is
over a mile deep and several miles wide. Mt. St. Helens was maybe one
cubic mile of ash, total. They are not even close. Even the Dalles (up
the Columbia river) which were eroded by the release of a tremendous surge
of glacial melt, are not anywhere near the same scale.
Sorry, there are no answers for "Creationism" in Mt. St. Helens.
* Origin: A Point at the Edge of Town (Ft. Worth, TX) (1:124/5208.904)
FROM: Paul Bijhouwer
TO: Rich Payne
Subject: The Origin of Birds:
Date: 14 Jan 90 03:02:08
RP>than is even presented in this echo. Creationist have never
RP>said that the evidence for creation is 100%
RP>However, I don't feel that I can honestly say the same
RP>for most evolutionist. You have to weigh the evidence.
Excuse me, I must have missed it: What "evidence for creation?" I have yet
to see anything remotely approaching this description posted in this echo.
The most I have seen from you is whining complaints that evolution does not
explain every single fossil ever found.
* Origin: The Beehive (1:396/10.3)
FROM: Greg Hansen
TO: Jonathan Rogers
Subject: Re:the Creation And Evolu
Date: 14 Jan 90 18:50:10
That's an interesting point you brought up about Darwin refuting evolution
on his deathbed. I'm glad you did. It's a perfect example of the way
science works. Science is not a popularity contest. There is a certain
truth out there independant of anyone's wishes. Science attempts to
approach that truth as closely as possible. (The truth I speak of, by the
way, is that of a physical nature. Not The Truth of a religious nature.)
Not even the person who discovers it, no matter how much he wishes
otherwise, can change it.
* Origin: Nick's Nest (612) 490-1187, (612) 490-0341 HST (Opus 1:282/3)
FROM: Rick Moen @ 914/207
TO: Jonathan Rogers
Subject: Re: Re: Evolution Vs. Cre
Date: 15 Jan 90 11:05:08
> I'd love to see you or anyone else DISPROVE creation. It's not I who
> need to prove my beliefs, it's you evolutionists. PROVE to me that
> life evolved and that the universe originated through some kind of
> cosmic Big Bang, and I'll quickly dismiss my belief in Creation.
> Until then, I am standing firm beside my belief. (Note you all, I've
> not mentioned God except right there). So, is anyone willing to prove
> that a divine being didn't create the universe and all life on earth?
> I'll be looking forward to your submission of new evidence to support
> your theory and disprove mine, if that's possible.
Johnathan, in the above passage, you request two entirely distinct types of
responses: 1) "Proof" that life has evolved, and that the universe
originated in a Big Bang, and 2) "proof" that a divine Creator is _not_
responsible for Life, the Universe, and Everything. For the first, I refer
you to biology and astronomy texts, and to other postings in this echo.
However, please bear in mind that the methods of science do _not_ "prove"
things, but rather consider alternative explanations (theories) to account
for observed fact, and discard the weaker ones.
For the second, I must tell you that the scientific method cannot answer
this question. It is a non-scientific issue, since any theories on it are
inherently non-testable.
> However, as I've not too
> long ago been in High School and have had a couple of science classes
> along the way, I find the presentation of evolution as FACT extremely
> disturbing. They say it's a theory, but then attempt to pass it off as
> fact. All I ask is that both "theories" be given equal reprentation so
> students can make up their own minds from there. The way science
> classes are now, students are presented with only one side to the
> origin of life and the universe. That's my point.
First, it is the scientific _theory_ of natural selection being taught to
account for the scientific _fact_ of evolution. These terms (fact and
theory) have understood meanings within science that may run counter to
your intuition. You may wish to check their use in a few good science
texts, since the distinctions are a little subtle.
Second, the problem with the "equal time" idea is that not all theories
have equal scientific merit. There are two sides to whether the Earth is
flat or not. Yet, we don't teach both "theories" in science classes. That
would be silly. Yet, teaching more than one "side" to human origins would
be much sillier, since there are many more than two "sides". We would end
up teaching the Hindu, Mayan, Nordic, Ancient Greek (etc.) cosmogonies, and
would in effect no longer be teaching science, having thrown out the
principles of science.
# Origin: The Skeptic's Board 415-648-8944 1:125/27 (RBBS-PC 8:914/207)
FROM: Rick Moen @ 914/207
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: The Creation And Evol
Date: 15 Jan 90 11:27:48
> I see that you are defining "faith" as belief in the absurd. By our
> current definitions.
> Thus, it is quite possible for a creationist to state that evolution
> must be taken on faith, and who are we to argue with him?
> Ultimately, even science requires faith. I must BELIEVE that an
> electron exists, because I have never seen one. I must BELIEVE that
> the light will come on when I flip the switch or I won't bother. In
> spite of the fact that sometimes when I flip the switch, the bulb is
> burned out, or the power is off.
Pat --
The faith entailed by science is a modest one: That our observations are,
on some basic level, consistent with reality, so that we may learn about
reality by carefully generalizing from those observations.
Aside from that one small article of faith (which runs afoul of no religion
I know of), all the OTHER instances of faith in science differ in kind from
what we usually call beliefs, in that they are _tentative_. You are _not_
required by science to believe in electrons: If you can find a theory
besides that of electrons (to account for electricity) that requires fewer
assumptions or explains matters better, you will not only not be hassled
over your non-conforming theory, but also will be given a prominent nook in
the Scientists' Hall of Fame.
# Origin: The Skeptic's Board 415-648-8944 1:125/27 (RBBS-PC 8:914/207)
FROM: Rick Moen @ 914/207
TO: Tom Swiss
Subject: Re:carbon Dating / Shroud
Date: 15 Jan 90 11:57:47
> I was discussing religion with my father, when he brought up the
> Shroud of Turin. I remembered hearing that carbon dating had found it
> to be a hoax, only a few hundred years old, but couldn't produce any
> references to confirm it or get details. Can anyone give me a
> reference? Many thanks.
See "Skeptical Inquirer", Spring 1989 issue, article by Joe Nickell on page
296. The Shroud was tested by three labs (Oxford, Zurich, and U. of
Arizona) and found, using spectroscopy, to be from roughly the 1300s, a
time when the fabrication of religious relics is known to have been rampant
in Europe. Luckily, all three labs' results agreed closely: The Vatican
had reduced the amount of material it was willing to sacrifice, and both
the number of test sites and the variety of test methods had had to be cut
back.
We are already starting to see Shroud adherants adopt ad hoc hypotheses to
bolster their position: Some are now assailing the accuracy of carbon-14
dating (somehow I doubt that they would be similarly concerned if the
results had come out the other way), and others are suggesting that the
carbon isotope ratio was altered, either by a hypothetical energy burst at
the moment of resurrection or by a fire that the Shroud survived in the
Middle Ages.
For earlier work on the Shroud, see Nickell's "Inquest on the Shroud of
Turin" from Prometheus Books.
# Origin: The Skeptic's Board 415-648-8944 1:125/27 (RBBS-PC 8:914/207)
FROM: Rick Moen @ 914/207
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: Evolution V. Creation
Date: 15 Jan 90 12:52:01
Pat Goltz writes to Phil Nicholls as follows:
> I would like to see a collection of rejection slips, too, but I am
> also mindful of what in law one would call "a chilling effect",
> whereby a person fails to do an act because it has been discouraged in
> a very real way, and the person sees no percentage in pursuing what is
> almost sure to be a futile act.
Pat, this is tantamount to asking Phil to prove that scientific journals
_aren't_ discouraging creationists to submit scientific papers. I'm sure
you will agree that that would be an inappropriate transfer of the burden
of proof. The entire "persecution" appeal is just another unsupported
extraordinary claim, and it is not incumbent upon scientists to refute it.
> I have uploaded a list of the journals in the bibliography of ICR
> faculty that I have, to Larry McGee. He said he would make it
> available as a file, but if you like, I can netmail you the list
> directly: it takes up two messages.
> Pat
Fear not. Larry's board is a local call for Phil.
# Origin: The Skeptic's Board 415-648-8944 1:125/27 (RBBS-PC 8:914/207)
FROM: Phil Nicholls @ 914/207
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: Re: Evolution Vs. Cre
Date: 15 Jan 90 21:14:52
"Scientific" creationism is an attempt to dress up a literalist
interpretation of Genesis as science. To do this, the ICR engages in a
variety of dishonest (dare I say, unchristian) practices. Regardless, it
is still the same belief and it is no more valid scientifically today then
it was then.
Prior to Darwin, the flood was taken as an historical fact, verified by the
existences of numerous pluvial deposits around the world. The problem is
that these deposits were produced at different times. Thus, creationists
of Darwin's day believed there was scientific evidence to support the
flood.
Yes, I have a bias here. As a scientists, I am angered by creationists
because the don't play by the rules. The have achieved some success by
"taking there case to the public," relying on the general public's poor
understanding of the nature of scientific evidence.
Regards,
Philip Nicholls
Department of Anthropology
San Francisco State University
# Origin: The Skeptic's Board 415-648-8944 1:125/27 (RBBS-PC 8:914/207)
FROM: Phil Nicholls @ 914/207
TO: Jack Kilmon
Subject: Re: Evolution V. Creation
Date: 15 Jan 90 21:19:39
In 1974 and in 1982, at the AAAS meetings, the ICR was asked to send a
representative to participate in a panel discussion on creationism. The
event would have been covered extensively by the press and is the AAAS's
most successful way of taking on popular pseudosciences (they did it to
Velikovsky in 1968), by asking them to put their money where their mouths
are.
The ICR did not send a representative. They claimed that the audience
would be too biased (translation: they couldn't get away with distorting
facts and misquoting people).
# Origin: The Skeptic's Board 415-648-8944 1:125/27 (RBBS-PC 8:914/207)
FROM: Phil Nicholls @ 914/207
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: Evolution V. Creation
Date: 15 Jan 90 21:26:21
> Half your list of suitable publications that you submitted in your
> message to me were CLEARLY slanted toward evolution. What about the
> other half?
> Are you SURE you have the same bibliography I do? The one I have has
> a number of papers that were originally given at conferences, and the
> majority are what would appear at least on the surface to be from
> refereed journals. Is there a difference between that and peer review
> journals? Would you say that a peer review journal is nothing more
> than a bastion of majority opinion which is designed to stifle
> dissent?
> I would like to see a collection of rejection slips, too, but I am
> also mindful of what in law one would call "a chilling effect",
> whereby a person fails to do an act because it has been discouraged in
> a very real way, and the person sees no percentage in pursuing what is
> almost sure to be a futile act.
> I have uploaded a list of the journals in the bibliography of ICR
> faculty that I have, to Larry McGee. He said he would make it
> available as a file, but if you like, I can netmail you the list
> directly: it takes up two messages.
Well, until creationists are willing to stand by their claims they can
hardly expect to hae much of an impact. Please not that any scientists who
is a member of a scientific organisation can present a paper at that
organisation's annual meeting. Of course, it is difficult to challange the
orthodoxy, but you can do it if your good and if your evidence makes a
strong enough case. It may take awhile, but it happens.
Creationism is not the cutting edge of science. It is a throwback to the
dark ages. If evolutionary theory is disproven, it will not be creationism
that replaces it.
# Origin: The Skeptic's Board 415-648-8944 1:125/27 (RBBS-PC 8:914/207)
FROM: Jonathan Rogers (PRIVATE)
TO: James Hay
Subject: Flat Earth
Date: 15 Jan 90 18:13:42
I'm one creationist who doesn't think the earth is flat. Those who do are
obvious fools, no doubt about that one. I'm wondering if someone wil finally
give me some REAL proof that the earth and all life on it evolved instead of
being created as I currently believe. If you or anyone else can prove to me
that the earth and all life wasn't created then I'll quickly give up that
idea, until then I hold firm.
* Origin: CATCOM -1- Aerospace Technology Evolutionists are claiming that earth is an OPEN system, taking
>in sunlight. Why do you say it is a CLOSED system?
I don't remember what I said. It's too bad you can't quote my messages so
I can have a decent chance of explaining myself. I don't know whether you
misunderstood what I wrote or whether I made an error in my message. In
any case, the earth is not thermodynamically closed.
> If the DNA does not contain information, then where does the
>genetic information come from? It was my understanding that the DNA
>IS the genetic information.
A book is basically ink on paper. If I splatter ink on paper, does that
contain information?
DNA is how information is stored in a cell, but there is no law that says
that a random piece of DNA must contain information as there is nothing
that says that ink on paper must contain information.
Let me explain it this way: Assume that all the DNA bases (A, C, T, and G)
are present in a solution. They would tend to form a strand of DNA. Would
that DNA contain information?
I don't know how DNA came to hold the information basic to a cell's
operation, I just wanted to point out that a strand of DNA doesn't
necessarily do anything useful.
* Origin: SCI's Revenge - Winning the Battle Against ntEorpy! (1:226/70.2)
FROM: Jon Guthrie
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: entropy
Date: 15 Jan 90 22:44:25
> You say that thermodynamics merely requires that the entropy
>increase in the overall system, but this is actually the wrong
>application of thermodynamics here.
Is it? It would appear to me that that approach is more valid as the one
that you are (badly) trying to promote.
>What we are talking about is NOT the available of energy to do work,
>but the availability of INFORMATION. Thus, information theory comes
>into play, and the laws of thermodynamics definitely apply. You cannot
>obtain MORE information at the end of the process; only less. The
>obtaining of less information at the receiving end is caused by
>entropy. In order to convey all of the information, the message must be
>redundant. But there is NO process in information theory for
>generating MORE information, or MORE COMPLEX information on the
>receiving end from the information sent out.
You don't seem to understand what evolution is all about. The whole point
about evolution is that it IS the mechanism of adding information.
With each mutation, the information can be added or taken away. Because
there are more ways for information to be taken away than added information
is usually taken away. (Statement of entropy in terms of information
theory.) Since the change is random, it IS possible to add information and
with the culling process of natural selection this added information is
brought to the forefront while the noise that is the harmful mutations is
attenuated.
Natural selection is what filters the noise from the information.
* Origin: SCI's Revenge - Winning the Battle Against ntEorpy! (1:226/70.2)
FROM: Greg Hansen
TO: Jonathan Rogers
Subject: Re: RE: Evolution Vs. Creatio
Date: 15 Jan 90 11:03:44
>So anyone willing to prove that a divine being didn't create the
>universe and all life on earth? I'll be looking forward to your
>submission of new evidence to
A divine being may have created the universe, even if it isn't the
Christain God. But a true scientist would never stop with saying "God did
it." A true (creationist) scientist would say "How did God do it?" and
even "How was God created?"
>All I ask is that both "theories" be given equal reprentation so
>students can make up their own minds from there.
If equal time for equal evidence is a criteria, then creationism has no
place in the science classroom.
* Origin: Nick's Nest (612) 490-1187, (612) 490-0341 HST (Opus 1:282/3)
FROM: James Hay
TO: Master Sauron
Subject: Re: RE: EVOLUTION VS. CREATIO
Date: 16 Jan 90 17:47:00
Creationism does not have the financial support of the Vatican, which
accepted the possibility of evolution many years back.
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
FROM: James Hay
TO: Doug Bell
Subject: Re: Thermodynamics
Date: 16 Jan 90 17:50:00
Origin of life experiments have been going on for 30 yrs. So? You act as
if that is a long time. How long did it take for man just to discover
oxygen? How long did the airplane take to invent? Certain stemps of the
process of the origin of life, which people had said couldn't be done, have
been demonstrated in the lab. Tell me WHY, specifically, we have reached
an end point or limit. Flat You-can't-do-thats usually turn out to be
wrong.
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
FROM: Trygve Lode
TO: Peh Lee
Subject: Re: EVOLUTION
Date: 15 Jan 90 12:43:08
Thanks for the compliment. Even if the explanation doesn't make its way to
its intended destination, it gives me a little more practice in expressing
complex ideas in simple terms. (Trouble is, I'm still having a terrible
time writing messages because my hand-waving doesn't show up in the message
editor--and when it does, it just doesn't look right.)
* Origin: The Comm-Post - Denver - (303) 534-4646 Multi-Line HST/DS (104/666)
FROM: Trygve Lode
TO: Jonathan Rogers
Subject: Re: RE: EVOLUTION VS. CREATIO
Date: 15 Jan 90 12:54:00
You've got a point--after all, if you can't absolutely and without a shadow
of a doubt prove evolution, it must be on the same epistemological level
as creationism which doesn't even have evidence to back it up. Of course I do
hope you'll support me in my drive to bring true fairness to the teaching in
our schools where creation will be taught along side of evolution with no
preference given to evolution over creation or the christian theory of creation
over the one detailed in Norse mythology in which the earth is the mangled
remnants of the dead giant Ymir whose severed skullcap forms the sky and blood
forms the oceans.
I hope you'll also support my drive to bring fairness into the teaching of
meterology which has for years taught the theory that clouds are made up of
water droplets rather than the equally tenable theory that clouds are really
leftover fragments of Ymir's splattered brain.
(Hmmm...this could really make weather forecasting more interesting....)
* Origin: The Comm-Post - Denver - (303) 534-4646 Multi-Line HST/DS (104/666)
FROM: Sue Miller
TO: George Erdel
Subject: Re: The Vanishing Case for Evolution Sci
Date: 15 Jan 90 20:23:54
Gee George, thanks for the superiority fix. I didn't really think that
there was anyone out there with your type of mindset who could actually
operate a computer with a modem. Got a neighbor kid helping you? Just
curious.
Could you please quote me ONE reputable scientific source (in other words,
not the Nat'l Enquirer or a fundamentalist preacher) that shows evidence
that HIV can be spread through casual contact?
* Origin: Palo Alto Writer's Mostly Echo OPUS. Come to talk! (Opus 1:204/29)
FROM: Jayce Wharton
TO: Rod Alan
Subject: Re: The Creation And Evolution Models:
Date: 16 Jan 90 17:08:54
We must not assume that /anything/ is beyond Human understanding.
That is too self-limiting.
Here are a few possibilities: Intelligent design by other intelligent
life-forms, energy beings from the beginning of the universe, or by an
unknown natural law of physics.
A rather far-fetched philisophical idea: Life is a game played by immortal
energy beings, who take the forms we see as living creatures for amusement
during their infinite life spans.
/Anything/ is possible, until you directly observe the process of how an
intelligent species came into existence.
Evolution is a sound scientific theory. The best we have at the moment.
* Origin: Dawn Patrol "380 Net Host/Echo Coord 14.4 HST" (Opus 1:380/0)
FROM: Jayce Wharton
TO: John Ball @ 930/15
Subject: Re: Creationism
Date: 16 Jan 90 17:40:34
If you take apart a swiss watch, and shake it around for a few billion
years, it /will/ eventually hit the right combination of locations, and be a
working swiss watch.
Also, one of the things that is distressing to some scientists is the fact
that Creationists are also usually Doomsdayers, teaching that no matter
what Humans do, the world will be destroyed.
It is an especially horrible teaching for children.
If anything can prove the Bible to be incorrect, it will be the survival and
advancement of Humans.
* Origin: Dawn Patrol "380 Net Host/Echo Coord 14.4 HST" (Opus 1:380/0)
FROM: Henry Shaw
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: AGE OF ROCKS
Date: 16 Jan 90 18:42:42
I'm sorry for not responding to your question on radiometric dating earlier;
I've been swamped at work and things are pretty hectic at home, too.
I am an isotope geochemist, which is the field that is involved with, among
other things, radiometric dating. My PhD thesis was on the application of
the Rb/Sr, Sm/Nd, and U-Th/Pb isotopic systems to a variety of geological
problems. Though age-dating has not been the primary thrust of my
research, I have dated numerous rock samples with my very own hands.
Radiometric dating is based on the fact that unstable nuclei transform into
the nucleus of another element according to a simple law that has been
experimentally verified to extremely high precision:
dR(t)/dt = -k*R(t)
Where R(t) is the number of nuclei/atoms of a radioactive element present at
time t, and k is a constant, and d[]/dt is the derivative with respect to
time (the rate at which the number of R atoms changes with time).
Now, when these radioactive elements decay, they don't just dissapear; they
are generally transformed into other elements. For each decay of a
radioactive atom, an atom of another element is formed (except in the case
of spontaneous fission, in which two, or rarely three, new elements are
formed for each decay.) (In alpha decay, one actually two new elements
too, one of which is a helium nucleus, but we are mostly concerned with the
"heavy" product of the decay.) The rate at which these new atoms are
formed is simply the negative of the rate at which the radioactive elements
are decaying:
dD(t)/dt = k*R(t)
where D(t) is the number of "daughter" atoms at time t.
These equations can easily be integrated to yield:
R(t) = R0*exp(-kt)
D(t) = R0*[1-exp(-kt)] + D0
where R0 and D0 are the amounts of the radioactive parent and daughter atoms
present at time t = 0. The things we can measure today are the quantities
R(t) and D(t). In general we do not know the initial amounts. We can then
combine the two equations to eliminate one of the unknowns, R0.
D(t) = R(t)[exp(kt) - 1] +D0 [Fundamental equation]
Enough for decay systematics. Now for some geology and geochemistry.
To understand how the "fundamental equation" derived in the last message
can be applied to dating rocks, you need to know a little about rocks. In
general (though not necessarily) rocks are composed of crystals of various
chemical compounds. These crystals are called minerals.
There are three classes of rocks: (1) igneous, which are rocks that
crystallized from a molten liquid (magma or lava); (2) sedimentary, which
are rocks made up of grains of other, older rocks that have been weathered
and eroded; and (3) metamorphic, which are rocks that were originally
igneous or sedimentary, but have been heated (generally by deep burial) to
100's of degrees C. This is not hot enough to melt the rocks, but it *is*
hot enough for the individual minerals in the rock to react with one
another. If the original minerals were thermodynamically unstable at the
"metamorphic conditions" of high temperature (and usually pressure), they
may react to form new, stable minerals. This process is known as
metamorphism (from meta-, to change; and -morph, form). If the original
set of minerals is stable, as might be the case with a rock that had an
igneous origin, there are still processes, such as dissusion, that can
cause atoms to move from mineral to mineral, or, on a larger scale, from
one volume of rock to another.
Now, Mother Nature (or God, if you prefer) is a rotten chemist. There is
no such thing as an absolutely pure compound in nature; there is always a
little bit of every element in every mineral. Nevertheless, each mineral
has "preferences" for which elements will be incorporated into its crystal
structure. These preferences arise from a combination of the crystal
structure of the mineral and the chemical properties of the elements.
Now, in radiometric dating, we are generally concerned with the behavior of
certain naturally occurring radioactive elements and their daughter product
elements. In the case of dating old rocks, there are a few commonly used
parent-daughter pairs:
87Rb -->beta decay --> 87Sr halflife = 4.89 x 10^10 years
147Sm -->alpha decay --> 143Nd halflife = 1.06 x 10^11 years
40K -->electron capture->40Ar halflife = 1.20 x 10^10 years
235U -->long decay chain->207Pb halflife = 7.04 x 10^8 years
238U -->long decay chain->206Pb halflife = 4.47 x 10^9 years
232Th -->long decay chain->208Pb halflife = 1.40 x 10^10 years
197Re -->beta decay --> 187Os halflife = 4.5 x 10^10 years
176Lu -->beta decay --> 176Hf halflife = 3.7 x 10^10 years
The last two pairs have only been applied relatively recently, due to
technical problems in making the necessary analyses. There are also a
number of other less commonly used pairs.
Now, consider for a moment a mineral crystallizing from molten magma. To
simplify things initially, let's say that potassium "fits" into that
mineral's crystal structure, but Ar does not, so that this "ideal" mineral
forms with some 40K in it, but no 40Ar (the daughter element). This is
actually not a bad approximation, since Ar is an "inert gas" and does not
generally form compounds with other elements. As the mineral cools, it
will eventually reach a temperature below which the atoms in it are
"trapped" and cannot interact with the outside world. Up until that point,
any Ar produced would be "kicked out" of the crystal because they don't
"belong" (the energy of the crystal is increased by their presence and they
diffuse out of the crystal). After this point, any 40Ar produced by the
decay of the 40K is trapped in the crystal.
Now a geologist comes along, bashes a hunk of this rock off an outcrop,
takes it back to the lab, separates the potassium-loving mineral grains,
and measures the content of 40K and 40Ar in them using a technique called
mass spectrometry.
Recall the "fundamental equation":
D(t) = R(t)[exp(kt) - 1] +D0 [Fundamental equation]
In this case, D(t) = the amount of 40Ar in the minerals now, R(t) is the
amount of 40K in the minerals now, and D0 = 0, because we assumed that the
mineral initially contained no 40Ar. We know the constant k, which is
simply related to the halflife, which can be measured. We can then solve
this equation to find t, which is the time elapsed since the mineral
started trapping Ar. This would be called the age of the rock.
In essence, this is how all radiometric dating (except for 14C dating) works.
As I said, nature is a lousy chemist, and few minerals contain *only* the
parent isotope and none of the daughter. There are a number of minerals for
which this is a good approximation for both the K-Ar and U-Pb systems, but
in general, there is a little of the daughter element present when the
mineral forms. In this case, D0 does not equal 0 and we have two unknowns
in the fundamental equation: t, and D0. In this, more usual, case, one
measures the amount of parent and daughter elements present in at least two
different minerals in the rock that incorporate the parent and daughter in
different ratios. One then has two (or more) equations in two unknowns and
can solve (or use least-squares techniques) for both D0 and t.
This technique also works on a larger scale. Instead of using minerals, one
uses a number of whole rock samples that have different parent/daughter
ratios. The mathematics and concept are exactly the same. The benefit of
this variation is that generally, the temperature at which the system (i.e.
the rock or mineral grain) becomes "closed", or starts to retain all the
radiogenic daughter products, increases as the size of the system increases.
Radiometric dating works on both igneous and metamorphic rocks. In the
former case, the age obtained closely corresponds to the time of
crystallization of the rock from a melt. In the latter, the age
corresponds to the time at which metamorphic processes stopped and the
system became closed. Sedimentary rocks, with few exceptions, are not
amenable to radiometric dating.
There are three fundamental assumptions involved in the technique:
1) A capricious god did not create the universe, exactly as we see it
today, one microsecond ago with all the appropriate amounts of parent and
daughter isotopes that would imply a much older age.
This possibility is a question of metaphysics, not of science. The
possibility cannot be excluded; however, it leads to an intellectually
bankrupt philosophy that denies the any kind of knowledge of an external
world. Accepting this philosophy completely rejects the validity of the
scientific method.
2) The parent isotopes have always had the same halflife (k in the
fundamental equation has not changed over time). [The ICR likes to raise
this as a fatal flaw in the technique.]
There is no evidence that such a thing has happened, nor is there any
physical theory with supporting evidence that predicts such a thing. On
the other hand, there *is* evidence that such a thing has *not* happened.
If, for the sake of argument, the oldest rocks on earth are 10,000 years
old instead of ~3,800,000,000 years old, then, on average, the halflives of
*all* the radioactive elements in the above list must have been 380,000
shorter than they are now to account for the observed parent and daughter
element abundances. If this were so, the earth would still be largely
molten due to the greatly increased rate of radioactive heat generation.
The heat flux at the surface of the earth would be orders of magnitude
higher than is observed. Tectonic activity would be enormously increased
as the earth tried to rid itself of the heat. In short, the implications
are profound.
There is also the fact that when different parent-daughter "clocks" are
used to date the same rock, one gets the same age, within error, for well
behaved systems (see below).
3. The minerals or rocks being dated have been "closed systems" since they
formed.
This assumption is the one that is most often violated. Fortunately, there
are methods to detect when this has happened.
In a nutshell, the problem is one of determining that some process has not
added or removed any of the parent or daughter element since the time the
rock or mineral formed. This can happen if a rock is heated to several
hundred degrees (incipient metamorphism that does not cause gross
recrystallization of the rock). It can also happen if water carrying
dissolved salts (including some of the parent or daughter elements)
interacts with the rock, as well as a variety of other ways.
Such an occurrence would not be detected if one analysed a single mineral
grain from a single rock using a single parent-daughter pair. On the other
hand, such a determination would never be accepted as a valid age, nor
would it be accepted for publication. Normally, one analyses multiple
samples. If the system has been partially disturbed in some way (was not
closed) then the most general result is that an age cannot be determined
because each mineral (or rock) sample gives an different result. In such
cases, it is obvious that this assumption was not valid, and the researcher
would not publish the age. If the disturbance is extensive, then the
isotopic clocks can be completely "reset", with parent and daughter
elements being completely redistributed among the different minerals in
such a way to minimize the energy of the system. This is what happens when
an igneous rock is metamorphosed, and the resulting age gives the time of
metamorphism, not the original age of the igneous rock.
The different isotopic systems differ in their "resistance" to being
disturbed by these processes. K-Ar is especially susceptible to being
"reset" by thermal disturbances because Ar really does not fit into any
crystal structure. On the other hand, the Sm-Nd system is quite "robust",
because samarium and neodymium are both rare-earth elements and have quite
similar chemical characteristics. This means that the daughter element,
Nd, is quite "happy" in a crystallographic site that originally contained a
Sm atom. In a case of moderate disturbance, the K-Ar system may be
completely screwed up (this is a highly technical term), but the Sm-Nd
system may yield a valid age. The ICR likes to make a big deal about how
these "inconsistencies" make the whole enterprise invalid, when instead,
the different results have their origin in well understood processes that
can be reproduced in the laboratory.
This was probably MUCH more than you ever wanted to know about dating rocks,
but it's been a while since I posted a similar message. I apologize to
those of you in the echo who've been through all this before.
There will be a short, closed-book quiz on this material next class. Don't
forget to turn in this week's homework before you leave....
* Origin: Diablo Valley PCUG-BBS, Walnut Creek, CA 415/943-6238 (1:161/55)
FROM: John Thompson
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Transitional forms
Date: 16 Jan 90 15:04:13
Another article ennumerating and explaining transitional fossils that you
may wish to read is "The Transition Between Reptiles and Mammals" by Robert
E. Sloan, in "Evolution vs. Creationism: the Public Education Controversy"
J. Peter Zetterberg, ed. To quote a little from this...
"...a fossil record of the transition between reptiles and
mammals has been well-known since about 1878! While the creationists
deny it to this day, the fact remains that this is the most
thoroughly documented transition between major classes in the
whole fossil record. Without looking very hard, I found over
1000 technical papers and books on the subject... About 400
genera have been described, more are described every year.
...These fossils show a complete and continuous transition
between the most primitive reptiles known and the first mammals.
He goes on to describe in some detail (with illustrations and references)
many of these transitional forms and why they are thought to be such. I
highly recommend the entire book that this article is a part of;
particularly since very few people have heard of it. It is also one of the
few books on this subject that has solicited and recieved papers from both
the scientific and creationist experts. I hope that you can find a copy of
it where you live.
* Origin: Homebuilt Flyer (Opus 1:139/600)
FROM: Greg Hansen
TO: Astronomers
Subject: Moon's Orbit
Date: 16 Jan 90 16:17:14
A friend of mine, attempting to support a Christainly young earth, said one
thing that supports that view is that the moon is slowly moving away from
the earth, and if the eart was 4.5 billion years old, then the moon would
have flown away a long time ago. I asked a teacher at my school about it.
He said yes, the moon is moving away, but he doesn't know how fast. But
still, he figured that would ssupport an earth at least a few million years
old.
Can anyone help me with this?
* Origin: Nick's Nest (612) 490-1187, (612) 490-0341 HST (Opus 1:282/3)
FROM: Greg Hansen
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Book
Date: 16 Jan 90 16:46:52
Pat, a book you might want to look for is "Abusing Science: The Case Against
Creationism". Of course, it's obviously slanted towards evolution. But
almost the entire book is devoted to refuting the creationist's favorite
argument~rs against evolution. In effect, it defends evolution from
creationist attacks. Sorry I can't remember the author.
* Origin: Nick's Nest (612) 490-1187, (612) 490-0341 HST (Opus 1:282/3)
FROM: John Thompson
TO: Doug Bell
Subject: Evolutionary arguements pt.1
Date: 18 Jan 90 08:30:00
DB> In a nutshell, creationists, at least myself, generally
DB> believe that an intelligent being created a wide variety of
DB> living organisms, which radiated out by evolution [without
DB> creating new type of organisms] to fill all the niches in
DB> the ecosystem.
This appears to be a reasonable hypothesis, but it would require the
existence of a mechanism that would act to prevent small variations from
accumulating to the point of producing new species. Such a mechanism has
never been demonstrated to exist; indeed, all the evidence seems to point
to contiuous variability, occaisionally making species designations appear
quite arbitrary.
DB> Origin of life experiments have been going on for at least
DB> 30 years. Will the time ever come where the scientists
DB> admit that there is no such nature of molecules to self
DB> organize and form life, if they continue to experience
DB> failure.
Maybe after scientists have tried for the several hundred million years the
earth had to work with to produce life! ;-). Seriously, these experiments
have only been done to any extent at a few dozen places throughout the
world, and only for about 30 years, a time scale 7 orders of magnitude less
than the earth had! Still, progress has been made; recently scientists
have reported catalytic activity in RNA molecules, raising the probability
that self-replicating RNA may have arisen spontaneously, and Dr. Sidney Fox
at the U. of Miami has been producing spontaneously organized "proteinoid
sphericules" with rudimentary reproductive and enzymatic activity for
several decades now. It would be a real breakthrough if someone could
demonstrate a plausible means to get these two systems (RNA and protein)
together in a single package that shows some of the properties we associate
with life. I am confident that this is just a matter of time.
DB> Gould and others felt so threaten[ed] by the lack of
DB> transitional fossils in the record that they postulated
DB> punctuated equilibrium.
Either you have not read much on punctuated equilibrium or you have not
understood it well. The theory was not made up to explain a lack of
transitional fossils; quite the contrary, it was the proliferation of
transitional forms that appeared in the fossil record too rapidly for
traditional evolutionary theory to explain well that caused them to develop
the theory of punctuated equilibrium. It is true that transitional forms
between SOME major groups are not abundant (e.g. between gymnosperms and
angiosperms), but in other cases they are abundant, well documented, and
widespread (e.g. between reptiles and mammals).
DB> ...if life started out highly organized, it could easily
DB> follow the course of increased entropy through the process
DB> of mutations slowly destroying the highly ordered life
DB> forms. Then, instead of evolution being a man from an ape,
DB> it would more likely be an ape from a man. Instead of a
DB> prokaryotic cell evolving into a eukaryotic, it would be the
DB> other way around.
That is a clearly stated and easily testable hypothesis. If it were true,
one would expect the fossil record to show the all the most complex life
forms in the earliest strata, with successively more simple forms in the
more recent strata. Unfortunately, the fossil record shows exactly the
opposite tendency. Lest you think this is a single minor anomaly in an
otherwise plausible theory, let me remind you that this tendency for the
fossil record to show only the simplest forms in the oldest strata is
UBIQUITOUS, anywhere the stratigraphic sequence has been worked out (and
that is all over the world, now), you find only the simplest forms in the
oldest rocks, and the more complex forms in the more recent rocks.
* Origin: APPLEGATE - a Quick(er)BBS in Appleton, Wisc. (1:139/630)
FROM: Netrunner
TO: John Tender
Subject: Re: Evolution
Date: 17 Jan 90 23:25:00
In a message to Gerard Weatherby <01-11-90 23:55> John Tender wrote:
> GW> petty. On the other hand, a God that could script the laws of
> GW> nature such that, from a single clump of stuff, earth and life
> GW> and us could evolve in Saganish 'billions and billions' of
> GW> years later is far more impressive to me, at least. I think
> But the laws of nature are probabilistic, not deterministic. There
> is no way to plan the evolutionary development for any system
> over a long span of time; there are inevitably many opportunities
> for chance to divert it.
As far as we humans understand the laws of the universe, you are correct.
You forget that the Creator would also be able to predict the outcomes of
each and every probabilistic event through omniscience, therefore making
the universe NOT probabilistic, but fully determined.
* Origin: Eschew Obfuscation! [Cyberspace Nexus (419) 686-4227] (1:234/19.0)
FROM: Pat Goltz
TO: Wesley R. Elsberry @ 930/17
Subject: Re: Still not reading?
Date: 15 Jan 90 22:05:22
In a message to me, you said, "About a month ago I pointed out to you ...an
article...I take it you haven't bothered to look it up yet."
I apologize for not "having bothered" to look it up yet, but I just plain
don't have time. I have six kids to raise; we don't have running water, so
all the laundry and people who need to take baths have to be transported
across town; I am the general contractor on the house we are trying to
build to live in; I run a ranch; I have to do the family's legal work for
court cases the government has foisted upon us because we can't afford a
lawyer; and I am trying to go to school. When you can get all that done
then come back and tell me I haven't BOTHERED.
* Origin: UA Today (University of Arizona, Tucson) (1:300/3)
FROM: Jonathan Rogers
TO: James Hay
Subject: Re: RE: Evolution Vs. Creatio
Date: 17 Jan 90 23:49:30
I for one never bought the "flat earth" bit, all visual evidence from the
moon landings and the shuttle flights would've told ya that. Before there
even were any spacecraft Columbus and Magelan(sp?) proved the earth wasn't
flat at all. All I'm essentially asking is for OUR side to get an equal
representation, if ONLY evolution is taught then the students would have no
other theory to consider and would accept evolution for lack of another
comparative idea(in order to prove creation you have to acknowledge God
since that's the foundation of the whole creationism idea, and no one seems
willing to hear anything about God. So you see the difficulty.) Like I said
before, PROVE to ME that evolution is how things came about and I'll gladly
put down my belief in creation and embrace evolution and the big bang. I'll
be awaiting any evidence people wish to present me with that will satisfy
me, and this time I'm truly waiting with an "open-mind".
* Origin: CATCOM -1- Aerospace Technology I know, everything is so intricate; far too detailed and ordered to
> have come from random chance.
Not a good argument. See Gould and "The Panda's Thumb" where he discusses
the idea rather extensively.
> It is in deed a serious
> insult to say that our ancestors are related to the monkeys(well some
Frankly, I would rather have monkeys in the family than creationists!
Monkeys are reasoning creatures in comparison to many of the creationists.
In addition, they seem to have a sense of humor , a trait sadly lacking in
the hairless primate suffering from terminal creationism.
Now, nobody says you are discended from the monkeys, but we all sure shared
some ancestors. Just look at our friend the Chimp: you can use his blood
for a transfusion in an emergency. And he can use yours. On the chromosone
level, we are better than 98% compatible.
For comparison, the horse and ass are 95% or so compARABLE. yOU ARE A CLOSER
relative to the primates than you will admit.
* Origin: By the banks of the mighty Merrimack (1:132/130)
FROM: Charles Harden
TO: Jonathan Rogers
Subject: Re: RE: Evolution Vs. Creatio
Date: 20 Jan 90 23:08:00
If creation truly occurred as is the literal word in Genesis as most fundies
would have us believe, then God would leave us clear evidence of that on the
earth. I am a Christian as well as an evolutionist, and my God would not
put clues on earth that point to the earth being 5 billion years old if it
were 4000 yrs old. As a trained biologist, I have been taught evolutionary
theory, and the evidence behind it, and it makes very rational sense to me.
My personal theological theory is that God created the Universe (not as it
exists today, but as an amalgam of matter) and the natural laws, and what
we have today is a result of natural evolutionary processes. To sum things
up, scientific evidence clearly shows a record of the evolution of man from
simpler forms. No credible evidence exists for the literal word of
Genesis. The only rational thing to believe is that the Bible shows us how
to live our life, but it doesn't tell us anything about science. As much
as I love to debunk creationism, and discuss evolutionary theory, I am
getting very frustrated by people with very little knowledge about science
and how it operates telling me that creationism (a facade of science over a
religious story) should be taught in the public schools alongside evolution
(the best explanation that the facts show us).
(this message is not directed at anyone in particular, but rather to the
net. I apologize to people if it sounds a little harsh, but I sometimes get
very frustrated over things that can possibly dilute the teaching of
science in the schools)
* Origin: SURFACE INTERVAL,S.Fla Divers BBS (305)246 DIVE (1:135/50.0)
FROM: Charles Harden
TO: Jonathan Rogers
Subject: Re: Bravo!
Date: 20 Jan 90 23:23:00
Many things in your recent post to John Ball disturb me, but I will confine
this message to asking you some questions that I have always wanted to ask
of a die-hard creationist. (I am a creationist at one level, but I can't
deny the theory of evolution, see one of my earlier posts for an
explanation) I would love for you, or any other creationist to give me an
honest answer to these questions. (By the way, my general view is that
creationist=fundamentalist Christian, if I am wrong about this generality,
please tell me)
1) Why would our loving God leave evidence on this earth that the
earth is possibly 5 billion years old?
2) If the Bible is exact scientific truth (i.e. Genesis is correct
word for word, God created the earth in 7 days...) is a translation accurate
enough, or should we only read it in its original Hebrew or Aramaic?
3) Why would God create Apes with great anatomical similarities to
humans, and with almost exactly the same genetic make up
(Chimps have over 95% similarity in DNA with us), and even more
perplexing, why would he use the same body plan for all mammals
(basically) when he could create "perfect" creatures.
(I.E. why is the skeletons of bats and whales fairly similar)
Thank you for your replies in advance. The wording of these isn't perfect,
but please allow for that. Please feel free to ask me similar questions.
* Origin: SURFACE INTERVAL,S.Fla Divers BBS (305)246 DIVE (1:135/50.0)
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry @ 930/17
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Cloud chamber stuff
Date: 21 Jan 90 09:43:27
> OK, so I see a trace in my cloud chamber, and someone tells
> me that is an electron. I still have to BELIEVE him. :)
There is an alternative, Pat. You could work out the properties of the
particle from its behavior in the cloud chamber, and conclude that the
particular particle in question matched the commonly accepted definition of
"electron." No "belief" is necessary, except for the lazy.
# Origin: Central Neural System, 817-551-9363, HST, TPBoard 5.2 (8:930/17)
FROM: Stewart Leabman
TO: George Erdel
Subject: RE: EVOLUTION VS. CREATIO
Date: 22 Jan 90 00:57:54
We did not evolve from dinosaurs and we did not evolve from monkeys.
However, birds evolved from some dinosaurs and we evolved from something
like a monkey, ape or probably as we now think, the chimpanzee. Look at
the evolutionary tree and you will see what I am talking about.
* Origin: Scooter's Scientific Exchange - 215-657-5586 (1:273/712)
FROM: Greg Hansen
TO: Creationists
Subject: Radioactive Decay
Date: 19 Jan 90 22:46:01
I was talking to a friend of mine. Someone tell me, is it true that
creationists claim that The Flood was such a cataclysmic event that it
changed the rate of radioactive decay? Is it? I've gotta know! How would
it happen (my friend sure didn't know!)?
* Origin: Nick's Nest (612) 490-1187, (612) 490-0341 HST (Opus 1:282/3)
FROM: Greg Hansen
TO: Peh Lee
Subject: Re: RE: Evolution Vs. Creatio
Date: 21 Jan 90 18:21:22
I was contemplating the roles of science and religion after talking to a
creationist friend of mine. It seems to me that fundamentalists and
creationists, by saying that Genesis is the way it all began, are saying
that their religion is falsifiable. In other words, if it was somehow
proven beyond any reasonable doubt, (and they can somehow accept that
evidence!) that the earth was older than 6000 years, or life began and
continued in a way other than Genesis has described, Christianity would
have been falsified like any other incorrect scientific theory. Of course,
if it's falsified, where does that leave the devoutly religious
literalists?
The Christianity I accept is not falsifiable, and can not be threatened by
any empiracle data. It is faith and faith alone, and I admit it. Why
don't they admit the same?
* Origin: Nick's Nest (612) 490-1187, (612) 490-0341 HST (Opus 1:282/3)
FROM: Kristian Stark
TO: Mike Steiner
Subject: Re: RE: Evolution Vs. Creatio
Date: 17 Jan 90 19:30:19
What you are saying is of course true, but realize also that the whole idea
of total evolution is totally preposterous. If I may quote someone else in
this echo, it is like shaking a bag full of parts that makes a swiss watch,
and hoping that somehow they will all fit into the right pattern to make a
total watch. I would say that the possibility of something like that
happening are beyond anything reasonable! :-)
Although I fully believe in creation as laid out in the Bible, there is
nothing to say that evolution did not happen: you can see it in the world
around us all the time. However, a grand scale evolution such as the
entire creation of the world and the living and non-living organisms in it
is not something that could have come out of *total* evolution. I do not
believe it possible that a plant can evolve into a human being! That is
way beyond anything that I can accept. However, you must also take into
account that the Bible is figurative in most of the things that it
mentions, mainly because it was meant to be able to be read and understood
by people thousands + years ago, and thus was made to be simple. Instead
of writing all about atoms and such, it was supposed to make sense to
people much less 'intellectual' then us, who did not have the scientific
etc. knowledge that we today do. Thus, it makes sense to think that the
seven days are not necessarily seven days at all, but rather an easy way
for people to understand the passage of time. For all we know, the time
mentioned there could have been several million years, in which, my opinion,
God made His creation into what He wanted it to be. Since then, things have
obviously evolved to some extent, and some creatures have developed
variants, but I would say that each creature that roams the earth today, or
ever has roamed, has been a direct creation of God. Each variety might
have been an evolved state of that creature, with time taking its toll and
making some of them rather different from the original creature that it has
been created as. I would truly like to be able to see someone who can fully
prove the 'theory of evolution' fully... I don't think that there is any
way that anybody can say that evolution is the *only* way that the world
was created. Simply said, how could it have? Where would it have started
from, and why would it have happened. Think of all the different variables
involved, and the chances that would have had to come into play for each of
the variables, and you see that the possibility of it happening is
infinitely against itself. Add to that the fact that there would have had
to be something before the whole thing started, and you are faced with the
question, where did the original matter and/or energy come from? If there
had been no creation, there would have had to be an universe all along, and
that still makes no sense, because where would the universe have come from?
Another evolution of kinds?
I think we are back at square one here.... :-)
As far as your second question, regarding the different myths of creation as
you call them, I will not attempt to answer them, because I do not claim to
know them fully, so it would be difficult for me to argue for them or
against them. All I can say for myself is that I believe in God because I
can feel His presense. I KNOW that He is there, and because of that I can
accept the theory of creation.
As C.S. Lewis once said, "I believe in God, not because I can see HIM, but
because with HIM, I can see everything else."
I rest my case... What do you say?
* Origin: Shark's Basin * Ithaca, NY (607)273-6129 (1:260/420)
FROM: Jim Speiser
TO: Jay Guerette
Subject: Re: The Creation And Evolution Models:
Date: 14 Jan 90 02:59:00
> I hate to just jump in but I think I may have something to offer
> here. I am an agnostic. First I have to say one thing bothers me
> about agnosticism. I don't buy it. I think it takes a fantastic
> amount of gall and a enormous ego to DENY the existance of a god.
> Despite my reservations about it, I will include it in with
> agnosticism as another kind of religion. The religion of the self,
> a love and trust of reason. I do not beleive in a god; but I do
> not deny the possible existance of a god. I beleive in myself and
> my reason and common sense. I think of myself as an animal, a
> product a nature. My spiritualism comes from that connection, my
> tie to the earth. That is the religion of the agnostic.
Thanks, Jay, an interesting perspective. I consider myself an agnostic who
is searching. I don't totally disbelieve in a god, either, I think there
may be something to spirituality. But I am painfully aware of man's desire
for a higher meaning to his droll existence, and that I share that desire
at a subconcious level. That desire can translate, in some, to an
unquestioning belief in what I consider fairy tales. Bottom line: Of one
thing I am certain, that I am certain of nothing. So I don't consider
myself to have religious beliefs.
* Origin: -==- ParaNet Zeta Reticuli 1:114/37 (1:114/37)
FROM: Jim Speiser
TO: Jonathan Rogers
Subject: Proving Evolution
Date: 15 Jan 90 16:58:00
Others may respond to your challenge, but I don't think they should until
you PROVE, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you will regard what they say
with an open mind, and not bring up tired old chestnuts like "violating the
2nd Law of Thermodynamics," the Paluxy River footprints, etc. Otherwise,
we'd be wasting our time. So far, there's not much hope of you proving such
a thing, in light of your insistence that evolution is only theory. Once
again, the difference:
That evolution has occurred is a demonstrated fact. Period.
How it has occurred, we can only theorize. That is the context in which you
hear the term, "Theory of Evolution."
* Origin: -==- ParaNet Zeta Reticuli 1:114/37 (1:114/37)
FROM: Jim Speiser
TO: George Erdel
Subject: Re: The Vanishing Case for Evolution Sci
Date: 18 Jan 90 19:41:00
> While many in fact most others deal in opinions I happen to deal
> with strictly the facts. These facts are clearly evident if one
> will only open ones eyes and see the forrest instead of a few
> trees. As far as a source I ask what is a source. Do you give
> something more creedance because it is in print? I happen to be a
> source authority and thus am able to see things as they are and
> relate these things that are clearly seen to others who are
> intrested in LEARNING through the written word. As far as those
> who might not want to take advantage of these opportunities to
> gain insight to certain matters, I really can't worry about their
> unwillingness to expand their horizons.
I have come to the conclusion, George, that you are on our side. You are
obviously playing devil's advocate, and playing yourself for the fool, in
order to give creationists/fundamentalists/anti-environmentalists/ Russia
bashers more of a bad name, and drive the undecided folk over to our side.
I applaud your efforts, sir. You are doing more to help the cause of
science than almost anyone else here. Keep up the good work.
* Origin: -==- ParaNet Zeta Reticuli 1:114/37 (1:114/37)
FROM: Jim Speiser
TO: Jayce Wharton
Subject: Re: Creationism
Date: 18 Jan 90 19:50:00
> If you take apart a swiss watch, and shake it around for a few
> billion years, it /will/ eventually hit the right combination of
> locations, and be a working swiss watch.
I think its probably more correct to say that, given enough time and enough
shakes, the odds AGAINST such an occurence are greatly diminished, to the
point where it is actually conceivable.
Reminds me of the story of the impossible bridge hand. What are the odds
against shuffling a deck thoroughly, then dealing out 4 bridge hands, and have
each hand come up A-K in one suit? (Any probabilities experts out there?) Well,
it actually happened during contract play, in a shipboard tournament once.
(Source: Guinness, I *THINK*).
> Also, one of the things that is distressing to some scientists is
> the fact that Creationists are also usually Doomsdayers, teaching that
> no matter what Humans do, the world will be destroyed.
> It is an especially horrible teaching for children.
> If anything can prove the Bible to be incorrect, it will be the
> survival and advancement of Humans.
No way. No matter how far we get, some clod will yell, "REPENT! THE END IS
NEAR!" We seem to have passed many a deadline already, yet every year it
seems someone comes up with a Rapture or whatever.
* Origin: -==- ParaNet Zeta Reticuli 1:114/37 (1:114/37)
FROM: Phil Nicholls @ 914/207
TO: Jim Bigwood
Subject: Re:evolution & 66 Million
Date: 22 Jan 90 20:39:11
This is an interesting hypothesis (let's be careful, there are creationists
listening after all) and it would explain many things. I am still reading
the evidence for it. The problem is that it sounds so much like a revival
of Velikovsky on the surface that many people are automatically over
critical.
Major periods of extinction, as I understand it, are caused by the largest
of these impacts. Between the impacts, natural selection acts
gradualistically to fit new variations into the changed environment.
One interesting point is that this may explain why it took life so long to
get started.
I need to here more.
# Origin: The Skeptic's Board - High weirdness by modem (RBBS-PC 8:914/207)
FROM: Pat Goltz
TO: Phil Nicholls
Subject: libel
Date: 22 Jan 90 22:50:01
In a recent message, you said that ICR engages in a variety of
dishonest...practices. As a scientist, you are angered by creationists
because they don't play by the rules. They have achieved some success by
"taking there [sic] case to the public," relying on the general public's
poor understanding of the nature of scientific evidence.
Other people have leveled similar charges.
I wish to caution you. I have extensively studied the law, and I wish to
state that in my humble opinion, this is what is legally called "libel per
se". The reasons for this are as follows: You specifically named ICR. This
means that they can prove the charge applies to them. You published it by
means other than word-of-mouth, which makes it libel rather than slander.
It is "per se" because you have charged them with lack of professionalism
in their occupation as scientists. This is one of the four grounds upon
which the determination is made that the defamation is "per se" and not
"per quod". In defamation per se, the plaintiff need not prove that you
INTENDED to libel him, nor need he prove that he has suffered actual
damages, because damages are presumed. Furthermore, punitive damages would
be available to him.
I am not doing anything more than issuing a friendly warning here. You do
not, to my mind, intend to libel anyone, and I am sure that no one else
here intends to do so either. Each person who has leveled such charges has
done so honestly. However, as a person who is questioning many things, I
find even the unintended libel less than SCIENTIFIC, if you will! That is,
it tends to put me off your arguments. It's also an ad hominem attack, and
thus not logical. Some of the people who have leveled these charges have
undoubtedly taken too little effort to check out ICR's practices. One
instance of Duane Gish continuing to talk about the bombardier beetle to a
gullible audience does not a pattern of lack of professionalism make, if
indeed he ever admitted that he was wrong. Be that as it may, if you want
to convince me that ICR and other creationists lack professionalism,
DEMONSTRATE it. Assertions here are no better than assertions on other
subjects! Let's be scientific about it!
I bear you no ill will. I just want to encourage you to think
scientifically .
* Origin: UA Today (University of Arizona, Tucson) (1:300/3)
FROM: Jayce Wharton
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: THE CREATION AND EVOLUTION MOD
Date: 22 Jan 90 08:45:14
Oh, by the Great Gleaming Galaxy!
If you set up the experiment correctly, you can prove that the particle had
a 'negative' charge. And one of the negatively charged particles discovered
has been named the Electron, or Negatron.
It requires no faith to simply observe a particle and name it.
* Origin: Dawn Patrol "380 Net Host/Echo Coord 14.4 HST" (Opus 1:380/0)
FROM: Jayce Wharton
TO: George Erdel
Subject: Re: Evolution Vs. Creatio
Date: 22 Jan 90 08:54:55
If you think that Humans evolved from the monkey, you are mistaken.
Humans, modern Chimps, Gorrilas, and Baboons all evolved from common
ancestors.
* Origin: Dawn Patrol "380 Net Host/Echo Coord 14.4 HST" (Opus 1:380/0)
FROM: Marty Leipzig
TO: Aaron Schmiedel
Subject: Re: Evolution
Date: 23 Jan 90 08:02:25
> So who are we to believe? What you say or what they say? You both sound
> the same, only preaching from a different soap box.
My God, man...Don't believe me! Challenge me, make me present the facts...
Don't believe anyone without facts... What I'm saying,
(EXACTLY opposite to what fundamentalists preach),is: do not BELIEVE, but
THINK. Assess the facts for yourself. Draw your own conclusions.
Or would you rather let your local preacher/evangelist tell you what you
should regard as correct or incorrect. Now who is blind?
> You and the fundies have a LOT in common. You automatically reject
> everything that comes from the ICR, and give a blanket denial to anyone
> who says they are a fundamentalist.
Wrongo, Aaron...I have every article, book, phamplet, filmstrip, periodical,
etc., etc.,etc...from the ICR (Hell, I'm even on their mailing list). That's
how I can state that if it's from the ICR, it's invalid, non-scientific and
dogmatic. Have you, in your rigorous defense of them, done the same? I try
to make only few assumptions, but evidence indicates that you haven't.
Perhaps you have some doctrinal axe to grind...
> Science in not infalliable, by ANY stretch of the imagination.
> It is NOT a solution to all the questions of the universe. What we
> don't need in this world are more blind followers - or either religion
> OR science.
Of course, Aaron, science is not infalliable, by definition. It is always
subject to change and re-interpretation. It is also self-correcting. Can
you say the same of "Creation Science" promulgated by the Fundamentalists?
Hardly; religion offers unquestioned answers. science offers unanswered
questions. Rather, a "Fundamental" difference. Also, how do you KNOW that
science may not have solutions to all the questions of the universe? Is
this what you THINK or BELIEVE? Sounds like were getting a tad dogmatic
here, Aaron....(I think it may, but this is clearly labeled: Opinion)
In essence, Aaron, I agree with your last statement (although "blind
follower of science" seems rather oxymoronic)...All I can add is Amen......
* Origin: The Debate Place BBS Houston, Texas (713)451-6066 (Opus 1:106/113)
FROM: Marty Leipzig
TO: Aaron Schmiedel
Subject: Re: Evolution
Date: 24 Jan 90 10:28:06
> One harps on the Bible that he understands little about,
> and the other harps on science that he understands little about. And,
> both claim to have the complete answer because their sources are
> incontrovertable.
> Yep. It's pretty funny. And also a sad state of intellectual affairs
> of the average mans understanding of science and religion.
Amazing how one can paint ones self into a corner. First, you claim that
science and it's sources are "incontrovertable". Funny, my definition of
science (in as much as I am a scientist, and do know even a "little about
it") is one of a self-correcting, constantly changing and re-interpreted
corpus of fact and theory. (See also: previous message). One of the
hallmarks of science is that it is constantly, (dare I say it?) evolving.
Can this be said of Biblical Literalism? Emphatically NO! It has been staid
and static for hundreds of years. Real dynamism, there.
Accordingly, yes, it is a sad state of intellectual affairs of the average mans
understanding of science, when he has not even the most furtive grasp of the
concept, much less its' definition. As per your last statement:
> ................................... I'll show you an idiot.
Defined by your own vigorous and relentless logic, I'll wager.
* Origin: The Edge -=[ Concepts With Integrity ]=- (Opus 1:106/9430)
FROM: Jon Guthrie
TO: Joe Fischer
Subject: Re: Balances in Nature
Date: 23 Jan 90 17:00:57
> I was afraid of that... They are teaching a wrong
>assumption then. Just because molecular action is random,
>does not mean the whole process is random.....
> If a large pressure vessel has pressure gauges all
>over it, you could watch them for eternity, and all would
>read within the limit of precision of the gauges of each
>other.... Care to try it;-]
Not necessarily. Apparently you don't understand what is meant by the term
"unlikely."
A physics professor I had once did a calculation concerning the "evolution"
of order from chaos. What he did was set up a universe that consisted of
two different atoms distributed evenly throughout that universe. Then, he
envisioned a mechanism whereby atoms might randomly change places and
calculated the time it would take for something interesting to happen.
("Interesting" being defined as a 1% change concentration of either type of
atom somewhere in that universe.)
The result: The time would be on the order of the current age of our
universe.
Note, however, that it DID happen. It was just unlikely. Your example is
essentially an identical situation.
* Origin: SCI's Revenge - Winning the Battle Against ntEorpy! (1:226/70.2)
FROM: James Hay
TO: George Erdel
Subject: Re: age of rocks
Date: 24 Jan 90 17:40:00
Radioactive half-lives can be determined in much less than the half-life
time. It's not as if at the half-life time, half the material suddenly
vanishes. The radioactive atoms involved all have a certain probability of
decaying in any particular interval of time. Whether or not a particular
atom decays in that time is random, but, once you are dealing with huge
numbers of atoms (and even a small sample with a tiny percentage of
radioactive atoms represents a large actual number of atoms of the
substance in question) there is an overall predictable pattern. Now, since
the decay process is continuous, you can measure the number of atoms
decaying in any particular time interval and use this to calculate the time
it will take for half of the atoms to decay. The choice of half-life is
for mathematical convenience. You could talk about 1/4 life or 1/1000 life
if you wished.
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
FROM: John Thompson
TO: Greg Hansen
Subject: Re: RE: Evolution Vs. Creatio
Date: 24 Jan 90 20:45:01
> The Christianity I accept is not falsifiable, and can
> not be threatened by any empiracle data. It is faith
> and faith alone, and I admit it. Why don't they [creationists] dmit
> the same?
They will not admit that because they are trying to get their particular
version of creation to be taught as SCIENCE in public school classrooms.
To admit that "creation science" can only be accepted on faith is to admit
it is religeon, not science. While there is nothing wrong with that per
se, it does nothing to advance their political agenda for admitting their
religeon into the public schools.
* Origin: Homebuilt Flyer (Opus 1:139/600)
FROM: John Thompson
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: information theory
Date: 25 Jan 90 21:21:00
In a message to Rick Moen <01-22-90 22:49> Pat Goltz wrote:
PG> You criticized me for asking Phil Nicols for proof that the
PG> creationists' efforts to publish have been chilled by the
PG> attitudes of refereed journals. Actually, I did not ask
PG> Phil to prove this. I have already spoken to some
PG> creationists, and they TOLD me point-blank that they have
PG> made far fewer efforts to publish than they would have been
PG> inclined to make if it had not been for bias in editorial
PG> policy they have observed. That testimony would stand up in
PG> a court of law, and I accept it. No need for proof.
I will quote a little of Judge William Overton's decision against the
Arkansas Act 590 (mandating equal time for creation science and evolution
in the public schools) regarding creationist attempts to use mainstream
scientific journals:
The [scientific] journals are both numerous and varied.
There is, however, not one recognized scientific journal
which has published an article espousing the creation
science theory... Some state witnesses suggested that the
scientific community was "closed-minded" on the subject of
creationism and that explained the lack of acceptance of the
creation science arguements. Yet no witness produced a
scientific article for which publication had been refused.
...It is inconcievable that such a loose knit group of
independant thinkers in all the varied fields of science
could, or would, so effectively censor new scientific thought.
How to you reconcile this with your assertion that ICR testimony would
stand up in a court of law? BTW, state witnesses in this case included
both Gish and Morris of ICR.
* Origin: APPLEGATE - a Quick(er)BBS in Appleton, Wisc. (1:139/630)
FROM: John Thompson
TO: John Denicola
Subject: Molecular evolution
Date: 25 Jan 90 21:27:01
In a message to All <01-21-90 11:50> John Denicola wrote:
JD> Can someone elaborate further on the evolutionary history of
JD> proteins, & RNA, DNA etc...Does chirality provide any clues
JD> to bridging the gaps?
I am not quite sure just what you mean by "the evolutionary history of
proteins, RNA, and DNA". If you are asking "how did these molecules
manage to evolve from less complex precursors?", Sidney Fox and others
have long maintained that the stereochemistry of naturally (primevally)
occurring organic molecules both constrains and directs the types of
more complex molecules that can subsequently form from these. I am
not an expert and I don't think that I could do justice to the subject
in an echomail message, but I will give you some references to help you
read up on it yourself. See for example Fox, S. (1988) "The Emergence
of Life"; Fox, S. and Dose, K. (1977) "Molecular Evolution and the
Origin of Life", rev. ed. (Marcel Decker, New York); and Fox, S. (1981)
"A model for protocellular coordination of nucleic acid and protein
synthesis" in Kageyama, Nakamura, Oshima, and Uchida (eds.), "Science
and Scientists" (Japan Sc. Soc. Press, Tokyo).
If, on the other hand, you are asking "how do the similarities and
differences we see in the proteins and RNA and DNA of various organisms
relate to the evolutionary history of these organisms?", then a
different set of references is in order. In general, the more similar
the proteins and DNA or RNA of various organisms, the more closely
related they are evolutionarily. The fact that evolutionary trees
constructed on the basis of this type of biochemical information
correspond strongly to those constructed on the basis of standard
taxonomic information and those based on the fossil sequences found by
paleontologists is taken as strong support for the validity of
evolutionary theory. See just about any good book on evolution; try
Dobzhansky, T. (1970) Genetics of the Evolutionary Process, Columbia
University Press, New York. Some scientists have suggested that genetic
drift (random, selectively neutral, changes in DNA sequences) will
result in differences in nucleotide or amino acid sequences between
different organisms. When similar proteins (hemoglobin, for example)
in two different organisms are compared, the number of amino acid
sequence differences between the two can be used to determine
relatively how recently the evolutionary paths of the two organisms
diverged. Some have even suggested that in truly "selectively neutral"
cases, one may even be able to suggest an absolute date for the
separation (assuming one can come up with a plausible and consistent
rate for nucleotide substitution). See for example Sarich, V., and
Wilson, A. C. (1967), "Immunological time scale for hominid
evolution", Science 158:1200-1203 and Wolpoff, M. H., (1983)
"Ramapithicus and human origins: an anthropologist's perspective of
changing interpretations" in Ciochon, R.L. and Corruccini, R.S. (eds.),
New Interpretations of Ape and Human Ancestry, Plenum Press, New York,
pp. 651-676. I am not sure in this case what significance
stereochemistry would have. I hope I have answered your question!
* Origin: APPLEGATE - a Quick(er)BBS in Appleton, Wisc. (1:139/630)
FROM: matt glass
TO: Chris Dirks
Subject: Re: Creationism
Date: 25 Jan 90 07:42:50
> First, I have seen many things that are not
> attributable to science or anything explanable other
> than it being caused by something I cannot see. I
> believe that this is God. Examples: Mr. A. Duke,
> recovered from lukemia (if that is how you spell it),
> after doctors predicted had 1 week to live. How? He
> was supposed to die, not just "he will probally die",
Let's see... God cured him. Who gave him leukemia in the first place?
We don't know the cause of leukemia any more than we know why it goes
into spontaneous remission. If you're gonna credit the Big Feller with
one, you have to credit him with the other as well. At any rate, not
that I wish Mr. A. Duke anything but the best of health, but
unfortunately, there is a very good chance that his leukemia will
return. How will this affect the way you feel about God? Is God an
"indian giver"?
> Thirdly, I find that once you are a Christian, your
> life brightens up. I have found it easier to cope with
> ...
> helped me understand this, and helped me get through
> the whole thing.
Sounds kind of like a lobotomy.
"It's the will of Landru"...
> I mean, you don't
> automatically get pulled through problems and have God
> give you money when you need it,
Don't tell the TV evangelists this. Many of them base their entire ministries
on the concept of having donations repaid many times over by God (in cash.)
* Origin: From the Lobby of the Beautiful Mars Hotel! (1:3612/812)
FROM: Kevin Brook
TO: All
Subject: Amebas and Evolution
Date: 26 Jan 90 18:43:06
AMEBAS, also Amoebas, are one-celled organisms that may only be seen
under a microscope. They can cause diseases in people and animals. An
ameba is divided into an outer zone and an inner zone. The inner zone,
the endoplasm, is fluid-like and contains mitochondria (necessary for
energy) and vacuoles (needed for proteins to form, I think), as well as
several nuclei and food particles.
They can form branching networks (reticulopods) and pseudopods.
Movement involves all parts of its body, and it has slow movement. They
are reproduced in a simple fashion.
These peculiar creatures are just a sample of early life forms which
existed before people and other mammals. The idea of evolution
involves careful thought, evidence from archeological expeditions, and
scientific reasoning. With the advance of potassium-argon and carbon-12
dating, we are now able to date rocks back millions of years with close
accuracy. We have also discovered numerous fossils in rocks, and are
now starting to date those samples as well.
Evolution has much scientific basis. For one thing, it is based upon
facts we see in the natural world. Mutation is one of these changes.
Mutation involves a gradual changing of traits from one generation to
another. It can be seen with the process of breeding animals and plants
for their desired traits, and this is the same process by which people
evolved.
Some of the various species existing on this planet are closely
related. Others were isolated for millions of years and are not closely
related to others at all. For example, the marsupials. There was once
a connection between the continents, a means by which animals traveled
and thrived on the food there. Then, as a result of continental drift,
these plates began to separate and move in different directions,
resulting in the positions we know today. It caused huge mountain
ranges and volcanoes, and also islands to be formed. Many species had
to adapt to the new climates and landscapes. They needed to survive in
this new world that was being created.
The evidence for evolution may be seen in several cases. One good
example is the evolution of an off-shoot of dinosaurs to present-day
birds. They needed to adapt to new climates, and in order to keep the
species alive, they needed a way to travel easier. You can see other
examples of this in many other species. For example, seals and sea
lions (one or the other) are related closely to otters, which in turn
are related to a whole group of animals with similar characteristics.
Many people disagree with the concept of evolution because they are
not open-minded. While it is true that religion teaches good concepts,
it also is based upon human thought and knowledge of the world around.
When people were writing the bible, they took into consideration events
that were important to them, and good teachings which they thought
deserved attention.
The concept of god first developed in the region known as
Mesopotamia, where agriculture and language probably began. As
cultures became existent, they needed to have laws to govern them.
They looked at the nature around them, not yet knowing the complex
technologies we know today. Then, they began to worry about bad deeds
and control over their lives. Mythology is a good example of
extortion.
Creation has no scientific or any basis at all. It is based upon a
theory of a diety that controls people and causes events to occur.
Control is in the mind of the person, and we are very similar to animals
in our appearances and anatomy. The truth is that we are infact
animals. If all people realized this, we would not feel so superior
and go around killing rain forests by the acres each minute.
Goodness comes from knowledge. Many people turn away from religion
because it has not satisfied their curiosity. The meaning of life is
what they seek. Destiny is their worry. The whole world can be
considered one enormous god, but which does not think or move about.
Mythology related human actions to dieties. Greek gods and goddesses
often had human characteristics, unlike the Egyptian animal gods and
Babylonian myths.
All that matters in your lives is that you are healthy and happy.
You should be kind to others, be honest, do good deeds, etc. Religion
teaches all of these things, but enforces it upon the people, requiring
money-paying and other things. The church is not the place for your
life, but inside yourself you will find what you need to believe in --
that life is important and we need to do all we can to improve it.
Christians should consider who is really controling theirselves --
an imaginary spirit, or yourself. Make the most of what you have.
Wishes cannot come true just because you ask for them, and prayer is
only an expression of inner feelings, not a conversation with a god.
Therefore, the purpose of this post is to tell you that you should
depend on yourself for happiness, and not seek for it from gods and
friends around you. You are your most important person. Never let
depression get you down (this is another result of confusion related to
religion).
Do all you can to improve life! Be happy! That's all there is to
life, just passing on to the future what we have today. Let's preserve
the environment and save species while we still can!!! The power is in
OUR HANDS, and not in an imaginary source.
The time is now to act!
* Origin: Treasure Island, Danbury, Ct *=HST=* 203-791-8532 (Opus 1:141/730)
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry @ 930/17
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Still not reading?
Date: 26 Jan 90 18:59:24
> In a message to me, you said, "About a month ago I pointed
> out to you ...an article...I take it you haven't bothered
> to look it up yet."
> I apologize for not "having bothered" to look it up yet,
> but I just plain don't have time.
Pat, your schedule is entirely up to you. I do not wish to step in and
run your life.
However, I would appreciate it if you would place certain topics "on
hold" for commenting until you have availed yourself of the information
that several of us have provided (out of our own, no less busy,
schedules).
In other words, if you have advanced Proposition A, and someone gives
_references_ that demonstrate that Proposition A just isn't tenable, it
is disheartening to later see that you have apparently ignored the
information by again advancing Proposition A.
# Origin: Central Neural System, 817-551-9363, HST, TPBoard 5.2 (8:930/17)
FROM: Phil Nicholls @ 914/207
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re:libel
Date: 26 Jan 90 15:42:33
Thank you for the warning. You are correct in that I sometimes get
too emotional when I discuss this subject. However, should the ICR wish
to take me to court, I believe I could substantiate my charge of
distortion and misinformation. The fact that the members ofthe ICR
claim to be scientists indicates that they should be aware of the
criticism leveled by biologists, geologists and paleontologists. That
they systematically ignore these criticisms, avoid the use of normal
channels for presenting scientific findings (peer reviewed journals and
meetings of scientific societies) and continue to present misinformation
to people lacking the background to judge their arguements [like high
school students] can be demonstrated without much difficulty. Furthur,
should the ICR wish to bring a libel or slander suit against me, they
would be faced with the prospect of having their practices put on trial
and in the public eye. I think they would want to avoid that at all
cost.
The ICR is not a scientific society. The ICR has no real interest in
scientific truth. The ICR is one of several organizations around the
country funded by fundementalist evangelical christian groups that
attempts to have a specific religious viewpoint taught as science in
public schools. This is not my opinion alone. It is implied in the
opinions of the superior court of the state of Arkansas and the Supreme
court of the United States in decisions handed down over the last five
years (well, 10 years) on creationist laws.
Still, you are correct. I should direct my criticism at their ideas
and not them. The problem is that they so rarely articulate their ideas
and instead hack away at the body of evolutionary theory. I will try to
be less emotional in my responses.
I might wonder also if your warning is not an attempt to intimidate me
in this forum. No, you intentions are most likely as you express them,
a "friendly warning." Putting one of my typos in your response was also
not an attempt to imply that my arguements are somehow hollow because I
don't always proof my responses. No, your intentions in these matters
are above reproach.
Good Luck with the Kids, the Ranch and Your Legal Battle.
Sincerely,
Philip Nicholls
Department of Anthropology [graduate student]
San Francisco State University
[just so the ICR knows were to find me, if they wish to]
# Origin: The Skeptic's Board - High weirdness by modem (RBBS-PC 8:914/207)
FROM: Phil Nicholls @ 914/207
TO: Bruce Donohue
Subject: Re: Evolution Vs. Creatio
Date: 26 Jan 90 15:51:36
> Fossils show the route of of evolution over a course of about 600
> million years. Much like footprints on a beach, you can deduce origins
> and and path of the strolling vagrant. Fossils are much like
> footprints but much more finely detailed.
One small correction here. The fossil record actually extends back some
3.7 billion years. Sedimentary rocks older than that have metamorphized
beyond the point of retaining fossils. Isotope analysis of older rocks
do reveal a ration of C-12/C-13 that is higher than one would expect if
all of the carbon in these rocks was of inorganic origins. This
suggests life may indeed be older than 3.7 billion year old stomatolites
and fossil prochlorophyta bacteria.
Regards,
Philip A. Nicholls
Department of Anthropology [graduate student]
San Francisco State University
# Origin: The Skeptic's Board - High weirdness by modem (RBBS-PC 8:914/207)
FROM: John Thompson
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: CORRECTION
Date: 26 Jan 90 15:46:07
In a message to Pat Goltz dated 01-25-90 20:21 I (John Thompson) wrote
that Gish and Morris or ICR were state witnesses in the Arkansas Act
590 case. THIS IS NOT TRUE! While ICR was actively involved in
assisting the state's defense of Act 590, and Gish himself attented the
trial in Little Rock, neither Gish nor Morris was called as a witness.
I APOLOGIZE FOR ANY RESULTING MISUNDERSTANDING. I still believe that
the main point of my message is valid; that is, the claim that
scientific publishers are discriminating against creationist
submissions has had its day in court (literally) and that claim could
not be supported!
If the creationists still insist that they are being discriminated
against, I believe that the burden of proof should be on them to show
that (since 1981 at least) they have honestly attempted to submit
research findings to scientific journals and have been rejected on
other than scientific grounds. It is a rare journal that will not
include referee's comments to help the author improve the article for
later re-submission.
If there is any evidence of their papers being rejected, now is the
time to bring it forward.
* Origin: Homebuilt Flyer (Opus 1:139/600)
FROM: Brian Murrey
TO: All
Subject: evolutes, creates, and why
Date: 26 Jan 90 00:17:00
I pop in this echo about once every six months, it's the science echo
right? Then why for the last two years has the same old worn out boring
never ending useless discussion of evolution vs creation keep going on?
We need a National Echo for this since it's sucha hotly debated topic,
and so we can move on to more interesting things like how come the Star
Ship Enterprise can go from zero to 5 times the speed of light without
smoooshing all of it's occupants into little globs of jello looking
blobs?
New Nat Echo is......drum roll please....Evelreationist Forum
* Origin: SouthSide BBS - Support Scouting - *HST 9600* (1:231/30.0)
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry @ 930/17
TO: John Thompson
Subject: information theory
Date: 27 Jan 90 09:32:27
> How to you reconcile this with your assertion that ICR
> testimony would stand up in a court of law? BTW, state
> witnesses in this case included both Gish and Morris of
> ICR.
A nit-pick: Ruse and others reported that Gish did _not_ testify. Gish
was there for advisement and organization, but was not put on the
stand. This, apparently, was due to some well-documented and egregious
lapses that Gish has had in regard to truthfulness, accuracy, and
statements that define SciCre as a religious doctrine.
No need for him to set up the opposition, eh?
Instead, they had people like Dr. Norman Geisler, who under cross-
examination admitted that he believed UFO's to be emanations of Satan.
Or Wichramasinghe, who basically repudiated the SciCre position of a
young age for the earth and stated that no rational scientist could
believe the earth to be less than a million years old or that earth's
geology could be explained by a single catastrophic event.
# Origin: Central Neural System, 817-551-9363, HST, TPBoard 5.2 (8:930/17)
FROM: Paul Bijhouwer
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: Thermodynamics
Date: 25 Jan 90 23:59:48
In a message of <22 Jan 90 22:03:05>, Pat Goltz (1:300/3) writes:
PG> I agree that postulating a creative being only removes things one
PG>step from where they are without that assumption, and that this does
PG>not solve the problem. I don't think this problem can be solved by
PG>science. What do you do when you have a system, science, which is
PG>confined to examining the universe, and you have to deal with
PG>discovering the nature of a being that exists OUTSIDE the universe?
PG>The answer is, you don't use science to find out about said being. You
PG>admit science's limitations.
PG> Science is NOT the only way of determining things. There is logic,
PG>history, experience, etc.
I agree that there are some questions which science will never be able
to answer. One example of this is the "free will" versus "determinism"
debate. I agree with my anthropology teacher and Milton on this
subject. Milton considered this debate so tiresome that in "Paradise
Lost" he has the question being debated in an amphitheater full of
minor devils for a couple of hundred years!
However, one of the ideas (postulates) of science is that if there is
physical evidence that demonstrates a line of reasoning to be valid, if the
evidence has not been destroyed, and if we are observant enough to notice it
and draw the appropriate conclusions, then that line of reasoning is worth
investigating further and may turn out to be the truth.
If I postulate a being "outside" the universe, then I must further
decide which of three things I believe:
1). This being is an active force in our universe and there is
physical evidence for this.
2). This being has never been an active force in our universe.
3). This being is an active force in our universe, BUT
her/his/it's actions have left no physical evidence.
The first of these positions is what I consider to be the "scientific
creationist" point of view. I see it as totally invalid because ALL
evidence that has been brought up as proof for it has been discredited.
If the evidence truly existed we would now be living in a "scientific
theocracy." I'm sure that I will get many responses to this saying that
there is evidence but the scientific establishment won't accept it. I'm
sorry, but I don't believe it. I would bet that there are more
religious believers (of various faiths) in the scientific community
than in the general public. And by the way Pat, "logic history and
experience" are all vital parts of the scientific method. I don't
know if "etc." is or not .
The second of these is trivial. Someone who felt this way would be
disinclined to believe in the existance of the being at all.
I am a believer of the third variety. I believe that this "being"
exists, and that she/he/it acts in our lives in ways that are not
measurable by science. This is because I believe in a different kind
of miracle. Instead of insisting on fireworks and that the entire
universe was made out of whole cloth 10,000 years ago in the EXACT
manner described in the bible I believe that IF this being created our
universe it/she/he created it in accordance with and along with all of
the laws of the universe that we have discovered to date and no doubt
many others yet to be uncovered. I believe that there is no evidence
that will conclusively prove the existance of a "being outside our
universe." As a matter of fact, I feel that to ask for such proof is a
grave form of hubris. Would you ask to see the nail holes in Jesus'
hands? Why is faith a virtue? If we had such proof we would have no
need of faith.
My apologies to everyone for waxing spiritual in this echo. I want to
state that I am vehemently opposed to the teaching of "scientific
creationism" in the schools. In my view it violates the basic
principles of both science AND religion.
* Origin: The Beehive (1:396/10.3)
FROM: James Hay
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: libel
Date: 28 Jan 90 14:48:00
What Phil Nicholls said about ICR could be libelous except for one thing: IT IS
TRUE. I could prove this as I'm sure that he could. Truth is an absolute
defense against libel in the United States (though not in other countries such
as England; a scary thought).
"One instance of Duane Gish continuing to talk about the bombardier beetle to a
gullible audience does not a pattern of lack of professionalism make."
1) It is not just one instance of him doing so. He uses the example
constantly and ICR is still publishing their book on the subject "Bomby the
Bombadier Beetle".
2) That is not the only provable example.
A while back ICR admitted that the Paluxy River Footsteps, which they
had long contended showed the co-existence of man and dinosaur, were no
such thing. This was in their monthly "Impact". But they are still
using it on the road.
Another example. In his book _Scientific Creationism_ Henry Morris
(President of ICR) talks about a case of inverted fossil order which he
contends disproves evolution. He notes that this could be explained by
evidence of intrusion or inversion of the geologic layers but says that
their is none. He quotes from one article on the subject in which the
author says something about "from the road" the area seeming to be
completely undisturbed.
Now if you look at the original article, you will find that the author
goes on to mention that , of course, you can't tell such things from
the road and that if you investigate there is evidence that the layers
are not undisturbed. Now there is no way that anyone looking through
that article could have not realized that there was no contention that
the area was undisturbed, so either
Morris is deliberately taking the quote out of context to give the wrong
impression or he didn't bother to read the article and is just quoting
from some previous author who is perverting the quote. Even the latter
case is not exactly an example of sterling scholarship.
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
FROM: James Hay
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: Blind Cave Fish, etc.
Date: 28 Jan 90 14:55:00
Your analogy between cave creatures having no eyes vs your having an
understanding of foreign languages, being good at music and having
brown hair breaks down in several ways:
1) Knowing foreign languages and being good at music are actually
potentially advantageous traits in our culture while brown hair is
neutral. Having to spend energy on making and having to worry about
infections, etc., in unnecessary organs is a disadvantage.
2) Knowing foreign languages is not a genetically aquired trait.
Being good at music is arguable. You are comparing the aesthetic
choices of a free willed being with the cold, purely functionary
results of natural selection in which the only criteriun is
reproductive success.
3) You are comparing YOUR one set of traits to the results of
selection on an entire population. Maybe your characteristics WOULD be
a disadvantage.
One individual isn't important in considerations of evolution.
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
FROM: James Hay
TO: Chris Dirks
Subject: Re: Creationism
Date: 28 Jan 90 15:02:00
How did the dying man survive? Because doctors are not omniscient,
even about medicene. People who don't believe in Jesus have also
pulled off remarkable recoveries.
ALso, you are assuming that the existence of God means that there could
not have been evolution. Not true. Only fundementalists, among
Christians, automatically reject evolution.
Your teacher gave an abbreviated and inaccurate presentation on
evolution. That negates nothing, it just says you had a bad teacher.
"DOn't you think that that is a little lacking in evidence?" How could
we tell from a one sentence summary?
COme on, don't just tell us there are holes; tell us what they are.
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
FROM: James Hay
TO: Chris Dirks
Subject: Re: Creationism
Date: 28 Jan 90 15:04:00
"Nobody can explain just how we evolved, i.e. from what and trace it
back." That's not HOW. That's asking for a lineage. I can't trace my
ancestors back 10 generations, but I can give you a good idea how the
process by which I got here worked.
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
FROM: Graham Kendall
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: The Creation And Evolution Mod
Date: 26 Jan 90 21:16:14
When someone suggests that creation and evolution are equal and should
be taught equally in the schools, then ask them what documented
successes the creationists have had in applying their system to
problems in the real physical world.
The answer is ZERO/NADA/ZILCH/ZERO.
* Origin: Freda's Playground, A Kids BBS;Tulsa,Ok(918)241-8189 (Opus
7:771/107)
MESSAGE: 82
FROM: Graham Kendall
TO: George Erdel
Subject: Re: Evolution Vs. Creatio
Date: 26 Jan 90 21:31:56
The fossil layers show not only that animals and plants not found today
occupied the earth long ago but it also shows that modern plants and
animals did not exist then. Unless you want regular magical creation of
new species of animals and plants, the older beings are automatically
the ancestors of present ones, whether these ancestors got fossilized
and dug up or not. Remember that fossilization is a very rare event. If
you don't believe me then find some fossils of modern grass, a very
common commodity. In the wet areas like jungles, fossilization does not
take place so any evolutionary developements taking place there would
not leave a record.
* Origin: Freda's Playground, A Kids BBS;Tulsa,Ok(918)241-8189 (Opus
7:771/107)
FROM: Graham Kendall
TO: George Erdel
Subject: Re: age of rocks
Date: 26 Jan 90 21:38:21
You do not have to wait for a full half life to measure its duration.
All you need is a known amount and a decay rate. The rest is simple
math. When magma becomes solid, the different elements are separated
into different crystals. Lead goes to one mineral and uranium goes to
the zircon part of the granite. They are separated out from the rest of
the rock and prepared for a mass spectrograph looking for lead of
radioactive origin. Any original lead would include an isotope not
having a radioactive source. That would insure any original lead would
be accounted for.
* Origin: Freda's Playground, A Kids BBS;Tulsa,Ok(918)241-8189 (Opus
7:771/107)
FROM: Phil Nicholls @ 914/207
TO: Brian Murrey
Subject: Re:evolutes, Creates, And
Date: 28 Jan 90 13:14:22
> I pop in this echo about once every six months, it's the science echo
> right? Then why for the last two years has the same old worn out
> boring never ending useless discussion of evolution vs creation keep
> going on?
> We need a National Echo for this since it's sucha hotly debated topic,
> and so we can move on to more interesting things like how come the
> Star Ship Enterprise can go from zero to 5 times the speed of light
> without smoooshing all of it's occupants into little globs of jello
> looking blobs?
> New Nat Echo is......drum roll please....Evelreationist Forum
Interesting. I find the postings not related to evolution to be just
the thing when I can't sleep. I guess it is all a matter of
perspective. It seems to me, however, that if the bulk of the echo
seems to be related to this discussion, then perhaps you talk of
starships might best be located on the Physics or Astronomy echos?
Evolution is biology and biology is science. Some of us are biologists
and anthropologists, not physicists or astronomers (or computer
engineers.).
Keep the discussion, as long as it is scientific and informative.
(Witness Mr. Shaw's recent explanation of isotop dating, for example).
I agree, the religion or religion vs science stuff needs to be moved.
# Origin: The Skeptic's Board - High weirdness by modem (RBBS-PC 8:914/207)
FROM: Jim Lemke
TO: Phil Nicholls
Subject: Re: Creationist Myths#1
Date: 29 Jan 90 09:37:00
In a message to All <01-27-90 10:57> Phil Nicholls wrote:
>CREATIONIST MYTHS: NO 1 IN A SERIES Creation "Scientists"
I have to object to the use of the word "Myth". Myth has a rather nice
technical meaning describing the thinking by which man knows the
unknowable...I think you are talking about some other phenomenon...Lies
might be a better choice!
* Origin: Shadow Spawn BBS Montague, NJ (201) 293-7778 (1:269/203.0)
FROM: Harlow Campbell
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: Creationism
Date: 30 Jan 90 12:48:00
> That Jesus rose from the dead is a historical fact. Other historians
> (besides the ones who wrote the Bible) have stated so. Paul also
> reminded Agrippa of this, and Agrippa did not deny it; it was common
> knowledge at the time.
It was common knowlege only within a small community. What do you have
to back up your assertion that it is historical fact except for that
small circle?
* Origin: By the banks of the mighty Merrimack (1:132/130)
FROM: James Hay
TO: Jim Chiarello
Subject: Re: RE: Evolution Vs. Creatio
Date: 30 Jan 90 17:25:00
Trying to match science with the Bible is what creationists are trying
to do. Unfortunately, science DOES contradict the Bible, such as the
Bible's contention that birds came before the "creeping things" of the
land.
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
FROM: Phil Nicholls @ 914/207
TO: Jonathan Rogers
Subject: Re:the Bible(proof)
Date: 29 Jan 90 20:54:17
> I can call it proof because it has survived for over 2,000 years and
> science still has yet to contradict a word of it. Evolution is NOT a
> FACT, microevolution maybe(a species changing to suit its new
> enviroment) but not macroevolution(which is I believe the basic idea
> when one speaks of evolution) that is to say that one species cannot
> change to become another species, like a bird cannot evolve no matter
> how long of time is given to become a reptile. It's genetically
> impossible. So you people want us to accept evolution is fact but god
> help anyone who says that creati/n is a fact, you try to silence us
> with your so called wisdom, as limited as the human mind is I'd think
> our own mental capacity would prove that DAMN THIS LINE NOISE!!!!!!!!
[more on "de-evolution" deleted]
It is at once obvious to me that you are being highly critical of a
science that you do not understand. If evolution was as you have
described it, then I would not blame you for rejecting it.
What you describe is not evolution, at least in the modern sense of the
word. What you describe is mixture of popular misconceptions and
creationist propaganda. Given the number of excellent books available
to the general public on evolution, it is difficult to comprehend how
anyone interested in this topic enough to take a side is unwilling to
become more familiar with that which you criticize.
You only look silly repeating this sort of garbage. Do yourself a favor
and find out what evolution is REALLY about. You see, the outcome of
this debate will have no affect on what happens in scientific circles.
All we can do is perpetuate ignorance and in so doing, accelerate the
decline of our scientific muscle. Read. Learn. Investigate. Then we
will talk.
Phil Nicholls
Department of Anthropology
San Francisco State University
[graduate student]
# Origin: The Skeptic's Board - High weirdness by modem (RBBS-PC 8:914/207)
FROM: Jim Chiarello
TO: Greg Hansen
Subject: Re: RE: Evolution Vs. Creatio
Date: 27 Jan 89 00:43:00
The time has come for people to be more open minded .
Try this on for size: Using the bible as a refrence then use science
to track the process as it took place. You will not find much
disagreement. For example god made plants, then made animals... this
does fit what is said from a biological stand point does it not! Try
this one: It is said it took GOD 7 days to creat everything; How long
was a day keeps comming up . If in the beginning The big bang
everything took off from a central point it was more than likely to be
traveling greater than the speed of light.If this could be reasoned
then: Maybe time itself was effected, matter traveling at or near the
speed of light could have distorted time. The Big Bang still had to
have to be reasoned out on why or what made it? Can we reason to a
point in which we will sill have a question...what or who started it
going? My feeling on this is to start something new and call it
"GENESIS" the theory that the bible is true and using science as a tool
to understand how it took place. But keep in mind science is not just
one area or the only area . Keep in mind what people understood at the
time it is said and remember that the english bible was not the original
writting. What we need to is come together on the real issue . Be open
minded try to understand we sill have much more to learn much more to
understand. The more we know the more questions we can find.
Enjoy life , Get to know how others think it will not change how you
think , but it could change what you belive to be.
Anyone for a spin? or a roll at the dice? Life comes around only once
use kindness, understanding, respect.
* Origin: Grand Slam! BBS (1:264/167.0)
FROM: Phil Nicholls
TO: All
Subject: Creationist Myths#1
Date: 27 Jan 90 10:57:16
CREATIONIST MYTHS: NO 1 IN A SERIES Creation "Scientists"
Creationists organizations, such as the Institute for Creation
Research, claim that many scientists do not accept evolution. This is
true. Most ofthe scientists listed by the ICR are not biologists.
Many are engineers or are in other fields far removed from biology.
Some turn out not to be scientists at all. The source of the
information on colleges and universities is from "Bear's Guide to
Earning Non-Traditional College Degrees," 10th Ed. Where used below,
the word "Accreditation" refers to accreditation by one of the
recognized Regional Accrediting Agencies, OR by the (legitimate)
American Association of Bible Colleges. California has a three tier
system: At the low end are "Authorized" schools. More highly
scrutinized are "Approved" schools. "Accredited" schools are
accredited by the regional Accrediting Agency
>>Dr. Carl Baugh <<, a fundamentalist Missouri Baptist minister
with no scientific background, claims to be an archaeologist. He
also claims to have a Ph.D. from the California Graduate School of
Theology in Glendale. When a local skeptic checked with the primary
organization responsible for accreditation (The Western Association of
Schools and Colleges), he was informed that this "graduate school"
has not been accredited. Reverend Baugh claims to have found "human"
footprints that measure nearly forty inches from heel to toe.
California Graduate School of Theology is "Approved" by the state
of California (A step up from "Authorized.") but is not accredited. All
degrees are in theology. Credit is given for "experiential learning."
>>Dr. Richard Bliss <<, a member of the ICR staff, has claimed to
have a D.Ed. from the University of Sarasota located in Florida. In
the 1984 spring issue of "Scientific Integrity", William V. Mayer
pointed out that this university has been characterized by the
"Philadelphia Inquirer" as a diploma mill in a Florida motel (see
Lovejoy's College Catalog). Bliss has accused evolutionary scientists
of "intellectual dishonesty". He also claims to be "a recognized
expert in the field of science education" and is co- author of a
"two-model" book that is being pushed for use in the public school
system.
Bear lists the "University of Sarasota" as a "short
residency"(total residency may be as short as six weeks) school. The
school is the equivalent of California "Approved," but is not
accredited.
>> Dr. Clifford Burdick <> Dr. Kelly Segraves <<, director of the CSRC, listed himself
lose its reapproval appeal.e school has appealed but is expected towny
* Origin: The Chemist's ComPort(415-359-6036)Pacifica CA. (125/190) (Opus
1:125/190)
FROM: Pat Goltz
TO: Jim Lemke
Subject: Re: libel
Date: 28 Jan 90 10:45:08
You are correct; truth is a defense to the charge of libel. However, my
caution was aimed at people who aren't bothering to check. The problem
is, are the people associated with ICR REALLY professionally
despicable, or is that just the opinion of a few people who hold the
majority opinion in the area of origins?
Conceivably if a creationist sued for defamation of character, the
defendant could get a person to testify that agrees that creationism is
not science, and that creationists lie, but all creationists would have
to do is trot out their sources in the case of the accusation of
misquoting, etc. It would then be up to the jury to decide if they had
been defamed or not. However, I suspect that the burden of proof that
the defendant was not lying is upon the defendant, which means he has
to PROVE that it is the truth. Given the way the general public feels
about this issue (namely, the majority thinks both models of origins
should be taught), I wouldn't want to bet on the defendant being able
to prove to a jury that he was telling the truth when he made the
defamatory statements.
* Origin: UA Today (University of Arizona, Tucson) (1:300/3)
FROM: Pat Goltz
TO: Kevin Brook
Subject: Re: Evolution, continued
Date: 28 Jan 90 10:52:59
I have read your two posts, and found them quite interesting. However,
I would like to summarize a couple of your points and feed them back to
you so that you can see what I think you are saying.
People who accept creation are not open minded. Evolution is a fact.
Therefore, people who don't agree with me are not openminded.
As far as any future or afterlife is concerned, we should not worry
about it. It doesn't exist, and isn't worthy of discussion. We should
make our life the best possible life we can right now, and if we don't
succeed, it's our own fault. We are completely in control of our
destiny.
Me talking, now. To tell you the truth, I'll believe that I am
completely in control of my destiny when Mount St. Helens stops
erupting. I want to be nowhere in the vicinity. I will believe that I
am completely in control of my life when hurricanes, earthquakes, and
plane crashes stop happening. I have been living a life of slow
frustration trying to be in control of my life, and if there is
anything I have learned from it, it's that I am a rather puny being
when you consider the size of the universe, and my body is rather soft,
and I am really pretty defenseless against an awful lot of things I can
name. The idea that I should be in control is arrogance that is not
warranted by the facts.
I have also lived long enough to know that not every idea that is
important comes from science.
* Origin: UA Today (University of Arizona, Tucson) (1:300/3)
FROM: Pat Goltz
TO: John Thompson
Subject: Re: information theory
Date: 28 Jan 90 11:09:25
There are basically two possibilities in your question concerning ICR
credibility in court, and the submission of papers into refereed journals.
If ICR staff finds their efforts chilled and therefore are not
submitting papers, they would have no rejection slips to show for it.
But the phenomenon of an effort being chilled is well recognized in
law. There are ways to prove it in a courtroom.
The second comment concerns itself with what is trying to be proven in a
court of law. In the one instance, the witnesses were trying to prove
to a JUDGE that creationism was scientific. Nearly all judges have been
well educated according to establishment standards. They have all been
exposed to NOTHING BUT evolution in the schools. The outcome is almost
assured; I'd be surprised if it were any different, given the tenor of
the judges who have been appointed.
In the other case, however, here were are basically trying to absolve someone
of the crime of being unprofessional, so to speak. The burden of proof is on
the person accusing him of being unprofessional. If the creationist can trot
out the list of publications on the bibliography I have been sent, this
effectively proves that the scientist in question has been sufficiently
professional to merit publication in a scientific journal, and substantiates
the charge that if the SUBJECT MATTER of the submission is CREATIONISM, it will
not be published due to bias.
This would be, of course, a very complicated trial. The problem is, a
reasonable and prudent person would not make charges that ICR is
unprofessional for TWO reasons: The first is that it is not legally
prudent, and the second is that it is irrelevant. ICR can be made up of
the most despicable people on the face of the earth, and it does
absolutely NOTHING to the truth or falsity of either evolution or
creation. As such, this argument lends weight to the creationist side,
when employed by evolutionists, because it demonstrates that
evolutionists are prone to making arguments which are logically
fallacious. For that reason, I strongly discourage this type of ad
hominem attack: "ICR is made up of scoundrels; therefore creation is
false."
* Origin: UA Today (University of Arizona, Tucson) (1:300/3)
FROM: Phil Nicholls
TO: Larry McGee
Subject: Carbon-14/Carbon-13
Date: 29 Jan 90 23:19:10
Photosynthesis incorporates isotopes of carbon into plant tissues in
ratios similiar to the relative proportions of these isotopes in
atmospheric carbon dioxide. Carbon found in the molecules of most
rocks is incorporated in a different way, and therefore has a lower
ratio of isotopes.
This is not radiocarbon dating. Older rocks that had metamorphized too
much to contain fossils seem to contain more C-13 than one would expect
if the source of the carbon were inorganic. This suggest that
photosynthetic organisms were present in the sediments that formed
these rocks. I am sure Henry Shaw will correct me if I am mistaken. I
may be Isotope chemistry is not something I profess expertise in.
* Origin: The Chemist's ComPort(415-359-6036)Pacifica CA. (125/190) (Opus
1:125/190)
FROM: Phil Nicholls
TO: Larry McGee
Subject: Re: Carbon-14/Carbon-13
Date: 30 Jan 90 21:41:18
I was just going over my reference and find that I have sort of got it
backward. Photosynthesis uses C-12 and only rarely incorporates C-13
or C-14. Thus rocks that show an enhanced level of C-12 MAY do so
because of the activity of photosynthetic micro-organisms.
Here is the reference:
Schidlowski, M "A 3,800 million year isotopic record of life from
carbon in sedimentary rocks," NATURE 333: 313-318, 1988.
The rocks in question are too metamorphized to yield fossils, but do
give higher carbon-12 values.
* Origin: The Chemist's ComPort(415-359-6036)Pacifica CA. (125/190) (Opus
1:125/190)
FROM: John Thompson
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: VARIOUS
Date: 30 Jan 90 15:47:00
In a message to Trygve Lode <01-27-90 15:01> Pat Goltz wrote:
> You said that [natural selection] would add information
> through the survival of better adapted creatures. Actually,
> what natural selection does is take EXISTING information,
> and rule OUT some of it, causing a decrease in the amount
> of available information...
Natural selection will act on ALL variation which appears in
populations. Current research (see E. Mayr "The Growth of Biological
Thought") shows that variation is the RULE; not the exception in
populations. In other words, there is no such thing as a "typical"
genotype for a species; all individuals are unique in at least some
aspects.
NEW variation may be added by mutation, and while much of this is
deleterious, some is not, and all of it in any case can legitimately be
considered "new information". Natural selection, as you point out,
tends to cull (but not necessarily eliminate) the unviable, and allows
the viable information to increase in frequency. The Hardy-Weinberg
equation (which has been experimentally verified to the exclusion of
any reasonable doubt) show that any such additions can persist at a
very low frequencies in a population indefinitely, EVEN IF THEY ARE
LETHAL as homozygotes! Achondroplasia and Tay-Sachs syndrome are two
examples of such persistance in human populations; I am sure many
others could be found.
In short, new information is continually being added to any
population's gene pool by mechanisms that have repeatedly been
demonstrated to operate both in the lab and in the field. The agent of
this addition is not natural selection, but mutation. Every population
has a HUGE reserve of variation, some of which may not expressed at
high frequency until a change in environment reders it more fit.
* Origin: APPLEGATE South, QuickBBS'ing in Menasha, Wisc... (1:139/650.0)
FROM: Greg Hansen
TO: Jim Chiarello
Subject: Re: RE: Evolution Vs. Creatio
Date: 30 Jan 90 13:39:56
One part of Genesis said God created plants, then animals. Another
part said God created Man first, and then everything else. Also,
Genesis would give you a very strange cosmology. Try reading through
it and picture what it means.
You may use science as a tool to explain happenings in the Bible. But
except (maybe) for archaeology and anthropology, the Bible has no value
to science. That is the main reason it isn't often used for scientific
studies.
* Origin: Nick's Nest (612) 490-1187, (612) 490-0341 HST (Opus 1:282/3)
FROM: Peh Lee
TO: Phil Nicholls
Subject: Re: Creationist Myths#1
Date: 30 Jan 90 00:53:00
So, those creationists' scientist are all graduate from the so called
`approved' but NOT accredited colleges.
What is the different then, for the creationists to based their
argument on those `SCIENTISTS' then I based my own weird theory on some
Kukamanga Unversity from the nation of Wallabeellee' researchers ??
It's all a damn joke, and those creationists sometime make me puke.
* Origin: *=-= The Shipyard =-= Dallas Texas =-=* (1:124/3102)
FROM: Douglas Anderson
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: Creationism
Date: 01 Feb 90 00:27:34
In a message of <27 Jan 90 14:42:17>, Pat Goltz (1:300/3) writes:
PG> Some people believe that God exists, and that the Bible is accurate
PG>in certain ways, but that it is not a book of science, and its
PG>descriptions are not scientifically accurate. They find ways to
PG>reconcile evolution with the account in Genesis. I have heard of
PG>several of these. One is called "theistic evolution", where they state
PG>that God used evolution to create the world. Other people believe in
PG>what is called the "gap" theory, where they say that there is a long
PG>period of time between the first and second verses of Genesis, and in
PG>this way, they explain the apparent age of the earth. These ideas are
PG>held primarily by people who believe the Bible for other reasons.
I have always failed to see why belief in either science or christianity
precluded belief in the other. I am both a scientist and a christian.
I believe that I have seen enough evidence to accept evolution as fact,
just as I have seen enough evidence to accept that the world is round.
And yet I do not believe that evolution contradicts the Genesis story,
and that most people completely miss the point of the story anyway. I
accept both.
* Origin: The Pillbox BBS - Dedicated to medicine (1:147/12)
FROM: Larry McGee
TO: Phil Nicholls
Subject: Re: Carbon-14/Carbon-13
Date: 31 Jan 90 06:34:56
PN> I was just going over my reference and find that I
PN> have sort of got it backward. Photosynthesis uses
PN> C-12 and only rarely incorporates
PN> C-13 or C-14. Thus rocks that show an enhanced level
PN> of C-12 MAY do so because of the activity of
PN> photosynthetic micro-organisms.
This still sounds like a strange result. I'll read the reference. In
general a chemical reaction will only distinguish between isotopes to a
small amount. If the isotopes are 2H (deuterium) compared to 1H
(hydrogen) the rate difference can be significant (up to a factor of 7)
if the reaction involves breaking or forming the bond to the isotope
under consideration in the rate limiting step.
For higher elements the isotope effect is much smaller, for example a
reaction evolving CO2 gave a C12/C13 isotope effect of 1.032. This is
usually meeasured by using isotopically enriched samples so that the
small effects can be observed against background.
What you are describing is an isotope effect discriminating 12CO2 from
13CO2 where the incorporation of CO2 is not the limiting rate step (I
think) done on natural abundance distribution of CO2. Since 13C is not
radioactive, its measurement is much less precise than that of 14C and
therefore is less sensitive and requires usually a mass spectrometric
analysis.
PN> Here is the reference:
PN> Schidlowski, M "A 3,800 million year isotopic record
PN> of life from carbon in sedimentary rocks," NATURE 333:
PN> 313-318, 1988.
I'll look it up and make some more comments later.
* Origin: The Chemist's ComPort--Pacifica CA 415-359-6036(1:125/190.0)
FROM: Charles Harden
TO: George Erdel
Subject: Re: Evolution Vs. Creatio
Date: 31 Jan 90 21:41:00
There is evidence that the Euphrates valley (the mother of
civilisation) underwent a major flood. This is probably the origin of
the flood myth in the bible. In addition, most cultures have a flood
myth of some kind--for example the Greeks do. I believe this is some
sort of commonality in thinking between people. There is no conclusive
proof, either way, for or against Noah's ark. I have just heard of
"Abominable snowman" type stories about Ararat.
* Origin: SURFACE INTERVAL,S.Fla Divers BBS (305)246 DIVE (1:135/50.0)
FROM: Charles Harden
TO: Larry McGee
Subject: Re: Evolution Vs. Creatio
Date: 31 Jan 90 21:48:00
I really don't remember too many specifics about stable isotopes, such
as carbon-13, but one of the two stable isotopes of carbon, either 12
or 13, tends to be preferred in photosynthesis. There is also a
relationship with temperature--one or the other is concentrated at a
lower temp than the others. Using stable isotope data, you can
determine the temperature at which the carbon was deposited, or the
source of the carbon, or even both. I can look it up if wanted by
other members of the echo.
* Origin: SURFACE INTERVAL,S.Fla Divers BBS (305)246 DIVE (1:135/50.0)
FROM: John Thompson
TO: Jonathan Rogers
Subject: Speciation
Date: 01 Feb 90 09:43:00
In a message dated <26-Jan-90 14:46> Jonathan Rogers wrote:
JR> Evolution is NOT a FACT, microevolution maybe(a species
JR> changing to suit its new enviroment) but not
JR> macroevolution(which is I believe the basic idea when one
JR> speaks of evolution) that is to say that one species cannot
JR> change to become another species...
How then would you explain the finding described by Ernst Mayr in
"Animal Species and Evolution" (Cambridge, Mass; Belknap 1963) where
several populations of sea gulls continuously grade into each other,
but apparently are separate species at the extremes of their range. In
other words, adjacent populations may interbreed like this:
population A <-> pop.B <-> pop.C <-> pop. D <-> pop. E
but population "A" cannot produce offspring when mated with population
"E"! Are these separate species or not?
F. J. Ayala and J. W. Valentine describe similar findings in
fruit flies in the wild in Latin America ("Evolving: Theory and
Processes of Organic Evolution"; Menlo Park CA, Benjamin
Cummings, 1979) and have attempted to quantify the genetic
differences in this type of speciation.
JC> ...if mankind is evolving or has evolved and we only as
JC> adults use 10% of our mind, then wouldn't it be logical to
JC> assume that our mental capacity would improve as well?
If you insist that evolution implies continuous progress, then such an
assumption may be logically inevitable. Darwin's contribution to
evolutionary theory (he did not invent the concept) was to show that
continuous progress WAS NOT REQUIRED for evolution to occur. Natural
selection (Darwin's theory) has no implied goal; it only states that in
a varied population living in a given environment, those variations
that improve fitness will tend to increase in frequency in the
population living in that environment.
JC> Why is it sooooo impossible for you to even entertain the
JC> thought that maybe an eternal diety created everything? We
JC> cannot prove our "theory"(fact as far as I'm concerned right
JC> now) because you cannot prove God in a labratory so that to
JC> you evolutionists invalidates our opinion.
Scientists do not like to invoke supernatural causes since that (to use
a famous metaphor) is to "cut the knot when we cannot loosen it."
Giving supernatural causes for a phenomenon places them outside the
realm of science. It is not a matter of your opinion being "valid" or
"invalid"; it just isn't science.
* Origin: APPLEGATE South, QuickBBS'ing in Menasha, Wisc... (1:139/650.0)
FROM: Pat Goltz
TO: Phil Nicholls @ 914/207
Subject: Re:libel
Date: 30 Jan 90 12:09:41
No, my message to you was intended as a friendly warning. I do not
anticipate ICR taking you to court over libelous statements. And my
warning was aimed at persons in general. You made some further
accusations I will address next time, because my time is almost
elapsed. However, I should like to point out that I have already
refuted some of them here.
I have no intentions of chilling your efforts to say anything you please
here. Rather, I wanted you to know how your arguments affect me
personally. I don't regard libelous statements as persuasive!
* Origin: UA Today (University of Arizona, Tucson) (1:300/3)
FROM: Paul Bijhouwer
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: libel
Date: 31 Jan 90 22:21:04
In a message of <28 Jan 90 10:45:08>, Pat Goltz (1:300/3) writes:
PG>You are correct; truth is a defense to the charge of libel. However,
PG>my caution was aimed at people who aren't bothering to check. The
PG>problem is, are the people associated with ICR REALLY professionally
PG>despicable, or is that just the opinion of a few people who hold the
PG>majority opinion in the area of origins?
You appear to be contradicting yourself when you say "a few people who
hold the _majority_ opinion." These "few people" are the real experts
in the field. Expert witnesses testify quite often in cases of this
kind.
PG>been defamed or not. However, I suspect that the burden of proof that
PG>the defendant was not lying is upon the defendant, which means he has
PG>to PROVE that it is the truth. Given the way the general public feels
PG>about this issue (namely, the majority thinks both models of origins
PG>should be taught), I wouldn't want to bet on the defendant being able
PG>to prove to a jury that he was telling the truth when he made the
PG>defamatory statements.
I can't believe you are saying this. Haven't you heard that we are
innocent until proven guilty in our legal system? The burden of proof
is on the prosecution.
I would appreciate it if you would give me your sources as to the
opinion of the public on this issue. Be sure to include information on
who financed the poll. I quite frankly have a little more faith than
that in the scientific objectivity of the American public.
* Origin: The Beehive (1:396/10.3)
FROM: Paul Bijhouwer
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: information theory
Date: 31 Jan 90 22:39:27
In a message of <28 Jan 90 11:09:25>, Pat Goltz (1:300/3) writes:
PG>fallacious. For that reason, I strongly discourage this type of ad
PG>hominem attack: "ICR is made up of scoundrels; therefore creation is
PG>false."
I would discourage that sort of attack as well. A more correct
accusation would be "ICR is made up of scoundrels and creationism is
false" or perhaps "ICR is made up of scoundrels because creationism is
false." I frankly have no opinion on the ICR. I would rather ignore
them, speak the truth as I know it and hope they either go away or wake
up. I would simply say "Creationism is false."
* Origin: The Beehive (1:396/10.3)
FROM: Phil Nicholls @ 914/207
TO: Mike Adamson
Subject: Re: Evolution Vs. Crea
Date: 31 Jan 90 23:21:03
> Let's not be silly, no one has ever claimed we are descended from
> apes, monkeys or chimpanees. Evolutionary theory states we are
> descended from a common ancestor, primates being one branch and we
> the other.
Hello Mike. Just want to make a correction here. Your statement, that
primates are one branch and we are on the other, is incorrect. Humans
are classified as primates. As a matter of fact, we belong to the Order
Primates/ Infraorder Anthropoidea [all monkeys and apes] Superfamily
Hominoidea [apes and humans] Family Hominidae [Humans]. Our family has
two known genera: Australopithecus and Homo. The exact number of
species is a matter of debate right now. There is, of course, only one
living species, the rest are extinct.
We are not, of course, descended from modern apes [Gorilla, Chimpanzee,
Orangutan] any more than you are descended from your brother. The
Gorilla, Chimpanzee and Human lines of descent have only diverged in the
last 5 million years or so. I hope that was clear.
Phil Nicholls
Department of Anthropology [graduate student]
San Francisco State University
PS I hope that was scientific enough to quiet those who constantly
complain about evolution on the science echo.
# Origin: The Skeptic's Board - High weirdness by modem (RBBS-PC 8:914/207)
FROM: Phil Nicholls @ 914/207
TO: Jim Lemke
Subject: Re: Creationist Myths#1
Date: 01 Feb 90 20:49:50
> I have to object to the use of the word "Myth". Myth has a
> rather nice technical meaning describing the thinking by which man
> knows the unknowable...I think you are talking about some other
> phenomenon...Lies might be a better choice!
> regards,
Point taken. Future notes in this series will be entitled Creationists
Misinformation.
# Origin: The Skeptic's Board - High weirdness by modem (RBBS-PC 8:914/207)
FROM: Phil Nicholls @ 914/207
TO: James Hay
Subject: Re: Creationist Myths#1
Date: 01 Feb 90 20:53:27
> According to the latest issue of "National Center for Science
> Education Reports", most of the degrees Carl Baugh claims are from
> either institutions that don't even grant that type of degree,
> completely non-accredited institutions and, in some cases,
> institutions which are, at least particially, run by Baugh himself.
Yes, this is true. A creationist publishing house has been hyping a
book called _Of Pandas and People_ which claims to provide a balanced
high school biology presentation of origins. Think I will look into
the background of its authors. Imagine I will find something
interesting?
# Origin: The Skeptic's Board - High weirdness by modem (RBBS-PC 8:914/207)
FROM: Phil Nicholls @ 914/207
TO: George Erdel
Subject: Re: Evolution Vs. Creatio
Date: 01 Feb 90 21:09:25
> The book of Genesis tells of the great flood that was survived by only
> Noak and his immediate family. If the scientific community is so dead
> set against giving the scriptures ANY creedance, WHY do we find
> fossiles of sea life at the highest peaks of the mountains. These
> fossiles of prehistoric sea life are found on every continent. They
> DO IN FACT give a confirmation of the accounting given by MOSES in
> Genesis of a flood that once covered the entire world. Further
> evidence is the research that has been done on the apparant remnants
> of the ark in Turkey upon Mt. Ararat. There are good books on this
> particular find that SCIENTIST have written. While they have not been
> able to PROVE that this is the remnants of the ark, neither have they
> DISPROVED it either.
Geologists have a verified explanation for this. Consult any geology
test under the topic of plate tectonics which explains, amount other
things, the process of mountain formation. Please also explain why
marine organisms would have been affected by the flood in such numbers.
Living in water, an increase in the level of the oceans should have
suited them fine.
Looking forward to your reply.
Phil Nicholls
Department of Anthropology
San Francisco State University
# Origin: The Skeptic's Board - High weirdness by modem (RBBS-PC 8:914/207)
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry @ 930/17
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: information theory
Date: 01 Feb 90 21:40:34
> For that reason,
> I strongly discourage this type of ad hominem attack: "ICR
> is made up of scoundrels; therefore creation is false."
Pat, a reasonable person will be able to distinguish between the
differing assumption sets of science and religion. Given that
capability, the utility and veracity of evolutionary mechanism theories
say nothing concerning the "truth" of creation. That sets aside your
concluding phrase as non-sequitur.
As for the premise, you have misstated the case that has been made:
"SciCre'ers have continued to use outdated and misleading information
even when informed of contradictory evidence, and therefore are lying
to the public. Lying to the public is an attribute of a scoundrel,
therefore lying SciCre'ers are scoundrels."
I think Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, the noted logician, would agree.
Given that the correct formulation of the premise is verifiable and
reasonable, the result is that no ad hominem attack can be attributed
to its use. The credibility of an information source is a valid point
of debate and discourse.
# Origin: Central Neural System, 817-551-9363, HST, TPBoard 5.2 (8:930/17)
FROM: James Hay
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: VARIOUS
Date: 02 Feb 90 18:32:00
But the information gained by evolving creatures is less than the
information LOST by the Sun-Earth system.
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
FROM: James Hay
TO: George Erdel
Subject: Re: Evolution Vs. Creatio
Date: 02 Feb 90 18:39:00
You have it backwards. Mountains contain fossils of sea life not
because the waters were once at the level that mountains are now, but
because the land that constitutes the mountains was once at, or close
to, the level that the seas are at. Tectonic forces later caused the
land to rise up, forming mountains. (For instance, the Himilayas were
formed by the plate containing the Indian subcontinent ramming up into
the rest of Asia.)
People keep saying that they have found the Ark on Mt. Ararat but no
one seems to be able to find it a second time. Why not? Hell, we have
spy satillites that can read license plates from orbit and lots of
planes - why can't we get any good evidence if that boat is there to
see? (And why can't discoverers seem to agree on the shape of the
Ark?)
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
FROM: Warp 12
TO: Phil Nicholls @ 914-207
Subject: Evolution
Date: 31 Jan 90 14:06:53
In a message of <28 Jan 90 13:14:22>, Phil Nicholls @ 914-207 (1:10/8) writes:
>PN> Evolution is biology and biology is science.
>PN> I agree, the religion or religion vs science stuff
>PN> needs to be moved.
Well, yes, biology is science, but to conclude that evolution is also
science is fallacious. In true science, theories are made to fit
observable facts, not the other way around; and the gaps in
observations are not filled in with things that just seem right at the
time. The theory that all life on earth proceeded from a single source
is not an example of a true scientific theory.
Likewise, the theory of creation should not be abandoned merely on the
basis that the word "religion" is usually connected with it. I find
problems with both evolutionism AND strict creationism - but I'll
choose the one that fits the facts more closely, and try to make it fit
the facts; and the one that fits is creation. Creationism, when
applied properly, is not religion - it's science.
So, maybe religion should not be in this echo, but discussions about
creation are perfectly placed.
* Origin: <<< Warp_Point >>> (FidoNet 1:233/6.5)
FROM: Bill Beaton
TO: George Erdel
Subject: Evidence
Date: 01 Feb 90 20:33:54
In a message from George Erdel to Bruce Donohue on 26-Jan-90, he writes:
>The book of Genesis tells of the great flood that was survived by only Noah
>and his immediate family. If the scientific community is so dead set
>against giving the scriptures ANY creedance, WHY do we find fossiles of sea
>life at the highest peaks of the mountains. These fossiles of prehistoric
>sea life are found on every continent. They DO IN FACT give a confirmation
>of the accounting given by MOSES in Genesis of a flood that once covered the
>entire world.
I don't know why you're bringing this up, but its apparent that you've
never been to such a site yourself. I spent several years in Canada's
Crowsnest Pass (in Alberta), and have the evidence of my own eyes to
suggest that one need not bring a global inundation to explain this.
On each of the local peaks that I climbed, I DID find such fossils
(trilobites, primitive fish, and on one, an entire fossilized clam(or
oyster bed). However, it was also IMPOSSIBLE not to also see massive
folding in the outcroppings, which even to my untrained eye, certainly
looked like the whole area had been thrust upwards in some massive
geological action. With modern hind-sight, and that dramatic visual
evidence, its hard to believe that anyone ever had difficulty
understanding that no 'Deluge' was required.
>Further evidence is the research that has been done on the apparant
>remnants of the ark in Turkey upon Mt. Ararat. There are good books on
>this particular find that SCIENTIST have written. While they have not been
>able to PROVE that this is the remnants of the ark, neither have they
>DISPROVED it either.
To date, I've seen nothing of the kind. If you would kindly provide
some references, which are written by scientists in archaeology, with
REAL credentials, I will gladly try to broaden my horizons.
WillyB
p.s. I am a Christian, but in my creed, if the Bible contradicts reality, then
the Bible story is the one that goes.
* Origin: INTERTECH, Calgary Alberta, (403) 270-7659 (Opus 1:134/36)
FROM: Larry McGee
TO: Phil Nicholls @ 914/207
Subject: Re: 12C/13C ratio
Date: 01 Feb 90 06:39:58
PN> analysis of older rocks
PN> do reveal a ration of C-12/C-13 that is higher than
PN> one would expect if
PN> all of the carbon in these rocks was of inorganic
PN> origins. This
PN> suggests life may indeed be older than 3.7 billion
PN> year old stomatolites
PN> and fossil prochlorophyta bacteria.
Ok I read the article in Nature that you mentioned. First it is a review
article so it doesn't report the primary data. The key references about
the isotope determinations go from 1939 to 1960. So any of my concerns
about the ability to measure small differences will have to be
considered in those other articles.
Second, I misunderstood your original post to imply DATING by the
12C/13C ratio. This is not what the article is about. They examine
samples of rock previously dated by other means and find that the
C12/C13 is within 0.1% of the expected atmospheric ratio for inorganic
rock and is deficient in 13C by about 3% consistent with current
isotope effects in some photosynthetic plants. This effect is different
in C3 vs C4 plant metabolism. (An article several issues later in the
same bound volume of Nature discussed tree ring C12/C13 ratios and
found that the C13 deficiency was dependent on solar exposure and
average temperature for conifer tree rings with the variation
approaching 50% of the deficiency. )
Another point from the original review article. The rock samples that
they examine are mostly inorganic i.e. 99.4% of the sample has the
expected ratio of C12/C13. The remaining 0.6% is described as of
organic origin since it has the deficient amount of 13C. One needs to
be careful of a circular argument here. The authors do mention an out
in their conclusions, that is that if these old samples are not
evidence of life, then they were formed by some other process with the
remarkable ability to mimic the isotopic distribution expected from
photosynthetically derived organic material.
I'm not arguing with your use of this article. On rereading your post
in the context of the original article, it makes sense. I just
misinterpretted what you were saying to imply a new method of dating
based on C12/C13 ratios. Instead the ratio is pretty constant through
time and is used as an evidence of life.
* Origin: The Chemist's ComPort--Pacifica CA 415-359-6036(1:125/190.0)
FROM: Harlow Campbell
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re:information Theory
Date: 02 Feb 90 17:44:00
> Likewise, my personal experiences breeding goats tends to make
> evolution hard to swallow for me. This has more weight than EITHER
> side's arguments.
Please expand upon this statement. I see little relationship between the
raising of goats and your feelings of the origins of life. I am not
saying that it does not exist: I simply do not see the relationship.
* Origin: By the banks of the mighty Merrimack (1:132/130)
FROM: Trygve Lode
TO: George Erdel
Subject: Re: EVOLUTION VS. CREATIO
Date: 01 Feb 90 16:44:23
"Why do we find fossils of sea life at the highest peaks of the mountains?"
Well, gosh, if they were left there by a flood, that flood must have
lasted for millions of years, and you'd think that Noah and his family
might have had trouble surviving the trip. (Those fossils are there
because much of the rock that makes up the mountains is sedimentary and
used to be at the bottom of a seabed. When we have two crustal plates
that press against each other and the material on top of the plates is
too light to be pressed under (sedimentary rock or granite, for
example), it gets pushed up into mountains.
You'll also notice that the sedimentary layers that contain these
fossils are canted at angles and in some cases even visibly folded,
showing that they aren't in the same position in which they were
formed.
* Origin: The Comm-Post - Denver - (303) 534-4646 Multi-Line HST/DS (104/666)
FROM: Trygve Lode
TO: George Erdel
Subject: Re: AGE OF ROCKS
Date: 01 Feb 90 16:50:20
"How can they measure a half-life of 20,000 years for a material if
they have never been around long enough to measure it."
I'm reminded of an old joke that goes something like
Traffic cop: "Sir, were you aware that you were going at
75 miles per hour?"
Driver: "That's OK--I wasn't planning on being out that
long."
You don't actually have to drive for an hour to know how fast you're
going and it isn't necessary to test a sample for an entire half-life to
determine what its half-life is.
* Origin: The Comm-Post - Denver - (303) 534-4646 Multi-Line HST/DS (104/666)
MESSAGE: 120
FROM: Pat Goltz
TO: Rick Ellis
Subject: Re: information theory
Date: 01 Feb 90 12:06:25
Thanks for the compliment . You stated that my comment that ICR testimony
would "stand up in a court of law" was human stupidity.
What I explained was that the evidence was COMPETENT. It would be admitted,
and considered and weighed with the rest of the evidence. This is a conclusion
that I reach after having studied the law for over five years. When you have
studied the law awhile, then come back and compliment me some more!
It boggles my mind how many people will attack something totally irrelevant
to the issue and then expect me to accept them when they finally get around to
discussing the issue!
Pat
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: UA Today (University of Arizona, Tucson) (1:300/3)
MESSAGE: 121
FROM: James Hay
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: Still not reading?
Date: 03 Feb 90 11:05:00
And perhaps the reason that scientists don't trot out cuffey's list is people
who complain that they haven't heard of the organisms. :-)
What did you expect from a list of transitional forms, especially those between
higher classifications? Transitional fossils are inherently going to be of
creatures that don't currently exist and most of them are therefore going to be
obscure. Hell, you wanted to hear examples aside from what you had heard
before so don't complain when you haven't heard of the species before.
--- QuickBBS v2.61 [REGISTERED]
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
MESSAGE: 122
FROM: James Hay
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: Swiss watches & doom
Date: 03 Feb 90 11:10:00
You invoke intermolecular repulsive forces but you give no evidence as to their
relative magnitude. It is not as if at 2 ATM the air molecules are
overlapping. This repulsion decreases the already low probability of air
moving to one side of the room but doesn't make it impoosible (though, as I
have said, I wouldn't want to wait around for it.)
Regarding information theory - I have a computer with a certain amount of
information in it. Years later I have MORE information in it. How?
Importation of information from outside the system - the same factor that
overcomes the creationist's 2nd law argument. We start with an Earth/Sun
system. Billions of years later there is life. Impossible? No, cause the
life used information from the total system. Or is every bit of information
supposed to be unique?
--- QuickBBS v2.61 [REGISTERED]
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
MESSAGE: 123
FROM: James Hay
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: Chemical Reactions
Date: 03 Feb 90 11:11:00
So what WAS the plausable answer you got from the creationist as to predictive
value of creationism for the physical world. (Geez, you have to pull the real
information from these people with pliers!)
--- QuickBBS v2.61 [REGISTERED]
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
MESSAGE: 124
FROM: James Hay
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: Blind Cave Fish, etc.
Date: 03 Feb 90 11:16:00
As to the source of my claims about ICR - well you can easily check out the one
claim regarding the quotation from Scientific Creationism by checking the book
and the quoted source.
Re eyes: Any different structure would be a potential source for new
infections. Germs love new territory. Specifically, in the case of eyes, they
are a very worrisome source. I've had several eye infections and the doctors
were always worried because the eyes are such a straight conduit to the brain.
Also, specifically in the case of eyes, they provide quite a nice vulnerable
spot - note how strongly you react to protect them.
Sequoias being large has advantages: it lets them out compete other plants for
light, for instance, so it's not wasted energy as eyes in darkness would be.
--- QuickBBS v2.61 [REGISTERED]
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
MESSAGE: 125
FROM: Henry Shaw
TO: Larry Mcgee
Subject: Re: CARBON-14/CARBON-13
Date: 02 Feb 90 10:28:58
Phil has brought up the topic of "light stable isotope geochemistry". This
field is concerned with variations in the isotopic ratios of a short list
of elements: H, O, N, Si, S, and B. These variations in nature are
generally small, (on the order of parts in 1000 = permil = %. for elements
other than hydrogen and on the order of parts in 100 = percent = % for
hydrogen). The size of the effects are generally related to the fractional
mass differences of the isotopes involved. Thus, one would expect the
deuterium/hydrogen pair to show the largest effects (delta-mass/mass = 1)
while oxygen should show smaller effects (dm/m = 0.125). At high Z, the
fractional mass differences becomes much smaller, and measurable isotopic
fraction is not generally observed in nature (e.g. for 87-Sr/86-Sr,
dm/m = 0.01). The application of stable isotopic variations to geochemical
problems was basically started at our alma mater (Caltech) in the early 60's
by Sam Epstein and his student, Hugh Taylor. (Sam retired this year, Hugh
is still a professor there). Variations in light stable isotopes are used
in an incredibly wide range of fields, from paleo-climatology, to anthropology,
to paleo-ecology, to ore-genesis, to exploration for hydrothermal power. Much
too much to cover here.
What causes these variation you ask? I'm glad you asked.
Although different isotopes of the same element are usually thought of as
behaving identically in chemical reactions, this is not strictly true. Because
of their differences in mass, isotopes of a given element can be "fractionated"
by normal chemical processes. There are basically two different types of
effects giving rise to isotopic fractionation: kinetic effects and equilibrium
effects.
Kinetic isotope effects are associated with fast, incomplete, or unidirectional
processes like diffusion, evaporation, and dissociation reactions. In these
cases, the different behavior of two isotopes of the same element can be
related to the different velocities of isotopically different molecules.
The simplest case is for gasses. All molecules in an ideal gas at a given
temperature have the same kinetic energy. Now, consider two molecules of CO2:
(12C)(16O)2 and (12C)(18O)2. Because of their mass difference, the ratio of
the velocities of these two molecules at thermal equilibrium will be 1.034, or
the velocity of the CO2 containing the "light" oxygen will be 3.4% higher than
that of the "heavy" molecule. This velocity difference can lead to isotopic
fractionation in a variety of ways: "light" molecules diffuse faster (the
basis of the gasseous diffusion process for uranium separation); "light",
faster molecules can break through liquid surfaces preferentially, thus
leading to enhanced evaporation rates for the "light" molecule; etc.
Equilibrium fractionation effects are fundamentally a quantum mechanical
phenomenon. They arise because of the effect of atomic mass on bond energy.
To see how this comes about, consider a harmonic oscillator approximation
to a bond-potential curve for a simple diatomic molecule. In this case, as
you well know, the vibrational energy levels are given by:
E = (n + 1/2) * h /(2 * pi) * sqrt(k/u)
n
where n is the vibrational quantum number, h=Plank's constant, k is the force
constant for the oscillator, and u is the reduced mass of the molecule. At
n = 0, E = constant /sqrt(u) = Zero Point Energy (ZPE). When a molecule is
subsituted with a heavier isotope, the reduced mass increases and the ZPE
becomes smaller. Molecules that contain "heavier" isotopes thus have
larger binding energies than ones containing a light isotope. In the case of
hydrogen, which shows the largest effect, the ZPE's for H-H, H-D, and D-D
molecules are 4.1, 5.4, and 6.2 kcal/mol, respectively. With increasing
temperature (energy) higher energy levels are populated, and the isotopic
effect effect becomes smaller. This means, though, that the different
isotopic compositions of two compounds that formed in equilibrium can be
used as a "thermometer" because the difference in isotopic composition between
them is a function of temperature.
...continued
--- TBBS v2.1/NM
* Origin: Diablo Valley PCUG-BBS, Walnut Creek, CA 415/943-6238 (1:161/55)
MESSAGE: 126
FROM: Henry Shaw
TO: Larry Mcgee
Subject: Re: CARBON-14/CARBON-13
Date: 02 Feb 90 10:30:11
... continued from previous
In principle, if one knows the complete partition functions for the
species involved in a reaction, one can calculate the degree to which isotopes
will be fractionated. (The translational, rotational, and vibrational
partition functions all contribute to the effect.) This was first
worked out by Harold Urey in 1947 (J. Chem. Soc. [London] pp.562-81).
However, except for simple gases, this is a horrendous task and has been
done for only a few substances. It is *much* easier to simply measure the
fractionation in the lab.
The energy changes associated with the exchange of isotopes between two
molecular species are *much* smaller than typical bond energies or heats of
reaction. For example, the reaction that exchanges oxygen 16 and 18 between
CO2 and H2O:
1/2 C(16O)2 + H2(18O) == 1/2 C(18O)2 + H2(16O)
has an equilibrium constant at 25C of 1.0412. This corresponds to a free
energy change of -23.9 cal/mol, which is typical for these types of reactions.
Most of the larger isotopic fractionations in nature are associated with
changes in state (e.g. O and H in water going from liquid to vapor),
changes in valence (e.g. C and S), or changes in the nature of the bonding
of an element in reactants and products (covalent vs. ionic, coordination
number, etc.)
Since the isotopic variations are small, it is usual to report the compositions
as deviations in parts in 10^3 from some standard isotopic composition. In the
case of O and H, this standard is taken as "Standard Mean Ocean Water" (SMOW).
Compositions reported in this way are called delta-values (denoted by a Greek
lower-case delta). For example, the del-18O value of a sample is defined as:
del-18O = {[18O/16O]sample/[18O/16O]SMOW -1} x 1000
negative values of del-18O mean that the sample is depleted in
18O relative to the standard, positive values mean the opposite.
In the specific case of carbon isotopes (which is what started this message
chain), values are usually reported as the 13C/12C ratio relative to a
carbonate fossil material (the Pee Dee Belemnite -- don't ask why). This is
also an alternative standard for reporting del-18O values.
...continued next message
--- TBBS v2.1/NM
* Origin: Diablo Valley PCUG-BBS, Walnut Creek, CA 415/943-6238 (1:161/55)
MESSAGE: 127
FROM: Henry Shaw
TO: Larry Mcgee
Subject: Re: CARBON-14/CARBON-13
Date: 02 Feb 90 10:32:17
... continued from previous
The diagram below shows the general ranges in del-13C values found in various
reserviors of carbon on earth.
del-13C
-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
Atmospheric CO2 |--|
Oceanic HCO3- |--|
CaCO3 |----|
to -110 Organic C |-------------------|
<-----| Bacterial CH4
|-------------------| Abiogenic CH4
Diamonds |----------------------------------------|
Mantle C? |--|
The CO2 in the atmosphere has a del-13C of about -7%. (except in polluted
areas where the CO2 from fossil fuels is significant) The bicarbonate
in the oceans is in isotopic equilibrium with the atmosphere and has a value
of about 0%.. Modern marine limestones have values between -1 and +2%.,
and are in isotopic equilibrium with HCO3- in the oceans. The average
del-13C value for marine organic material is -22%., with a range from -30 to
-10%.; terrestrial organic material spans about the same range, but averages
about -26%.. One can further subdivide this range (for plants, at least) into
C2- and C4-type plants, which have distinct isotopic compositions (but at the
moment, I forget which has higher del-13C values). The difference arises
because of the different metabolic pathways used by these two types of plants.
This fact (along with similar effects in oxygen isotopes) has been used to
advantage to prove that non-grape sugar had been added to juice used
to produce some French wines (tres no-no), and that a company in the US had
been adding (cheap) corn syrup to the (expensive) honey it was selling.
Biogenic methane formed by reduction of bicarbonate (usually
by bacteria) in oceanic sediments has del-13C values between -110 and -55%.,
while methane produced by thermal cracking of buried organic matter falls
between -55 and -35%.. The difference between this abiogenic methane and the
biogenic methane is thought to be due to kinetic isotopic processes that
enrich the abiogenic CH4 in C-12.
Carbon from deep in the earth (e.g. diamonds) has a wide range of isotopic
compositions, with an average near -5%.. It is not clear what causes this
large variation. A likely possible explanation is that much of the carbon
in the deep earth (the mantle) is actually crustal and atmospheric carbon
that has been recycled back into the mantle at subduction zones. This
carbon would naturally have a wide range in isotopic compositions, ranging
from reduced carbon with low del values, to marine carbonates, with
relatively high values.
I haven't read the paper that Phil cited and which started this chain, but
I imagine that they found evidence for carbon with very low del-13C values
in the ancient rocks that they were studying. From this, they infer that
this carbon is biogenic in origin. Though this is intriuging, I would not
consider it absolutely firm evidence for life. It's more in the category
of "suggestive" evidence.
--- TBBS v2.1/NM
* Origin: Diablo Valley PCUG-BBS, Walnut Creek, CA 415/943-6238 (1:161/55)
MESSAGE: 128
FROM: Henry Shaw
TO: Larry Mcgee
Subject: Re: CARBON-14/CARBON-13
Date: 02 Feb 90 10:43:52
LM>Since 13C is not radioactive, its measurement is much less precise
LM>than that of 14C...
You've been working with "spiked" samples too much Larry. In general, for
natural samples, mass spectrometric determinations of the 13-C/12-C ratio are
*much* more precise than determinations of 14-C concentration determined by
counting. State-of-the-art stable isotope mass specs can determine the 13/12
ratio to better than one part in 10,000 in a few minutes. For a natural
sample with a pre-bomb C-14 concentration of 6.1pCi/gC, you would need to count
a (giant) 1-gram C sample for 14.5 YEARS to get the 10^8 counts needed to get
0.01% counting statistics (1-sigma).
--- TBBS v2.1/NM
* Origin: Diablo Valley PCUG-BBS, Walnut Creek, CA 415/943-6238 (1:161/55)
MESSAGE: 129
FROM: Jonathan Rogers
TO: Jim Speiser
Subject: Re: The Bible(proof)
Date: 02 Feb 90 12:38:29
It is impossible to PROVE creation in a labratory. You may not be trying to
silence us(creationists) but in keeping us out of the classroom you are trying
to program children to believe all this wonderful and highly detailed life
around us came from random chance, microevolution is possible but no species
can change itself into another. How much research have any of you done that
proves creation didn't happen. Actually I do personally think it takes MORE
faith to believe we all evolved from lower lifeforms and that the universe
resulted from some cosmic big bang. We all shall see who is right one day and
then I hope you are right in what you believe cause if it isn't right then I
will pitty you. Where does the bible contradict itself? Give me exact passages
that contradict known facts. If man is evolving then how can you explain why we
only use 10% of our brain capacity, if evolution is right then wouldn't our
brain capacities be increasing? This is what gives me doubt as to the validity
of evolution as currently known. To prove creation you would need to prove the
existance of God which cannot be done in a controled labratory enviroment, and
since the existance of God is rejected then you've shot up the whole case for
creation. I find it difficult to believe that as intricate and detailed as the
world is that it just came from natural evolutionary processes, it just doesn't
make sense to me. One final thing, in saying the bible contradicts itself is
attacking our whole belief system(creation included), you(evolutionists in
general) don't want us "shoving" creation down your throats but yet
evolutionists are doing the EXACT thing in the science classroom, just because
the idea of creation includes a diety doesn't mean it's not scientifically
correct. Well it seems hopeless that either side will be willing to give in, I
know for a pretty accurate fact that evolutionists will NEVER acknowledge
creation for fear of acknowledging God(no preaching intended) and if they
acknowledged God then they'd have to realize he owns the earth and has a right
to tell us humans how to conduct our lives.(this is probably bordering on
getting off the topic of the Echo but I have to say this) Maybe we should set
up an echo especially for this so we can discuss religiously oriented ideas
without fear of losing ECHO priviliages because of mentioning God on a
"science" echo. You know, Science is really disappointing me to date. I would
like to become a scientist in the future(of course researching and doing
experiemental work, ie theoretical science. YOu know Quantum Mechanics and the
like). well maybe Science will earn my complete total respect in the future but
I'm not holding my breath on that one.
---
* Origin: CATCOM -1- Aerospace Technology Point taken. Future notes in this series will be entitled
PN>Creationists Misinformation.
Phil,
How 'bout "Creationists' Disinformation?"...loaded but accurate.
--- QuickBBS v2.61 [REGISTERED]
* Origin: Al's Cabin in Milford, PA (717)-686-3037 *[HST]* *[SDS]* (1:13/75.0)
MESSAGE: 135
FROM: Phil Nicholls @ 914/207
TO: Peh Lee
Subject: Re: Creationist Myths#1
Date: 02 Feb 90 21:38:19
Greetings Peh,
Please not get the wrong idea. Not all creation "scientists" have
their degrees from non-accredited institutions. There is also nothing
wrong with such alternatives. It is the creationists themselves who
bill themselves as having expertise in scientific fields and in many
cases, it just isn't so.
Some have degrees from accredited institutions, but in areas removed
from biology (Henry Morris has a degree in hydrolic engineering, for
example). The foundation of creationism is not science. It is
religious and political. Creationism is an attempt to have a particular
religious viewpoint taught in science classes as an "alternative model."
It is not joke.
Regards,
Phil Nicholls
Department of Anthropology
San Francisco State University
--- RBBSMail 17.2B
# Origin: The Skeptic's Board - High weirdness by modem (RBBS-PC 8:914/207)
* Origin: Network Gateway to RBBS-NET (RBBS-PC 1:10/8)
MESSAGE: 136
FROM: Phil Nicholls @ 914/207
TO: Peh Lee
Subject: Re: Creationist Myths#1
Date: 02 Feb 90 21:38:19
Greetings Peh,
Please not get the wrong idea. Not all creation "scientists" have
their degrees from non-accredited institutions. There is also nothing
wrong with such alternatives. It is the creationists themselves who
bill themselves as having expertise in scientific fields and in many
cases, it just isn't so.
Some have degrees from accredited institutions, but in areas removed
from biology (Henry Morris has a degree in hydrolic engineering, for
example). The foundation of creationism is not science. It is
religious and political. Creationism is an attempt to have a particular
religious viewpoint taught in science classes as an "alternative model."
It is not joke.
Regards,
Phil Nicholls
Department of Anthropology
San Francisco State University
--- RBBSMail 17.2B
# Origin: The Skeptic's Board - High weirdness by modem (RBBS-PC 8:914/207)
* Origin: Network Gateway to RBBS-NET (RBBS-PC 1:10/8)
MESSAGE: 137
FROM: Warp 12
TO: Douglas Anderson
Subject: Re: Creationism
Date: 02 Feb 90 09:18:58
In a message of <01 Feb 90 00:27:34>, Douglas Anderson (1:147/12) writes:
>DA>I have always failed to see why belief in either science or
>DA>christianity precluded belief in the other. I am both a scientist
>DA>and a christian.
>DA>And yet I do not believe that evolution contradicts the Genesis
>DA>story, ... I accept both.
Thank goodness, and thank you. There's been lots of talk about how
othersshould
have open minds, but very few messages have indicated the actual presence of
open-mindedness on this echo. While I do feel that the current theory of
macro-evolution
contradicts the story of creation in some ways, I also believe that the two
fit together quite nicely in other ways; and, in general, I feel that science
and religion are not only compatible but inseparable.
I hope I am a Christian, and although I do not claim to be a scientist, I do
have a significant interest in science (my profession involves computers).
Perhaps, then, we could exchange some ideas on this subject. It would be a
welcome change from trying to converse with the more hostile elements of the
Science Echo constituency.
--- msged 1.99S ZTC
* Origin: <<< Warp_Point >>> (FidoNet 1:233/6.5)
MESSAGE: 138
FROM: Warp 12
TO: Charles Harden
Subject: Re: Evolution Vs. Creation
Date: 02 Feb 90 08:41:40
In a message of <31 Jan 90 21:41:00>, Charles Harden (1:135/50) writes:
>CH>There is no conclusive proof, either way, for or against Noah's ark.
I simply wish to interject a comment here, not to be contradictory. I'm from
Danville, Illinois, and a late resident of this area was involved in a search
for Noah's Ark. I have forgotten his given name, but he was known as Whatcha
McCollom. He was a pilot (a rather well-known one, in fact, piloting private
planes for such people as Johnny Carson and Bob Hope) and attempted to reach,
by helicopter, an area on Mount Ararat where the Ark was thought to be.
Unfortunatly,
he failed to find conclusive evidence, but it was quite an expedition, and it
may be taken up again some day. Just thought you might be interested.
I understand that Mr. McCollom was among the first people, if not the first
person, to own a private helicopter. He died several years ago in an airplane
accident.
--- msged 1.99S ZTC
* Origin: <<< Warp_Point >>> (FidoNet 1:233/6.5)
MESSAGE: 139
FROM: Warp 12
TO: Kevin Brook
Subject: Creation
Date: 02 Feb 90 08:54:18
>Creation has no scienctific of any basis at all. It is based upon a theory
>of a diety that controls people and causes events to occur.
As with most things, there are varying points of view among those that believe
in creation. Please do not generalize. There are many of us that do not
believe
in literal pre-destination. I do not believe in a deity that actively causes
every event in the universe to occur, and that actively causes me to do
everything
I do. I am an independent creature.
When you wind up and start a clock, you don't have to stay there and cause it
to keep running. Likewise, on an infinitely larger scale, God does not need
to keep the Earth (or the Universe) "running".
There is a fundamental disagreement on this echo about the nature of science.
I must say I'm tired of these bald statements - "creation is wrong", "creation
isn't science", or even "evolution is wrong" - that aren't backed up at all.
--- msged 1.99S ZTC
* Origin: <<< Warp_Point >>> (FidoNet 1:233/6.5)
MESSAGE: 140
FROM: Jean Nance
TO: Warp 12
Subject: Re: Amebas and Evolution
Date: 03 Feb 90 21:21:37
It seems to me that while there is a certain amount of the kind of exchange you
describe, the "evolutionists", as you call them, have been giving plenty of
scientific evidence for their stand. A complete discussion of all the material
supporting the concept of evolution would take a small library. It isn't
possible to put in in a few messages on a bulletin board. Those who don't
believe in evolution bring up isolated questions "How about---", and then pose
a problem that years of research and hundreds of thousands of words of text
have considered at length. I for one don't have the time or energy to write
tomes, and I don't think the people on this board want to be subjected to them.
Are you a scientist? If so, what is your field? It seems to me odd that many of
the users of this board, who are not biologists, really feel that biology is
not a science at all, just a lot of nutty ideas held by some incompetent
nit-wits. You don't hear biologists claiming that most of the concepts of
astronomy, or physics,or chemistry, have no basis in fact and aren't proved.
Why claim that biology is just a bunch of malarkey. For is evolution is just a
bunch of malarkey, the entire structure of modern biology is based on a
fallacy, and is invalid.
---
* Origin: SigBio Opus (217) 333-9660 Urbana, IL USA (Opus 1:233/4)
MESSAGE: 141
FROM: Ozzie Stiffelman
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: Blind Cave Fish, Etc.
Date: 28 Jan 90 00:11:00
The fact is, to use energy to produce worthless eyes would be a waste of energy
that could otherwise be used.
--- ZMailQ 1.10 @1:280/9.0
* Origin: South of the River HST-Overland Park KS-(913)642-7907 (1:280/9.0)
MESSAGE: 142
FROM: Ozzie Stiffelman
TO: Chris Dirks
Subject: Re: Creationism
Date: 28 Jan 90 14:21:00
Religion is often used to answer questions about nature that are difficult to
answer through science. or at least so far. A good example of this is shown
by the beleife that the earth was the center of the galaxy. This was later
proven incorrect by science but until it was proven incorrect, the people
relied on religion to answer these questions.
--- ZMailQ 1.10 @1:280/9.0
* Origin: South of the River HST-Overland Park KS-(913)642-7907 (1:280/9.0)
MESSAGE: 143
FROM: Ben Mitchell
TO: Ozzie Stiffelman
Subject: creation and evolution
Date: 28 Jan 90 19:36:00
Oz I do think you are totaly ignorant in this subject. I feel you have not
done enough studies on this subject to argue it. Right back after you have read
some more books on creation and evolution, not only should you read a book on
evolution you should also read a book that disagrees with evolution (like the
Bible).
Thank you for your t
ime write back soon! Ben
--- ZMailQ 1.10 @1:280/9.0
* Origin: South of the River HST-Overland Park KS-(913)642-7907 (1:280/9.0)
MESSAGE: 144
FROM: Ozzie Stiffelman
TO: Ben Mitchell
Subject: Re: creation and evolution
Date: 29 Jan 90 16:24:00
What do you base this claim on? I have done many studies on this subject. I
think that because I don't agree with creation dosn't mean I am completely
ignorant about the subject. In fact, I have studied the creationist views of
different cultures. Because of Ben Mitchells pointless argument, which has the
intelligence of a slug, I will not waste any more time reading or answering to
your messages.
--- ZMailQ 1.10 @1:280/9.0
* Origin: South of the River HST-Overland Park KS-(913)642-7907 (1:280/9.0)
MESSAGE: 145
FROM: Ozzie Stiffelman
TO: All
Subject: creation in schools?
Date: 30 Jan 90 19:23:00
(Please excuse any typos...was in a rush for time.)
What is science? Where is the lne drawn between science and
religion?
Throughout history we have had many different answers to the question
"How did life begin?". Every culturehas it's own answer. Some of the more
well known ideas state that the earth was formed from part of the creator's
body, or that from nothing, a god or many gods created themselves and then they
created the planet we know as Earth.
Most, if not all of these cultures have had a form of religion. This
"religion" was most likely invented to answer questions in anture that could
not at that point be answered by science. The problem with htese answers was
that they were not correct, they were often stories about why somehin happens.
for instance, a cave man may have wondered where water comes from. He would
study the oceans and the rivers. Hw oudl stare at the rain. He, unable to find
the answer, would, not wanting to worry about it, make up a story that sounded
completely reasonable to him, such as the great creator cried when he saw the
errors of mankind. Often a moral would be introduced into this explanation.
The cave man would then feel contented with his answer. He would feel good
iwth himself and he would then try to be better so that the great creator would
be appeased.
Eventually another cave man would ask the same question and the first
cave man would tell the second cave man his answer. This idea would be passed
along to all the people in the area near where they lived. This simple answer
would be the basis of their religion. Eventually, after great drought, the
cave man would be forced to move to find more food. He might meet other cave
men who were strangers to him and his people. The first cave man would be
confused and wonder why there was a drought. The new cave men would have a
different religion. In their religion, htey believe that rain was not the
tears of sorrow for the sins of mankind, but eh tears of happiness for the
great good that all mankind possessed. The new cave men would try to teach the
first cave man fo their religion. If the first cave man did not accept it,
fighting might occur. Eventually there might be wars between the different
tribes.
this, although bery basic and simplified, is a typical example of how
many relgions may have started.
Today, we are still arguing over the same question "How did life
begin?". We, like the cave man, try to answer this question many different
ways. Today, we must rely on science to answer these question.
Again, like the cave man, we have tried to make others understand and
believe in teh same "religion". There is nothing wrong with trying to educate
someone and teach them of your ideas and opinions. Where we ahve frlawed is in
FORCING others to believe in your ideas and opinions.
In america, we have the state and church set up as separate
institutions. In america, we have freedom of religion. A public school, or
one run by the government, must abide by these rules. Science is based on
facts and evidence. Anything taught as science must also be based on fact and
evidence. The bible is neither fact nor evidence, it is just another relgion.
Creation theorys based on religion must never be taught as science.
It is true that under the constitution we are guaranteed our freedom of
religion. It is your right as a human being to believe in what you want to but
when your beliefe is forced upon someone else, not only does it tread on one of
their most basic rights, but it is both wrong and unconstitutional.
The American people abolished slavery, or at least pysical slavery, but
their is another kind of slavery that still exists to this day and probably
always will. This slavery is every bit as terrible as physical slavery. It
tortures and murders free thought. It destroys all original and unique ideas.
To force someone to conform to your own personal ideas and views is to enslave
that person. We must abolish this slavery if we wish to be free thinkers. And
we must be free if we wish to grow as a nation, as a species, and as a planet!
--- ZMailQ 1.10 @1:280/9.0
* Origin: South of the River HST-Overland Park KS-(913)642-7907 (1:280/9.0)
MESSAGE: 146
FROM: Ben Mitchell
TO: Ozzie Stiffelman
Subject: Re: creation and evolution
Date: 31 Jan 90 20:41:00
Oz I am sorry for atacking you like this and it is my hopes that you will
forgive. I just want to disagree on the sudject of me having the brains of a
slug.
Thanks for your time.
BEN
--- ZMailQ 1.10 @1:280/9.0
* Origin: South of the River HST-Overland Park KS-(913)642-7907 (1:280/9.0)
MESSAGE: 147
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry @ 930/17
TO: Phil Nicholls @ 914/207
Subject: Seas and flooding
Date: 03 Feb 90 08:14:55
>
> George,
> Geologists have a verified explanation for this. Consult
> any geology
> test under the topic of plate tectonics which explains,
> among other
> things, the process of mountain formation. Please also
> explain why
> marine organisms would have been affected by the flood
> in such numbers.
> Living in water, an increase in the level of the oceans
> should have
> suited them fine.
Typically, rain is "fresh-water". Given a flood that covers the surface of the
earth to a depth of several miles will cause a massive change in salinity of
the oceans. This alone would be sufficient to kill most of the ocean dwelling
fish and invertebrates (those which are not euryhaline, anyway). Corals would
be particularly susceptible. Reef structures would experience massive
die-offs, ignoring the freshwater contamination problem, from the simple fact
that reefs are dependent upon light, and there is darned little of that
available even at a few hundred feet of depth, much less a few miles.
Intertidal ecologies would be wiped out virtually entirely. Larval forms of
most invertebrates are rather sensitive to changes in salinity: they tend to
die if a change occurs.
But this should not be construed as supporting Erdel's contention, rather, such
changes would necessarily leave a large mass-extinction record which, unlike
Noah's Ark, has not been found (That's a joke, son.). Any mass-extinction
record purported to be "Flood" related should show euryhaline species coming
through in far better shape than the salinity sensitive species. Also, a
consequence would be that we would expect mountains _not_ to have any great
amount of sea-life fossils, and absolutely no fossils of salinity sensitive
species. This is not the case, obviously. (Brachiopods provide a good
example.)
--- TPBEdit v3.2
# Origin: Central Neural System, 817-551-9363, HST, TPBoard 5.2 (8:930/17)
* Origin: Network Gateway to RBBS-NET (RBBS-PC 1:10/8)
MESSAGE: 148
FROM: Larry McGee
TO: Henry Shaw
Subject: Re: CARBON-14/CARBON-13
Date: 04 Feb 90 07:47:36
HS> I haven't read the paper that Phil cited and which
HS> started this chain, but
HS> I imagine that they found evidence for carbon with
HS> very low del-13C values
HS> in the ancient rocks that they were studying. From
HS> this, they infer that
HS> this carbon is biogenic in origin. Though this is
HS> intriuging, I would not
HS> consider it absolutely firm evidence for life. It's
HS> more in the category
HS> of "suggestive" evidence.
Thanks for the detailed explanations. Especially the examples where consumer
fraud was detected by this method.
As for the article, your summary is what they found and they did use an out
that some other process might account for the difference i.e. that the evidence
is suggestive, although the whole point of the review was to
track evidence for life back 3700 million years and to use anomolies in the
record to identify probable times for the emergence of different carbon
metabolic pathways (C3 vs C4 plants, for example).
--- Sirius 1.0v+
* Origin: The Chemist's ComPort--Pacifica CA 415-359-6036(1:125/190.0)
MESSAGE: 149
FROM: David White
TO: Bill Beaton
Subject: Re: Evidence
Date: 04 Feb 90 21:10:00
In a message to George Erdel <02-01-90 20:33> Bill Beaton wrote:
" p.s. I am a Christian, but in my creed, if the Bible
" contradicts reality, then the Bible story is the one that
" goes.
My friend, you contradict yourself. How can you say that you're a Christianand
yet not believe the Bible to be true?
You say that "if the Bible contradicts reality, the Bible goes." What doyou
define as reality? What Science says is true? What Man believes istrue? What
you think is true?
If the Bible is, as you say, not true in every area, how can you know
whichparts are true? Do you believe in God? If so, do you believe that God
madea few mistakes in the Bible. If the story that Noah's Ark is a lie,
thenmaybe Christ's birth is not true. Maybe Creation is a lie. Maybe
somepassage that you don't particullary like is "not true" or "not relevent."
The Bible says that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God..."
(2 Timothy 3:16). Either you deny this phrase, or else believe that the Godwho
inspired the Bible is weak and often mistaken about certain events.
You must understand that a Christian must believe that the Bible isabsolutely
true. If the Bible is not absolutely true, then any part of itmight be wrong,
and, if it says something you don't like, you can explain itaway as "a part of
the Bible that is inaccurate."
The God that I serve, and the God that wrote the Bible is never wrong
ormistaken. I believe everything the Bible says to be true. I KNOW howmost
people on this Echo will respond to this. They will say I am woefullyignorant.
They will point to apparantly contradictory phrases in the Bible. They will say
that I am a stubborn, stupid, closed-minded Christian.
Perhaps I am. Here's something that may shock you: I DON'T HAVE ALL
THEANSWERS TO EVERYTHING, like most people on this Echo do. I may not be
ableto explain away all the arguments that Evolutionists post. I may
--- ZMailQ 1.10 @1:151/402.0
* Origin: Programmer's Oasis/919-226-6984 - Say NO to Bugs! (1:151/402.0)
MESSAGE: 150
FROM: Pat Goltz
TO: Paul Bijhouwer
Subject: Re: information theory
Date: 03 Feb 90 18:30:41
OK, now we agree. You said that you would either say that ICR is made up of
scoundrels and creationism is false, or ICR is made up of scoundrels because
creationism is false, but you would prefer to leave ICR out of it and just say
creationism is false.
I don't agree that creationism is false, but I do agree that you are stating
a proper and logical proposition if you state any of the above.
As for ICR waking up, well, I think they'd say the same thing about those who
hold your point of view . My own opinion is that the jury is still out on
a lot of the details. That's why I am asking so many questions here, and why I
am reading so carefully.
Thank you for writing. I feel a lot better about your attitude now.
Pat
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: UA Today (University of Arizona, Tucson) (1:300/3)
MESSAGE: 151
FROM: Brook Monroe
TO: Kevin Brook
Subject: Evolution, continued
Date: 04 Feb 90 13:29:00
I can prove that Sherlock Holmes existed--the Conan Doyle writings show it
conclusively. :-)
--- via Quickpoint XRS 3.0
* Origin: Psychotronic BBS - Something Weird Going on Here (Quick 1:151/223.2
MESSAGE: 152
FROM: Jim Speiser
TO: Jonathan Rogers
Subject: Re: The Bible(proof)
Date: 05 Feb 90 10:50:00
Jonathan:
Your main thesis against evolution is that it is put forward by people who are
afraid of ackowledging God. You keep harping on this as some kind of argument
in favor of creation, when in fact it is nothing but a straw man argument. The
strict evolutionist says NOTHING about God. He simply says that evolution
occurred. If this somehow puts God too far out of the picture for your, then
that is your problem. I have no problem with your belief in God. I am not
trying to shove Atheism down your throat. If, by proving to you that evolution
occurred, it becomes clear that God is NOT solely responsible for the variety
of life you see around you, that is not because I don't believe in God. It is
simply because it is true. The fact that God becomes less of a factor in
explaining the abundance of different species is merely a necessary consequence
of accepting evolution, it is not a MOTIVE for explaining it thus. If you can't
open your mind enough to accept that, then there is little purpose in trying to
prove our point.
Jim
--- FD 1.99b
* Origin: -==- ParaNet Zeta Reticuli 1:114/37 (1:114/37)
MESSAGE: 153
FROM: Jim Speiser
TO: Jonathan Rogers
Subject: Re: The Bible(proof)
Date: 05 Feb 90 10:57:00
> chance, microevolution is possible but no species can change
> itself into another.
What is the basis for your claim? What evidence do you have that contradicts
years of biological research?
> How much research have any of you done that
> proves creation didn't happen.
None. We aren't out to disprove creation. Creation is an extraordinary claim,
the burden of proving it DID happen is on you.
> Actually I do personally think it
> takes MORE faith to believe we all evolved from lower lifeforms
> and that the universe resulted from some cosmic big bang.
> Where does the bible contradict itself? Give me exact passages
> that contradict known facts.
I already did. Why did you choose to ignore it?
> If man is evolving then how can you
> explain why we only use 10% of our brain capacity, if evolution is
> right then wouldn't our brain capacities be increasing?
It so happens that our brain capacity IS increasing. But that is not
necessarily the outcome predicted by evolution.
Please do a little more
intensive reading on the subject. I recommend anything by S. J. Gould.
Jim
--- FD 1.99b
* Origin: -==- ParaNet Zeta Reticuli 1:114/37 (1:114/37)
MESSAGE: 154
FROM: Scott Canion
TO: Steve Head
Subject: Evolution
Date: 05 Feb 90 01:52:45
In a message of <04 Feb 90 00:15:31>, Steve Head (1:116/3000.1) writes:
SH>In a message of <31 Jan 90 14:06:53>, Warp 12 (1:233/6.5) writes:
SH>>Creationism, when applied properly, is not religion - it's
SH>>science.
SH>
SH>How so?
The science of 'Creationsism' could also be referred to as the science of
'disprove anything that seemingly contradicts creationism'. Don't get me wrong
here, I am a creationist, but the bottom line is, Christianity is a matter of
faith, not scientific theory.
On a close subject, I would say that anyone claiming that evolution is a fact,
or even a 'good theory', is not correct. To put it simply, evolution is the
idea that creatures start out general, and specialize, to fill in the niches.
A large part of this is natural selection. Natural selection is fine. But the
other part of the formula is gene mutation. That is, 'beneficial' gene
mutation. Currently, there is no widely accepted evidence to support
beneficial gene mutation. In reality, there has been more evidence to support
gene mutation as "Always harmful"... never beneficial.
In other words, for those who arrogantly support 'evolution as fact', are
turning the idea of evolution into a 'faith', instead of scientific theory.
That is, despite the evidence against 'beneficial' gene mutation, these
faith-evolutionists insist that gene mutation IS beneficial..
If I have stated any inacuracies, please reply.
--- QM v1.00 & Opus 1.03c
* Origin: Scott's Excellent BBS:Austin TX *HST DS* 650mb (1:382/17)
MESSAGE: 155
FROM: Jonathan Rogers
TO: John Thompson
Subject: Re: Speciation
Date: 04 Feb 90 12:50:57
It seems to me that these "scientists" go about their research with a
predetermined mindset that they are going to prove evolution, therefore the
results of their research will have a certain bias to it that makes it slightly
inaccurate. A true scientist goes about researching something with the idea of
not to prove or disprove anything but to find out for himself. Meaning he goes
in not to prove evolution or disprove it but to examine all the evidence and
come to a conclusion. Ok, lets assume(for the sake of assuming) that the
universe resulted from a Big Bang, well my question would then be where did all
that matter come from that caused the big bang? Also how can our solar
system(like so many others) operate with such precision and not run into one
another if the big bang started our universe. Things to me just seem to orderly
and operate to intricately to have just come from a big bang and evolution.
That is just what I believe from MY observations. I'm not a scientist and do
not profess to know everything but I do believe the biblical account of
creation as stated in genesis, perhaps it did not take 6 literal days, it could
have been 6,000 years or 6,000,000 million years or even 6 billion years. Who
knows, but I do firmly believe that God is responsible for everything we see,
oh it's not now the way it was in the beginning of time since it's been
corrupted and now things are sorta out of whack. This is not intended to be
preaching of any kind, simply stating what I believe in regards to the
evolution/creation discussion, it's hard to discuss creation without bring
"religion"(as defined by the evolutionists here) so forgive me if I offend you
but sometimes your theories and ideas of how life and the universe originated
offend me as well. It seems obvious that neither side will ever convince the
other and I've given up trying to convince anyone of anything and am not just
asking logical questions to solve the questions that remain in my mind, yes I
don't know how things originated other than what the Bible says happened, if
things did evolve and the universe came from a big bang and there is no deity
behind it all then I've lost nothing, I can't say the same for your side, if
it's wrong then I feel sorry for you. Well I hope you'll answer my questions
because that's how I'm trying to find out things, it doesn't seem logical to me
that everything just came from nothing so if you or anyone else can show me
where the bible contradicts itself in its description of creation and how
nature contradicts it then I'll consider your evidence and make a new
conclusion from there. Thank you for your time.
---
* Origin: CATCOM -1- Aerospace Technology This is off-topic, so if you want to discuss it further, please go to
> netmail.
Then you should not have brought up the topic. Are you attempting to chill
my right to reply using the same forum you have used ? Were I to reply using
netmail, the community to whom you have made those remarks would have no
opportunity to weigh and evaluate the argument.
Belief systems are hard to break: there are those who want the Bible to be
literally true, and no amount of evidence is sufficient to impose upon that
belief. They have a habit of accusing all other of not being openminded, while
they themselves truly accept no evidence save the biblical.
> You wanted to know about whether or not the resurrection of Jesus
> was common knowledge outside of a small community. The answer to that
> is "yes". Agrippa (in Acts) was a high Roman official, and did not live
> near said small community. Paul referred to the resurrection in his
> defense in seeking redress of grievance as a freeborn Roman citizen.
> Agrippa agreed that he knew that the resurrection had actually
> happened.
Note that your references are Biblical: they involve a small community sharing
common beliefs. They are not necessarily factual, and remain relatively
undocumented save by that group.
The very existence of Christ is undocumented save by Christians. I have made
that point several times on another echo and have yet to have it disproven.
There is no mention of his existence in the Roman records that anyone has been
able to point out to me ... and they kept good records.
--- FD 2.00
* Origin: By the banks of the mighty Merrimack (1:132/130)
MESSAGE: 157
FROM: Jim Karkanias
TO: George Erdel
Subject: Re: Evolution Vs. Creation
Date: 05 Feb 90 13:23:22
In a message of < 2 Feb 90 21:55:00>, George Erdel (1:112/5) writes:
GE>> Well, actually, all they confirm is that those mountains
GE>> were underwater
GE>> at one time...either because the mountain was much smaller
GE>> back then or
GE>> the water line was much higher - or both.
GE>
GE>As I said in the original message. It gives creedance to
GE>the@mosaic account of the great flood, that GOD had put on
GE>earth to cleanse the world.
GE>It is obvious to most. However to the hard line evolutionist
GE>because it tends to substantiate the word of GOD it is not
GE>credible to them.
GE>It is really amazing to watch the evolutionist when they are
GE>given the logic of their words put into on opposing viewpoint
GE>siruation. SMILE
Huh? I don't get it...how does this prove that GOD did it. He might have, he
might not have. Evolution doesn't exclude GOD per se only your limitations
cause you to think it has to be one or the other
--- msged 1.99S ZTC
* Origin: Mount Olympus - Home of the Gods (1:273/720)
MESSAGE: 158
FROM: Marty Leipzig
TO: Doug Bell
Subject: Re: Evolution
Date: 05 Feb 90 13:05:22
> I believe that polls have shown that there should be balanced
> treatment of the subject. So, is my conclusion proper that
> you wish to disenfranchise those who enterprete the evidence
> differently?
Hello, Doug...
1. Sure, Creationists probably pay taxes. So do scientists.
2. What polls? Data, please. Were these national, or regional polls?
What were the questions asked? You believe that the polls have shown
that there should be balanced treatment...I think I need to see the data and
results before I can analyze the situation.
3. Disenfranchise those who interpret the evidence differently? No, if their
interpretations withstand the test of science. To this end, the Creationists
have failed....miserably...(i.e. "Flood Geology").
Otherwise they invoke the supernatural (i.e. miracles), which are,
by definition, beyond the venue of science......
And this is what you want taught as "science"?....
---
* Origin: The Debate Place BBS Houston, Texas (713)451-6066 (Opus 1:106/113)
MESSAGE: 159
FROM: Marty Leipzig
TO: Warp 12
Subject: Re: Evolution, continued
Date: 04 Feb 90 07:06:52
> Your statement is self-contradictory and dogmatic. To state
> that evolution
> is a fact is to state a falsehood, because it has never
> been proven. I cannot
> state categorically that it is wrong, because creation theory
> has never been
> proven, either.
>
My dear "Warp 12"...
1. Evolution is a fact. Organisms have progressed from the simple to the more
complex over the span of geologic time. FACT. How this has happened ("mode and
tempo") are the theory.
2. Evolution has been observed ("Biston betularia...Industrial melanism
in British moths", etc...etc...etc...). To deny that is to deny reality.
3. Of course you can't state that it is wrong. You don't have the vaguest
idea of what "theories, facts or hypotheses" are as utilized by science. I
don't mean this personally, but your posts note this exact conclusion.
4. "Creation "theory"" has never been proven..." 4a. Please post a creation
model, one without reference to the Bible.....
4b. Creation cannot be proven. Nor can it be disproven. It is NOT scientific.
It is a BELIEF set held by some, who are typically, but not always,
Christian Fundamentalists.
Creation Science is a religion. It is not Religion. As such it has no place in
public school science cirricula.
P.S. Next time, use your real name. "Warp 12" sounds a little, well,
warped.
---
* Origin: The Debate Place BBS Houston, Texas (713)451-6066 (Opus 1:106/113)
MESSAGE: 160
FROM: Andrew Robison
TO: George Erdel
Subject: Re: The Bible(proof)
Date: 06 Feb 90 00:43:32
In a message of <02 Feb 90 22:35:00>, George Erdel (1:112/5) writes:
GE>Thats just it it has been REJECTED, NOT DISPROVEN. Would you be so
GE>kind to explain why this is so. The evolutionist gets very upset when
GE>his THEORY is rejected, even though he has NOT PROVEN his theory. This
GE>situation is similar only this time the creationist idea has been
GE>rejected without the evolutionist disprooving him.
1. Where would all of the water come from?
2. Where did it go?
3. How did noah get all of the plants and animals on the ark, from all over the
Earth.
4. How did Noah manage to put them all back in the right places afterwards, so
that the fossil and other buried records are not discontinuous.
5. Why don't the North American natives have this myth?
I could go on... although disproven may be too strong, rejection is just about
right on target: there is absolutely no evidence of the flood, absolutely no
explainable mechanism by which the flood would occur.
andrew.
--- msged 1.99S ZTC
* Origin: Dolphins and other people... Ottawa, Ontario (1:163/114.4)
MESSAGE: 161
FROM: Brook Monroe
TO: George Erdel
Subject: Evolution Vs. Creation
Date: 05 Feb 90 22:00:00
In a message to Jim Karkanias <02 Feb 90 21:55:00> George Erdel wrote:
GE> As I said in the original message. It gives creedance to the@mosaic
GE> account of the great flood, that GOD had
GE> put on earth to cleanse the world.
GE> It is obvious to most. However to the hard line evolutionist
GE> because it tends to substantiate the word
GE> of GOD it is not credible to them.
GE> It is really amazing to watch the evolutionist when they are given
GE> the logic of their words put into on opposing viewpoint siruation. SMILE
GE> George Erdel
GE> JAX FLA
It's possible to prove anything out of context. The problem with your
"obvious" solution is that the rocks with the fossils in them are much older
than any supposed Noahic flood.
The presumed flood took place within the last 5,000 years, we are told, and
covered the entire Earth. The Chinese have written records dating back 6,000
years, and they seem to have missed it. At the time Noah and the whole gang
were floating about the Chinese were apparently high and dry, or completely
comatose. Funny--you'd think they'd mention something as amazing as a flood
covering the entire Earth.
The Aztecs and Mayan cultures date back nearly as long, and they don't mention
any flood either.
Why is that, George? What else can you draw out of context to support your
point?
--- via Quickpoint XRS 3.0
* Origin: Psychotronic BBS - Something Weird Going on Here (Quick 1:151/223.2
MESSAGE: 162
FROM: Brook Monroe
TO: George Erdel
Subject: Evolution Vs. Creatio
Date: 05 Feb 90 22:08:00
In a message to Charles Harden <02 Feb 90 22:07:00> George Erdel wrote:
GE> What then is your explanation of the sea life fossiles found ALL
GE> OVER THE EARtH on the highest mountains. (grin) I am waiting for
GE> this one but I bet I can predict what you will say.
Oh--let me do it.
Tectonic activity has moved continents all over this globe. The Himalayan
mountains, for example, have been pushed up over 29,000 feet by the
subcontinent of India running into the Asian continent. Before the land that
eventually became the mountains was thrust up, it was under the sea. The
fossils were in it before it was pushed up above sea level, and finally up
there 5+ miles above sea level.
Oh sure, you can ignore this, and come up with some "Bible tells me so"
explanation, but how can you fly in the face of every single modern science?
You don't seem to understand or support geology, biology, chemistry, or
physics. Hundreds and thousands of intelligent people have labored for
centuries to understand our planet and its mechanisms, and all you can do is
call them idiots (at least by implication).
Instead of supplying little dribs and drabs of support, why not just go ahead
and explain everything completely? If the Bible explains it all, then pass it
on to us. Start by answering my questions in a prior message...
--- via Quickpoint XRS 3.0
* Origin: Psychotronic BBS - Something Weird Going on Here (Quick 1:151/223.2
MESSAGE: 163
FROM: Brook Monroe
TO: George Erdel
Subject: The Bible(proof)
Date: 05 Feb 90 22:19:00
In a message to Charles Harden <02 Feb 90 22:35:00> George Erdel wrote:
>> AREA:SCIENCE
>> As I said in a message to George Erdel, there is some
>> evidence of flooding in the Euphrates valley. The world
>> wide flood, however, has been rejected.
GE> Thats just it it has been REJECTED, NOT DISPROVEN. Would you be so
GE> kind to explain why this is so. The evolutionist gets very upset
GE> when his THEORY is rejected, even though he has NOT PROVEN his
GE> theory. This situation is similar only this time the creationist
GE> idea has been rejected without the evolutionist disprooving him.
GE> George Erdel
As I think I said earlier, there aren't any world-wide records which support
the view of an all-encompassing flood.
You can't (reasonably) reject a theory without coming up with evidence that
counters it; you can neither prove or disprove a belief--you can only accept
or reject it. People believe that Elvis is alive, although it's fairly easy to
disprove the theory. That doesn't stop them from believing, though.
We're mixing truth and fact, and you can't do that. Religion and philosophy
search for truth, and science searches for fact. Separate the two, if you
could, and deal with this from a scientific standpoint...let's deal with fact.
There aren't any Chinese or Mayan records of a flood encompassing Asia or the
Americas. That leads us to conclude that there wasn't any flood there, which
pretty much zaps the "worldwide flood" theory, doesn't it?
--- via Quickpoint XRS 3.0
* Origin: Psychotronic BBS - Something Weird Going on Here (Quick 1:151/223.2
MESSAGE: 164
FROM: Phil Nicholls @ 914/207
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re:libel
Date: 04 Feb 90 11:32:37
Pat,
I am sorry you find my postings libelous. I consider them to be
informative. I can back-up each of my claims from an extensive
collection of ICR literature and from a collection of transcripts from
several trials of creationist laws in the US. If you would bother to
read some of the references offered to you by other members of this
echo, you would, perhaps, agree with my conclusions. They are not mine
alone.
You have stated that you don't have the time to run down this
information. Fine. I can understand that. You seem to have lots of
time, however, to offer criticism of an area of science which you, by
your own admission, do not completely understand. Your understanding of
the principles of evolution sounds like it comes straight from ICR
publications.
The ICR is not a scientific organization. This has nothing to do with
credentials, but with actions. The ICR requires its members to sign a
n oath affirming their believe in biblical (not scientific) creation.
The ICR engages in distortion and misinformation in an attempt to
achieve a political objective. I am sorry if this disturbs you, but it
is true.
I am a physical anthropologists, Pat. I can answer any specific
question you may have about evolution in general. Questions about
human evolution/primate evolution I can answer in more detail. I willb
be more than happy to discuss these topics with you.
--- RBBSMail 17.2B
# Origin: The Skeptic's Board - High weirdness by modem (RBBS-PC 8:914/207)
* Origin: Network Gateway to RBBS-NET (RBBS-PC 1:10/8)
MESSAGE: 165
FROM: Rick Moen @ 914/207
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: Libel
Date: 04 Feb 90 23:37:26
> You are correct; truth is a defense to the charge of libel. However,
> my caution was aimed at people who aren't bothering to check.
It's always a good idea to avoid commenting on the motives of one's
opposition. Where the latter are suspect, sooner or later it generally
becomes plain to most observers, anyhow. Avoiding such comment has the
corrolary benefit of letting one take the high road, discussing ideas
rather than people, and of avoiding the risk of time in court. Besides,
disagreement should not be a bar to friendship.
In the case of creationism, commenting on the motives of the ICR and
others is overkill, since informed criticism of their claims has proven
to be more than enough. Those claims have fared so badly that
creationists have had to fall back on a political "balanced-treatment"
appeal, such as the one you mention. Surprisingly, they decline to
lobby for "balanced" teaching of the geocentric solar system model and
the flat earth model in physics classes, without concern for the
scientific merit of those models, even though there are elements in the
creationist camp who support both of them.
Regards,
Rick M.
--- RBBSMail 17.2B
# Origin: The Skeptic's Board - High weirdness by modem (RBBS-PC 8:914/207)
* Origin: Network Gateway to RBBS-NET (RBBS-PC 1:10/8)
MESSAGE: 166
FROM: James Hay
TO: Jonathan Rogers
Subject: Re: The Bible(proof)
Date: 06 Feb 90 20:04:00
How do you know that brain capacities AREN'T increasing?
What does "only use 10% of the brain" mean anyway? 10% of it ever sees
electrical activity? 10% is active at any one time? 10% maximum is active at
a time?
You don't prove in science, you disprove. Most disproofs of creationism are
from field not lab observations. You can disprove creationism without any
evidence relative to God's existence since this would just show that God didn't
use creationism.
Creationism has been forced out of the science classroom because scientific
evidence goes against it - just the same reason we don't teach geocentrism.
MANY evolutionists acknowledge God including some of the most important names
in the history of evolution (Darwin, Wallace, Dobjansky), so stop putting
forward that silly argument about wanting evolution so they can deny God.
--- QuickBBS v2.61 [REGISTERED]
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
MESSAGE: 167
FROM: James Hay
TO: Scott Canion
Subject: Re: Evolution
Date: 06 Feb 90 20:17:00
"Evolution is the idea that creatures start out general, and specialize...".
No it isn't. Read an evolution text.
"There is no widely accepted evidence to support beneficial gene mutation." Of
course there is. Hell, there is an experiment that is done by just about every
student doing any genetics class. A dish of bacteria is selected against so as
to eliminate any individuals which possess the ability to manufacture their
own, say, methionine. The bacteria are then allowed to multiply and are
irradiated or otherwise subject to increased mutation. Subsequent selection
experiments will then show that some bacteria have mutated so that they CAN
produce methionine.
--- QuickBBS v2.61 [REGISTERED]
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
MESSAGE: 168
FROM: James Hay
TO: Jonathan Rogers
Subject: Re: Speciation
Date: 06 Feb 90 20:23:00
Check the literature. Most scientific experiments are specific attempts to
test - to disprove (if possible) - specific ideas, not "to examine all the
evidence" (what a monumental job) "and come to a conclusion."
Whether or not I can say where the material necessary for the Big Bang came
from is irrelevent to whether I can test for whether the Big Bang itself
occured. Radioactivity was discovered and demonstrated before it was
understood how it happened.
Break up your text more, please. Those solid blocks of text and run on
sentences make it very hard sometimes to read and understand your messages.
--- QuickBBS v2.61 [REGISTERED]
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
MESSAGE: 169
FROM: Dave Knapp
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: PROBABILITY
Date: 05 Feb 90 12:24:11
>I don't know if I said anything about this yet or not, but if so, my
>apologies.
You did. An apology is not good enough to make up for the
misinformation contained in the previous message, however.
> You were discussing the room full of molecules and the probability
>that all of them would move to one side of the room at the same time.
> It has been suggested that because there is a probability that in a
>room one micron on a side containing two air molecules, both would
>move to one side of the room, that in a much larger room, there is a
>corresponding probability, although smaller, of the same thing
>happening if there are more molecules.
> That is true. However, if there is some new force that enters into
>the equation that counteracts this tendency, which would not have
>affected the situation in the micron-sized room, then it could lower
>the probability to zero. NOT to a vanishingly small number, but ZERO.
This would be correct if the force were infinite. It isn't,
however, so the wavefunctions of ALL the particles have nonzero
amplitudes everywhere inside the container, so there is some very
small probability (NOT ZERO!) that they could all be on the same side
of the container.
> I maintain that there is such a force. It is the natural repulsion
>between molecules which results in Brownian motion.
Brownian motion does not result from repulsion between molecules;
and it doesn't apply to molecules anyhow, only to much larger
particles.
My suggestion is that you read an introductory book on quantum
mechanics. If you don't have time to do that, then the alternative
would be to restrict your comments on those areas you don't
understand. But please refrain from posting false things as fact.
Thank you for your indulgence. -- Dave
--- TBBS v2.1/NM
* Origin: Diablo Valley PCUG-BBS, Walnut Creek, CA 415/943-6238 (1:161/55)
MESSAGE: 170
FROM: Debbie Bickford
TO: Jim Karkanias
Subject: Re: Evolution Vs. Creation
Date: 03 Feb 90 10:34:28
> These fossiles of
> GE> prehistoric sea life are found on every continent.
> They DO IN FACT give
> GE> a confirmation of the accounting given by MOSES in
> Genesis of a flood
> Well, actually, all they confirm is that those mountains
> were underwater
> at one time...either because the mountain was much smaller
> back then or
> the water line was much higher - or both.
There was a fascinating program on PBS last week (I think it was THE MIRACLE
PLANET but am not sure, as I've already thrown the TV Guide away). The episode
was "The Heat Within" and showed some of the huge changes which have been made
due the planet's internal heat. It used graphics to show the movement of (what
is now) India from the southern hemisphere to its current location, and how the
Himalayas were formed by the pressure exerted by India's "bumping into" Asia.
Here on the West Coast I tend to think of mountains being formed by up and down
shifting of tectonic plates, rather than the slower floating around of the
same. B:)
---
* Origin: The Sicilian: 1 ... c5 (Opus 1:203/103)
MESSAGE: 171
FROM: Warp 12
TO: Jean Nance
Subject: Re: Amoebas and Evolution
Date: 08 Feb 90 11:04:05
In your message I find yet another example of the misinterpretations and
generalizations that plague this echo. I was not addressing myself to every
participant, past and present, of this echo. I was speaking to one person in a
specific sense (as shown by the contents of the address) and to a fairly small
group in a general sense. I was referring to the use of phrases like
"creationists make me puke" and "creation is wrong".
I am not advocating the attempt to completely discuss the entire issue - which
attempt, as you so rightly state, could not succeed in this environment. I
say again, I was speaking against the use of dogmatic and completely empty
phrases, such as the ones put forth in the previous paragraph, and advocating
the use, in their place, of intelligent statements that would serve a useful
purpose.
I have never attacked the science of biology on this or any other conference.
I AM attacking the theory of macro-evolution, and the attitude that causes
it so widely to be treated as fact. Biology exists without the involvement
of evolution theory; biology involves, primarily, the study of life as it
exists today.
Biology, astronomy, physics, chemistry - they are all branches of science.
Where did you get the idea that I was attacking biology, or any other science?
I'm not even saying, categorically, that the theory of evolution is wrong -
I don't know that for sure. I'm just saying that my interpretation of the
evidence leads me to believe that it is not correct in its present form, and
that, in any case, theories should never be treated as facts. That is exactly
what is happening in schools all over, and in the media - I was a victim, being
led to believe implicitly in evolution. Once I examined the evidence, I saw
that I had been misled.
Let's not get bent out of shape for no reason - let's just keep open minds.
--- msged 1.99S ZTC
* Origin: Warp 12's Discount Asteroids (FidoNet 1:233/6.5)
MESSAGE: 172
FROM: Greg Hansen
TO: Warp 12
Subject: Re: Evolution
Date: 05 Feb 90 13:02:39
> Well, yes, biology is science, but to conclude that evolution is also
> science is fallacious. In true science, theories are made to fit
> observable facts, not the other way around; and the gaps in observations
> are not filled in with things that just seem right at the time. The
> theory that all life on earth proceeded from a single source is not an
> example of a true scientific theory.
How do you think the idea behind evolution was formed, anyway? If you
think Darwin said "I'm bored with Christianity, I think I'll invent
an alternative", you're wrong. Darwin discovered evolution after
travelling all over the world for five years on the HMS Beagle as a
naturalist, studying nature. He gathered a lot of data, and it all
pointed towards an evolving process. Like you said, the theory was
made to fit the observable facts.
I'm surprised you still support creation with the criteria you chose for
science. If all life was created within a few days, then there should
be mammalian fossils (including humans) as old as the oldest dinosaurs
and trilobytes. Why haven't they been found? Flood geology? That
postulates that faster animals were able to escape from the flood longer
than slower animals. But sloths are pretty new on this planet, and
there were some dinosaurs that were pretty quick.
> Creationism, when applied properly, is not religion - it's
> science.
And as science, it must be falsifiable. That is, if not in practice then
at least in principle, you could find some evidence that contradicts it
and proves it false. If that happens you must be willing, and even
eager, to admit the theory is false. You must be willing to say "The
Bible is wrong" and accept the implication of it. Are you willing to do
that? If not, there's no point in arguing.
---
* Origin: Nick's Nest (612) 490-1187, (612) 490-0341 HST (Opus 1:282/3)
MESSAGE: 173
FROM: Marty Leipzig
TO: Scott Canion
Subject: Re: Evolution
Date: 06 Feb 90 07:46:44
> In other words, for those who arrogantly support 'evolution
> as fact', are turning the idea of evolution into a 'faith',
> instead of scientific theory.
> That is, despite the evidence against 'beneficial' gene
> mutation, these faith-evolutionists insist that gene mutation
> IS beneficial..
>
> If I have stated any inacuracies, please reply.
Happy to oblige....
1. Evolution IS fact. It is also theory. The fact is that organisms
have progressed from the simple to more complex over the span of geologic time.
The theory is how and how fast (mode and tempo...to borrow a phrase) it has
progressed. This is not based on faith, of any kind. It is based upon data
gathering, critical anaylsis and interpretation of said data. It is also
subject to revision as new data becomes available. This is called science.
2. Chromosone crossing over is by far the greatest of genetic variability, not
mutation. Secondly, a mutation cannot be labeled 'Beneficial or Deleterious'
unless the organisms environment is also taken into account.
A mutation harmful to one organism living in its' normal environment
may be beneficial if the organism is moved to a new envionment or if the
original environment has changed. Further...internal as well as external
environmental parameters must also be considered. A mutation arising in one set
of particular genes may be harmful, while if it arises in another group of
genes, it may well be beneficial. This is because the genetic environment has a
very important influence on the operation of individual genes.
Facts...not faith.
---
* Origin: The Edge -=[ Concepts With Integrity ]=- (Opus 1:106/9430)
MESSAGE: 174
FROM: Jim Speiser
TO: James Hay
Subject: Re: Evolution Vs. Creation
Date: 07 Feb 90 14:48:00
>If the radiation had
> not been found, the Big Band theory would have had tto have been
> modified or abandoned.
Was this the theory that states that Benny Goodman created the Universe?
Sorry, couldn't resist! ;^)
--- FD 1.99b
* Origin: -==- ParaNet Zeta Reticuli 602-951-3431 HST (1:114/37)
MESSAGE: 175
FROM: Warp 12
TO: Scott Canion
Subject: Evolution
Date: 08 Feb 90 11:15:21
In a message of <05 Feb 90 01:52:45>, Scott Canion (1:382/17) writes:
>SC> SH>In a message of <31 Jan 90 14:06:53>, Warp 12 (1:233/6.5) writes:
>SC> SH>>Creationism, when applied properly, is not religion - it's
>SC> SH>>science.
>SC> SH>
>SC> SH>How so?
>SC>Don't get me wrong here,
>SC>I am a creationist, but the bottom line is, Christianity is a matter
>SC>of faith, not scientific theory.
I agree that Christianity is not science - I never said it was. I was
associating _creationism_ with science, which is something else entirely. The
Genesis story of creation is obviously a part of the Christian faith - but it
holds the distinction of being a significant part of the faith which can be
supported by science as well as by faith. That doesn't often happen in
religion.
>SC>In other words, for those who arrogantly support 'evolution as fact',
>SC>are turning
>SC>the idea of evolution into a 'faith', instead of scientific theory.
Exactly.
--- msged 1.99S ZTC
* Origin: Warp 12's Discount Asteroids (FidoNet 1:233/6.5)
MESSAGE: 176
FROM: Greg Hansen
TO: George Erdel
Subject: Re: Evolution Vs. Creation
Date: 06 Feb 90 15:01:43
> However to the hard line evolutionist because it tends
> to substantiate the word of GOD it is not credible to them.
You're not the only person I've seen with that interesting attitude.
Many creationists seem to think that evolutionary types do not accept
anything that might indicate the truth of the Bible. That is, they
see the evidence staring them in the face (like maybe human fossils
as old as the oldest dinosaurs) and they quietly ignore that data
because it demonstrates Biblical truth.
Do you have any factual basis or evidence for this (classic)
"conspiracy" claim? Any examples? Have you considered that some
scientists might be good Christains and will be ecstatic to publish
material that supports their religion? Have you considered the
possibility that no evidence for Biblical creation is revealed because
there is none? Remember also that work is being done all over the world
by all different types of people of all different religions, and most of
them are probably eager to make a name for themselves by finding hard
evidence that current theories are wrong. If creationist evidence
is really being suppressed, then evolution is a bigger hoax than
the space program! :-)
Oh yeah, I remember. Anybody who publishes contradictory information
has their careers ruined, because scientists as a whole are conformists
who are not interested in new ideas, only in trying to validate the
old ideas. (Or that's what a creationist friend told me.) Before you
accept an argument like that, ponder on why science has been so
successful in the past, and why it is doing so well today. Also ponder
the discoveries of Gallileo, Maxwell, Lavoisier, Wegener, Einstein,
and others who have completely uprooted and replaced contemporary
theories, including Darwin, whose evolutionary ideas flew in the face
of all accepted thought at the time.
Do you read anything besides Bible-based literature before you form
an opinion on something?
---
* Origin: Nick's Nest (612) 490-1187, (612) 490-0341 HST (Opus 1:282/3)
MESSAGE: 177
FROM: Marty Leipzig
TO: Warp 12
Subject: Re: Amoebas and Evolution
Date: 07 Feb 90 14:50:54
> I AM attacking the theory of macro-evolution, and the attitude
> that causes
> it so widely to be treated as fact. Biology exists without
> the involvement
> of evolution theory; biology involves, primarily, the study
> of life as it exists
> today.
Wrong. Evolution forms the warp and woof of modern Biology. It is a grand
paradigm which also interweaves taxonomy, comparative anatomy, genetics,
zoology, etc.
"Biology without evolution is nonsense" T. Dobzhansky
---
* Origin: -=[ SoundingBoard of Houston (713)821-4148 HST ]=- (Opus 1:106/12)
MESSAGE: 178
FROM: Paul Bijhouwer
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Extra-Universe Beings and Science
Date: 06 Feb 90 00:41:53
In a message of <02 Feb 90 14:36:49>, Pat Goltz (1:300/3) writes:
PG>Hi. I want to write you a much longer message in response to yours,
PG>but that will have to wait. Right now I just wanted to offer one
PG>comment.
PG> You said that there were three possibilities concerning a being
PG>outside the universe, and you listed them. I want to offer a fourth.
PG>That is that such a being exists, has been an active force in our
PG>universe in the past, and has set into motion some forces of nature,
PG>and is now sitting back and watching. That is not my personal view,
PG>but it is a possibility you didn't mention. Since it would affect your
PG>other conclusions, I thought I'd better mention it.
PG> Pat
Pat, I believe I covered this under options one and three (depending on
whether you think there is evidence that can prove the hand of this
outsider). Whether or not the being is taking an active part in shaping our
world now, or if you think it/he/she just set the wheels spinning, you still
have one of three options:
1). Eubie (for Extra-Universal Being) can act on our universe directly
and this can be proven by physical scientific methods.
2). Eubie cannot act directly on our universe.
3). Eubie can act on our universe, but scientific methods cannot detect
these actions because they work within the scientific framework.
There is of course another option. I took "belief in the existance of Eubie"
as a given in this line of reasoning, but it is not strictly necessary. I
made this argument simply to illustrate that I agreed with your point that
there are limits to what science can discover, and to show you where I think
those limits are.
Now that I think about it, I suppose there is one more option:
4). Eubie throws his weight around with blatant miracles etc. but
carefully cleans up the evidence afterwards so that we won't be able to tell.
This is so egotistically paranoid that I will not comment.
A friend of mine recently pointed out the scientific "trinity" to me. They
are of course mass, distance and time (I guess you could argue for the
inclusion of charge, but I'm not sure I really believe in it :-) I guess
that's why I'm studying civil engineering not electrical). All three of
these quantities are unprovable except that we can use our senses to judge
them.
--- msged 1.99S ZTC
* Origin: The Beehive (1:396/10.3)
MESSAGE: 179
FROM: Charles Harden
TO: James Hay
Subject: Re: Carbon-14/Carbon-13
Date: 05 Feb 90 14:02:00
No, they don't in terms of stable isotopes--plants tend to concentrate one form
or the other, over environmental levels.
--- QuickBBS v2.61 [EVALUATION]
* Origin: SURFACE INTERVAL,S.Fla Divers BBS (305)246 DIVE (1:135/50.0)
MESSAGE: 180
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry @ 930/17
TO: Scott Canion
Subject: Mutation
Date: 07 Feb 90 22:54:13
> On a close subject, I would say that anyone claiming that
> evolution is a fact, or even a 'good theory', is not correct.
> To put it simply, evolution is the idea that creatures
> start out general, and specialize, to fill in the niches.
Here, we have a problem. Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a
population over time. Period. As such, this has been observed to happen. No
directionality is implied. I will grant you that makes evolution an
observation, not a fact. Evolutionary mechanism theory serves to explain how
evolution, the observation, occurs. Please reserve comment on concepts until
you have some understanding of what they are.
> A large part of this is natural selection. Natural selection
> is fine. But the other part of the formula is gene mutation.
> That is, 'beneficial' gene mutation. Currently, there
> is no widely accepted evidence to support beneficial gene
> mutation. In reality, there has been more evidence to
> support gene mutation as "Always harmful"... never beneficial.
Here, I must admit, I am puzzled. Are you unfamiliar with the Ames test, one
of the most widely used tests for mutagenicity? Just in case, I'll review it
for you. A strain of bacteria that lacks the capacity to synthesize an
essential amino acid is introduced into a medium which lacks that amino acid,
but includes the chemical to be tested. Chemicals with low mutagenicity cause
the expected result: no bacterial colonies grow. However, high mutagenicity
chemicals will induce bacterial colony growth. What's the difference? At least
one bacterium mutated to have the capacity to synthesize the missing amino
acid. This is, at least from the viewpoint of the bacterium, a beneficial
mutation.
How can this happen, if beneficial mutations never occur? It can't. So please
go convince all those clinical microbiologists and the funny folks at the FDA
that the Ames test is based on a fallacy.
> In other words, for those who arrogantly support 'evolution
> as fact', are turning the idea of evolution into a 'faith',
> instead of scientific theory.
Observation, not "fact". Scientific theories, no faith required. Also, there
is no denigration of religious principles implied. Science and religion are
premised on differing sets of assumptions, and therefore can make no statements
concerning the validity of the other. Therefore, no arrogance.
> That is, despite the evidence against 'beneficial' gene
> mutation, these faith-evolutionists insist that gene mutation
> IS beneficial..
That is, despite the massive experience in use of beneficial mutation in
clinical trials, SciCre'ers continue to baldly assert that no such thing as a
beneficial mutation exists. Also, I know of no biologist knowledgeable in
genetics who "insists" that gene mutation is uniformly beneficial.
> If I have stated any inacuracies, please reply.
"InacCuracies". You've got it.
--- TPBEdit v3.2
# Origin: Central Neural System, 817-551-9363, HST, TPBoard 5.2 (8:930/17)
* Origin: Network Gateway to RBBS-NET (RBBS-PC 1:10/8)
MESSAGE: 181
FROM: Jim Speiser
TO: Billy Reynolds
Subject: Evolution
Date: 08 Feb 90 13:07:00
> If I received the message right on this end; it was about
> evolution. I asked for sources of "proof" for evolution. I was
> under the impression that the only proof at this time was limited
> and inconclusive. What "proof" were you thinking of? In fact,
> didn't Gould publish a book entitled "Wonderful Life" ( Harvard )
> in which inadvertently ( He denies it. ) Darwin's Theory of
> Survival of the Fitest is challenged.
Your impression was mistaken. It has been conclusively proven, at least within
our epistemological limits, that evolution has occurred. I did not read
"Wonderful Life", but if you've been following the discussion on the difference
between theory and fact in the scientific context, you would know that there
ARE different competing theories as to HOW evolution has occurred, and that
Gould may have been challenging Darwin's THEORY of how it occurred, but if you
could put both men in the same room at the same time, and throw in Dwayne Gish,
the two of them would turn to Gish and say, "EVOLUTION HAS OCCURRED. We're just
arguing about HOW it occurred. Take your fairy tales about Noah's Ark
elsewhere."
Jim
--- FD 1.99b
* Origin: -==- ParaNet Zeta Reticuli 602-951-3431 HST (1:114/37)
MESSAGE: 182
FROM: Jim Speiser
TO: George Erdel
Subject: Re: Evolution Vs. Creatio
Date: 08 Feb 90 20:47:00
> Nothing I say NOTHING is impossible for GOD!
This is futile, gang. We should have given up on people like this long ago, and
would have, were it not for the fact that there are George Erdels on hundreds
of school boards around the nation.
--- FD 1.99b
* Origin: -==- ParaNet Zeta Reticuli 602-951-3431 HST (1:114/37)
MESSAGE: 183
FROM: Scott Canion
TO: James Hay
Subject: Re: Evolution
Date: 08 Feb 90 14:36:10
On , James Hay wrote to Scott Canion:
JH>"Evolution is the idea that creatures start out general, and
JH>specialize...". No it isn't. Read an evolution text.
But this IS the idea. Natural selection plays a large part in the theory of
evolution. Creatures were very general, one celled organisms. As they
evolved, the grew more complex, filling in these "niches", ie, specializing,
in order to survive in the environment. Unfortunately, natural selection
can't explain
the "gaps" of observed "evolution". In essence, gene mutation is the theory
used to explain these "gaps". What do YOU think evoultion is?
JH>"There is no widely accepted evidence to support beneficial gene
JH>mutation." Of course there is. Hell, there is an experiment that is
JH>done by just about every student doing any genetics class. A dish of
JH>bacteria is selected against so as to eliminate any individuals which
JH>possess the ability to manufacture their own, say, methionine. The
JH>bacteria are then allowed to multiply and are irradiated or otherwise
JH>subject to increased mutation. Subsequent selection experiments will
JH>then show that some bacteria have mutated so that they CAN produce
JH>methionine.
I know that your teacher probably didn't bother telling you this, but when you
irradiate the bacteria, ability to produce methioine isn't the only "effect".
I will re-word my statement. There is no widely accepted evidence to support
beneficial mutation, because any "beneficial" gene mutation is always (as has
been observed) accompanied by "harmful" gene mutation.
To recap, evolution is a poorly supported theory.
--- QM v1.00 & Opus 1.03c
* Origin: Scott's Excellent BBS:Austin TX *HST DS* 650mb (1:382/17.0)
MESSAGE: 184
FROM: Scott Canion
TO: Greg Hansen
Subject: Re: Evolution
Date: 08 Feb 90 14:45:35
On , Greg Hansen wrote to Warp 12:
GH>an alternative", you're wrong. Darwin discovered evolution after
GH>travelling all over the world for five years on the HMS Beagle as a
GH>naturalist, studying nature. He gathered a lot of data, and it all
GH>pointed towards an evolving process. Like you said, the theory was
GH>made to fit the observable facts.
I thought that Darwin discovered Natural Selection, not evolution. I also
thought Darwin applied it to plants, not humans...
GH>> Creationism, when applied properly, is not religion - it's
GH>> science.
GH>
GH>And as science, it must be falsifiable. That is, if not in practice
GH>then
GH>at least in principle, you could find some evidence that contradicts
GH>it
GH>and proves it false. If that happens you must be willing, and even
GH>eager, to admit the theory is false. You must be willing to say "The
GH>Bible is wrong" and accept the implication of it. Are you willing to
GH>do
GH>that? If not, there's no point in arguing.
I agree with you here. One of the most important principles in devoping a
Scientific, is the ability to disprove it. That is, if a theory is stated in
such a way that there is no way to disprove it, it isn't a very good scientific
theory.
--- QM v1.00 & Opus 1.03c
* Origin: Scott's Excellent BBS:Austin TX *HST DS* 650mb (1:382/17.0)
MESSAGE: 185
FROM: Scott Canion
TO: Marty Leipzig
Subject: Re: Evolution
Date: 08 Feb 90 14:52:42
On , Marty Leipzig wrote to Scott Canion:
ML>1. Evolution IS fact. It is also theory. The fact is that organisms
ML>have progressed from the simple to more complex over the span of
ML>geologic time. The theory is how and how fast (mode and tempo...to
You fallen for the same trap I have seen others fall into. I know it is hard
to believe something is not "fact", when the schools teach it as such, but try
to see what you are saying. You are saying evolution is "fact". But you are
trying to claim "oh, it is still GOOD scientific theory, because were are still
not sure about the mode and tempo." You don't think that evolution can ever be
disproven, and that is why you are a faith-evolutionist.
ML>2. Chromosone crossing over is by far the greatest of genetic
ML>variability, not mutation. Secondly, a mutation cannot be labeled
ML>'Beneficial or Deleterious' unless the organisms environment is also
ML>taken into account.
ML>A mutation harmful to one organism living in its' normal environment
ML>may be beneficial if the organism is moved to a new envionment or if
ML>the original environment has changed. Further...internal as well as
ML>external environmental parameters must also be considered. A mutation
ML>arising in one set of particular genes may be harmful, while if it
ML>arises in another group of genes, it may well be beneficial. This is
ML>because the genetic environment has a very important influence on the
ML>operation of individual genes.
Or, so the theory goes. I believe you are stepping around my statement. If
you can display evidence of beneficial gene mutation, without any harmful side
effects, please let me know.
--- QM v1.00 & Opus 1.03c
* Origin: Scott's Excellent BBS:Austin TX *HST DS* 650mb (1:382/17.0)
MESSAGE: 186
FROM: Henry Shaw
TO: Doug Bell
Subject: Re: EVOLUTION
Date: 06 Feb 90 22:28:01
> [do] you wish to disenfeanchise those who enterprete [sic] the
>evidence differently?
To disenfranchise means to deny someone the right to vote. You shouldn't try
to use words you don't understand.
I don't know about Marty (to whom your original message was addressed), but you
are damn right I intend to deny access in the classroom to anyone who attempts
to teach creationism as a form of science. THERE IS NOT A SHRED OF SCIENTIFIC
SUBSTANCE TO "SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISM." As for the fact that creationists also
pay taxes, so do racists. Perhaps we should
also teach Hitler's views of racial superiority in our biology classes?....just
for a "balanced" view.
--- TBBS v2.1/NM
* Origin: Diablo Valley PCUG-BBS, Walnut Creek, CA 415/943-6238 (1:161/55)
MESSAGE: 187
FROM: Henry Shaw
TO: Warp 12
Subject: Re: CREATION
Date: 07 Feb 90 07:49:37
I agree with you that the "weak" forms of creationism are entirely compatible
with science. It is the peculiar for of creationism that goes by the name of
"creation science", which is based on a strictly literal interpretation of the
Bible, that the scientists in this echo vehemently object to.
--- TBBS v2.1/NM
* Origin: Diablo Valley PCUG-BBS, Walnut Creek, CA 415/943-6238 (1:161/55)
MESSAGE: 188
FROM: Joseph Landman
TO: Warp 12
Subject: Evolution
Date: 07 Feb 90 16:50:00
"warp",
How does one reply to a message like that? I just shake my head, and hit the
next button.
Joe
--- RemoteAccess 0.01
* Origin: [ Lansing Forum Michigan - 517-337-0624 - (1:159/500)
MESSAGE: 189
FROM: Warp 12
TO: Larry McGee
Subject: SCIENCE Echo Rules
Date: 07 Feb 90 10:19:35
In a message of <05 Feb 90 07:38:06>, Larry McGee (1:125/190) writes:
>LM>You appear to be new in the SCIENCE echo. Welcome. Most people
>LM>including myself
>LM>would prefer that if you use a fake name in your messages that you
>LM>also sign them with a real name.
As you must know, I have already indicated, via E-mail (as opposed to public
messages) that I will comply with this directive if it will be helpful.
>LM>As is customary, I post the rules of the echo early each month. Please
>LM>consider them and do your part to help out.
I will earnestly attempt to uphold these rules; the fact is, I had already been
doing so, as far as I know.
Jefferson Davis Williams
--- msged 1.99S ZTC
* Origin: Warp 12's Discount Asteroids (FidoNet 1:233/6.5)
MESSAGE: 190
FROM: Charles Harden
TO: David White
Subject: Re: Evidence
Date: 07 Feb 90 11:31:00
I am a Christian evolutionist, and I believe as others, that the bible is
basically true, and is the inspiration of God. I also believe that it was not
meant to be a scientific document, rather it is a spiritual one. It is not
concerned with truly teaching us how the world came about, just that it did,
and that God had a hand in it. As I've said before on this net, the Bible was
written for people of 2,000+ years ago to understand--they wouldn't have
understood evolution, etc. In my opinion, people who are too literal minded
about the bible become like the Pharisees--they worry about the letter of the
law, not the intent. The New Testament is basically saying GOD is LOVE, and
that we should love other people--ALL people, not just those that are like us
(in religion, race, intelligence, income level, etc.) I do not know all of the
answers, either, or even all the questions, but when I know the answer, I try
to explain it. I admit sometimes I get frustrated by people who are
"close-minded," but I realize that they have a need for believing what they
believe. I respect people with creationist beliefs, as I am (in certain
respects), but as a trained biologist, I feel that Creation science is not
science at all, but just an attempt to teach religion in the public schools. I
believe religion is for the church and family to teach, and not the government
(the government would mess it up). Creation "science" is religion. Evolution
is the current theory that best describes the natural world (evolution is the
unifying theory behind all biology, and it would be extremely hard to describe
the world without it). I hope that this message is not a Flame to anyone, as
it is not meant to be, I am just explaining things as I see it. I also
apologize for the little science in this posting, but I am not connected to a
religion or evolution/creation echo.
--- QuickBBS v2.61 [EVALUATION]
* Origin: SURFACE INTERVAL,S.Fla Divers BBS (305)246 DIVE (1:135/50.0)
MESSAGE: 191
FROM: Charles Harden
TO: Ben Mitchell
Subject: Re: creation and evolution
Date: 07 Feb 90 11:37:00
Ben,
I have read the Bible, as well as Darwin's "The origin of species," and
parts of Denton's "Evolution: a theory in crisis", and various texts on
evolution. I see no contradiction between the Bible, a well written allegory
on how man should live his life, and evolution. The Bible tells me how I
should govern my spiritual life, while evolution texts tell me how life
developed on this planet. They are concerned with different matters, and thus
do not disagree with each other.
Sincerely,
Charlie
--- QuickBBS v2.61 [EVALUATION]
* Origin: SURFACE INTERVAL,S.Fla Divers BBS (305)246 DIVE (1:135/50.0)
MESSAGE: 192
FROM: Marty Leipzig
TO: Scott Canion
Subject: Re: Evolution, continued
Date: 08 Feb 90 09:54:40
> in all accounts, as obtuse as it may sometimes be. What
> is your basis for your "faith" in evolution?
>
>
There is absolutely no faith involved in evolution. None whatsoever.
I have seen, gathered, examined, evaluated, interpreted and critically analyzed
the data. No faith involved there. What I do is called science.
As for the fact of evolution...for a much more eloquent discourse on the
subject, see S.J. Gould "Evolution as fact and theory".
---
* Origin: The Debate Place BBS Houston, Texas (713)451-6066 (Opus 1:106/113)
MESSAGE: 193
FROM: Cary Campbell
TO: Graham Kendall
Subject: Re: Evolution Vs. Creatio
Date: 06 Feb 90 15:59:47
If a 1% difference in DNA means the difference between intelligence and
"non-intelligence", I would like to think that that is enough of a leap that 1%
is a significant difference and that maybe scientists shouldn't be using that
kind of probability...
CC
--- QM v1.00
* Origin: THE BIG ELECTRIC CAT *SDS* HST/V.32 Kindersley Sask (1:140/53.0)
MESSAGE: 194
FROM: George Emery
TO: Graham Kendall
Subject: Re: Evolution Vs. Creatio
Date: 05 Feb 90 20:29:12
> The 99% identical DNA between humans and chimps proves a close genetic
> origin. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Gorillas are equally identical to both humans and chimps. We three primates
form a triangle when it comes to DNA matching.
--- GS-Point v0.61
* Origin: George Emery, ST GS-Point off of TECHBooks (1:105/4.42)
MESSAGE: 195
FROM: Jim Karkanias
TO: Scott Canion
Subject: Re: Evolution
Date: 09 Feb 90 11:51:11
In a message of < 8 Feb 90 14:45:34>, Scott Canion (1:382/17) writes:
SC> I agree with you here. One of the most important principles in
SC>devoping a Scientific, is the ability to disprove it. That is, if
SC>a theory is stated in such a way that there is no way to disprove
SC>it, it isn't a very good scientific theory.
I think you might want to re-word that. I assume that you want you meant
instead of "no way to disprove" was no way to test. A good scientific theory
is one that can't be disproven. That's how science works since you can't
really prove anything. Several people may argue the point of
testability...Einstein's theories were good but they couldn't be tested at the
time due to a lack of sufficiently advanced equipment. They've been tested now
that we have the equipment and we can't disprove them yet (i.e. they haven't
failed at making certain predictions), therefore: they are good theories.
--- msged 1.99S ZTC
* Origin: Mount Olympus - Home of the Gods (1:273/720)
MESSAGE: 196
FROM: James Hay
TO: George Erdel
Subject: Re: Evolution Vs. Creatio
Date: 09 Feb 90 20:28:00
You ask Phil Nicholls, "Am I to understand that the earth was always a
perfectly round core that was completely covered with water of a uniform
depth...until plate techtonics aparqatus (sic) came into play?" No, you're
not, and I can't see how you got that out of Phil's comment.
How is it verfied? By checking whether the necessary ramifications are true.
If "A" is true, then we should observe "B". YOu then check for "B".
--- QuickBBS v2.61 [REGISTERED]
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
MESSAGE: 197
FROM: James Hay
TO: George Erdel
Subject: Re: Evolution Vs. Creatio
Date: 09 Feb 90 20:33:00
Actually, I suspect that the himilayas are partly on both the Asian contient
and Indian subcontinent as they were formed by the latter colliding with the
former. (Two autos smash and they both get crumpled fenders.)
As to checking, I would check the motions of the lands involved - which areas
are moving in what direction and do these motions correlate with what you would
expect. Also, I know that there are many devices in use nowadays for looking
at subsurface features (they are used in oil exploration, geologic studies,
etc. I believe the same devices are used in checking on underground nuclear
tests.) These devices should show how the land sections are divided and what
rests on which piece.
--- QuickBBS v2.61 [REGISTERED]
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
MESSAGE: 198
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry @ 930/17
TO: Warp 12
Subject: biology and evolutionary mechanism theory
Date: 08 Feb 90 23:28:12
> I have never attacked the science of biology on this or
> any other conference.
> I AM attacking the theory of macro-evolution, and the
> attitude that causes
> it so widely to be treated as fact. Biology exists without
> the involvement
> of evolution theory; biology involves, primarily, the study
> of life as it exists
> today.
That's not biology; that's naturalism. The simple tallying of types of animals
and plants encountered does not a science make. Biology digs into how plants
and animals change over time (observed evolution and theories about how that
evolution occurs), how living species interact with each other (ecology), and
how life processes function (physiology), among other disciplines. All of
these, however, are coordinated within a framework of organizing principles.
This type of framework is called a paradigm by Kuhn. In biology, the paradigm
is derived from evolutionary mechanism theory. Remove the theory, and you have
something which is not biology, and not science as such. Natural history or
naturalism, perhaps, but not science. _Replace_ the theory with another
paradigm, and you can reconstitute biology in another framework. But so far,
no one has put forward a theoretical framework that is 1) scientific in nature
(SciCre is right out), and 2) of greater utility than the prevailing paradigm.
Both of these conditions must be fulfilled before a change in the organizing
principles of biology will be affected.
> I'm just saying that my interpretatio
> n of the evidence
> leads me to believe that it is not correct in its present
> form, and that, in
> any case, theories should never be treated as facts. That
> is exactly what is
> happening in schools all over, and in the media - I was
> a victim, being led
> to believe implicitly in evolution. Once I examined the
> evidence, I saw that
> I had been misled.
Given your previous comments, it seems unlikely that you _have_ "examined the
evidence". What you should be protesting, rather than "evolutionary theory",
is "poor quality science instruction". That is precisely what you have made an
eloquent case against.
--- TPBEdit v3.2
# Origin: Central Neural System, 817-551-9363, HST, TPBoard 5.2 (8:930/17)
* Origin: Network Gateway to RBBS-NET (RBBS-PC 1:10/8)
MESSAGE: 199
FROM: Todd Cottle @ 970/201
TO: George Erdel
Subject: Re: Evolution Vs. Creation
Date: 09 Feb 90 14:29:35
Maybe you could get your God to post to this echo because I have a few
questions that I would like to ask him ( err Him ). Its amazing how th
Bible Thumpers think that all there is to be known about everything is
in their little book. Here one -- so why is God so quiet?? -- Todd
--- QM v1.00
# Origin: ][INFO QUEST RBBS][618-529-3724][14.4 HST][2] (8:970/201.0)
* Origin: Network Gateway to RBBS-NET (RBBS-PC 1:10/8)
MESSAGE: 200
FROM: Jim Speiser
TO: George Erdel
Subject: Re: Evolution Vs. Creation
Date: 09 Feb 90 11:20:00
Stephen Hawking said it, I believe it, that settles it.
No more or less absurd than your statement.
Jim
--- FD 1.99b
* Origin: -==- ParaNet Zeta Reticuli 602-951-3431 HST (1:114/37)
MESSAGE: 201
FROM: John Thompson
TO: Larry McGee
Subject: Re: Gene transfer and beneficial mutations.
Date: 08 Feb 90 20:23:52
> In bacterial genetics, 'beneficial' mutations have been
> created by random mutations. This happens when resistance
> to drug antibiotics is selected for after random mutation.
Your example also illustrates very nicely why it is impossible to define a
gene's "fitness" without refernece to the environment in which it is expressed.
Antibiotic resistance will confer no particular advantage in an environment
without antibiotics. The Hardy-Weinberg equation shows how such neutral (and
even in some cases deliterious) genes can persist in a population indefinitely
at a low frequency until environmental change confers selective advantage on
the gene and allows its frequency to increase.
---
* Origin: Homebuilt Flyer (Opus 1:139/600)
MESSAGE: 202
FROM: Ultimate Being
TO: Harlow Campbell
Subject: Re: Creationism
Date: 07 Feb 90 23:35:00
How do you know?
The romans may have been excellent record keepers. Then again, the terrible
scourge of time.... Silliest agument I've seen on the subject in years. Your as
bad as they are. You're both readin' from fairytales.
UB ]]] WATCHDOG DOGMA [[[[
--- QuickBBS v2.61 [EVALUATION]
* Origin: -=* CHECKPOINT BBS *=- Bedford, NH (603)472-6627 (1:132/148.0)
MESSAGE: 203
FROM: Marty Leipzig
TO: Scott Canion
Subject: Re: Evolution
Date: 09 Feb 90 10:14:50
> you are trying to claim "oh, it is still GOOD scientific
> theory, because were are still not sure about the mode
> and tempo." You don't think that evolution can ever be
> disproven, and that is why you are a faith-evolutionist.
Wrong. Evolution is science. It is falsifiable (i.e. it can
be disproven). All it takes is temporally discordant fossils.
For example, if human remains were found in strata that contain dinosaur
remains, evolution would be falsified. (Or pick any prior/latter group:
Fish/amphibian/reptile/mammal or any host of invertebrates). Can you
think any similar scenario to DISPROVE creationism? No. Because it
is a belief, it is not falsifiable, it is not science.
> my statement. If you can display evidence of beneficial
> gene mutation, without any harmful side effects, please
> let me know.
>
Happy to oblige....
Here's a little experiment, (which I had run in my Genetics lab),
with the old black-bodied dew-lover (Drosophilia melanogaster) i.e.
Fruit flies.
They are fun little critters to work with...Nice big chromosones (for genetic
mapping) and ameanable to a number of mutations. One in particular is "Crumpled
wing syndrome", making them flightless. The experiment was set up so that a fan
caused a negative pressure opposite to the food source. Any 'normal' (flying)
fruit flies, when they take to the wing, were removed from the food source, and
died. Selective pressure was such that the environment favored flightlessness.
A beneficial mutation, in this scenario.
True, it was a lab experiment, but it does have natural ramifications.
Viz, the secondary loss of wings of some island endemic insects. Flying is 1. a
risky and 2. biologically expensive proposition. Especially where the
prevailing winds would whisk flyers off the island.
Hence, natural selection favored flightlessness. What was induced ion in the
lab was found in nature. Further proof of evolutions scientific validity.
---
* Origin: The Debate Place BBS Houston, Texas (713)451-6066 (Opus 1:106/113)
MESSAGE: 204
FROM: Marty Leipzig
TO: Scott Canion
Subject: Re: Evolution
Date: 09 Feb 90 10:32:56
> You fallen for the same trap I have seen others fall into.
> I know it is hard to believe something is not "fact",
> when the schools teach it as such, but try to see what
> you are saying. You are saying evolution is "fact". But
> you are trying to claim "oh, it is still GOOD scientific
> theory, because were are still not sure about the mode
> and tempo." You don't think that evolution can ever be
> disproven, and that is why you are a faith-evolutionist.
I have not fallen into any trap. Try to read what I am saying.
I have gone to the field, mapped the geology and collected the fossils therein.
I have gathered, collated, examined, critically analyzed,
interpreted, re-interpreted, and formed hypothesis regarding this data.
The schools teach it as fact, (as they should) because that is what it is.
Can all of the above be said of Creationism? If not, then it has no place in a
schools science cirriculum.
---
* Origin: The Debate Place BBS Houston, Texas (713)451-6066 (Opus 1:106/113)
MESSAGE: 205
FROM: Gerald Mckinnon
TO: David White
Subject: Re: Evidence
Date: 07 Feb 90 20:04:13
I consider mysely to be a Christian and yet I have very little faith in the
reliability of most parts of the bible. Yes, I do believe in a Diety
or Supreme being but one thing is certain, I "serve" no one. To believe
exclusively in the Bible's teachings is to accept that it has remained
unchanged for centuries of translations, revisions, and general interpretations
by man. I would say, you would need a tremendous amount of faith to believe,
wholeheartedly, in such a bible. A faith unfounded,
in my opinion. :-> .
---
* Origin: INTERTECH, Calgary Alberta, (403) 270-7659 (Opus 1:134/36)
MESSAGE: 206
FROM: George Emery
TO: Cary Campbell
Subject: Re: Evolution Vs. Creatio
Date: 07 Feb 90 23:43:10
> If a 1% difference in DNA means the difference between intelligence and
> "non-intelligence", I would like to think that that is enough of a leap
> that 1% is a significant difference and that maybe scientists shouldn't
> be using that kind of probability...
The main reason ventured for the difference in chimpanzee intelligence and
human intelligence is that humans develop much more slowly. Retard the
growth rate of chimpanzees and it's very likely they'd be discussing our
poor intellectual abilities!
Chimpanzee children outscore human children in standard intelligence tests
until the age of 3 or 4 when the chimps are raised as human children. At
that point, the chimpanzee is fully developed, but the human child most
certainly is not.
Another way to look at it is that chimp/gorilla social behavior is very
similar to that of human 3 and 4 year-olds. They have the capability
to create their own tools, but they aren't likely to work together, to
cooperate for a significant period of time.
--- GS-Point v0.61
* Origin: George Emery, ST GS-Point off of TECHBooks (1:105/4.42)
MESSAGE: 207
FROM: Pat Goltz
TO: Jim Lemke
Subject: Schools
Date: 08 Feb 90 20:56:02
Hi. In a message to Jonathan Rogers, you said that you didn't like the fact
that many creationists want creationism taught as an alternative to science. I
think this is probably a case of a breakdown in communications. Most of the
creationists I have talked to or heard speak want it taught as an alternative
to EVOLUTION, taught in a scientific way, in a scientific context. They want to
discuss the evidence and the interpretations thereof in a scientific framework.
I think it is likely that there are exceptions as you say, but I think the
majority of them feel as I outlined. I think the problem is that it is not made
clear to the general public what it is they want, but it is not obvious whether
this is THEIR fault, or the fault of a hostile press. If the latter, they are
not to blame, and should not be condemned. But I think they SHOULD make it a
LOT clearer what it is they want.
Pat
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: UA Today (University of Arizona, Tucson) (1:300/3)
MESSAGE: 208
FROM: Pat Goltz
TO: James Hay
Subject: natural selection
Date: 08 Feb 90 23:04:00
Hi. In a recent message, commenting on my comparison of my goat breeding
program to natural selection, you said, "Natural selection may not be as
selective as you, but it has a LOT more material to work with."
I see the point you are trying to make, but I don't think that
this is sufficient to make up for the difference. Every force works against my
breeding program. I am breeding for high milk production. The goats often have
other ideas. The bucks sometimes get in with the does, and the buck I wanted to
breed that season doesn't get to them first. My best buck died suddenly at an
early age from unknown causes. I had two very strong milker does; both of them
died at a ripe old age with no surviving daughters. Etc. These forces that laid
waste to my breeding program operate in nature, also. When no conscious and
rational effort is being made to cause the hardiest animals to breed with each
other, and it is all a matter of chance, the tendency is going to be for the
gene pool to decline in quality. This is being seen everywhere. We have a much
greater incidence of genetic disease than ever before in the history of the
world. Our crops are beginning to suffer from lack of genetic diversity because
of intensive breeding programs. Their hardiness is declining; the green
revolution is in a shambles in third world countries. Our breeding decisions
make no more sense than random chance. The fact that we have been doing it for
a shorter period of time is balanced by the fact that we do it deliberately,
and over the entire world, not just in a local population.
I think that the fact that human beings consciously and deliberately
make breeding choices more than makes up for the eons of time that random
chance has had to operate in the evolutionist's opinion. That's just my
opinion, but I daresay my opinion is as good as the next fellow's.
Pat
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: UA Today (University of Arizona, Tucson) (1:300/3)
MESSAGE: 209
FROM: Bill Beaton
TO: Greg Hansen
Subject: Evolution/Creation
Date: 09 Feb 90 19:37:32
Greg,
I've just started catching on to Erdel's game, and suggest that you
ignore him, as I've resolved to do in the future:
1. He posts inflammatory messages, and then when replies are made that
in any way contradict his ignorant attitudes (no matter how carefully
worded), he ignores the observation / point, and instead attacks
the writer, using his own private definition of Christianity.
2. Either his node gets mail 2 weeks later than the rest of the country,
or he willfully ignores any and all evidence posted that contradicts
his original statement, and instead posts virtually the same message
directed at a different sucker.
Its useless attemting to carry on a sane conversation with a zealot,
fanatic, or any other category of intellectually dishonest person. All of the
great scientists of the past that you've quoted, who I think were professed
Christians, are NOT christian by his warped definitions. He has posted at
least twice in the last 2 weeks the FALSE statement that Darwin recanted
evolution on his death-bed. It wouldn't surprise me if he made up some story
just as fatuous about Galileo.
WillyB
---
* Origin: INTERTECH, Calgary Alberta, (403) 270-7659 (Opus 1:134/36)
MESSAGE: 210
FROM: Xan Enazi
TO: Cary Campbell
Subject: Re: Evolution Vs. Creatio
Date: 10 Feb 90 19:26:22
CC> If a 1% difference in DNA means the difference between intelligence a
CC> "non-intelligence", I would like to think that that is enough of a lea
CC> that 1% is a significant difference and that maybe scientists shouldn'
CC> be using that kind of probability...
It's not a PROBABILITY! There was a study done some time ago where the
minimum number of mutations required to go from one species to another
was computed. That is, rather that let "Mother Nature" randomly mutate
until a new species was formed, allow idealized selective mutations
only. The number of mutations REQUIRED to go from a Mouse to a Man was
only 39! I don't recall the number for a chimpanzee, but you can be
assured that it's less.
--- QM v1.00
* Origin: Rediffusion - RBBS (213) 665-5332 (1:102/752.0)
MESSAGE: 211
FROM: Andrew Robison
TO: George Erdel
Subject: Re: Evolution Vs. Creation
Date: 09 Feb 90 21:59:50
In a message of <07 Feb 90 18:51:00>, George Erdel (1:112/5) writes:
GE>Are you dating these fossils with the inaccurate carbon dating
GE>technique?
No, he is using the accurate carbon dating technique, as the inaccurate one is
only of value to creationists.
andrew.
You should watch you modifiers...
--- msged 1.99S ZTC
* Origin: Dolphins and other people... Ottawa, Ontario (1:163/114.4)
MESSAGE: 212
FROM: James Hay
TO: Scott Canion
Subject: Re: Evolution, continued
Date: 10 Feb 90 07:39:00
"'Evolution' is far from even being considered an 'accepted' theory."
And what planet are you talking about? Let's get real here. Evolution is VERY
strongly supported by the scientific community. This isn't a question of
whether you agree with a particular idea or not, YOU may not agree with
evolution but the fact remains that the scientific community does.
To demonstrate: Recently published is a little book called "Voices for
Evolution" which is a collection of statements published by various scientific,
religious and educational societies and individuals opposing the teaching of
creationism in schools along side of evolution. Let's look at the scientific
affiliations:
Academy of Science oof the Royal Society of Canada
Alabama Academy of Science
Amerian Anthrological Association
American Associationn for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Association
American Chemical Society
American Geological Institute
American Geophysical Union
American Physical Society
American Psychological Association
American Society of Biological Chemists
American Socieity of Parasitologists
Geology Society of America
Georgia Academy of Science
Iowa Academy of Science
Kentucky Academy of Science
Louisian Academy of Science
National Academy of Science
New Orleans Geological Society
New York Academy of Sciences
North Carolina Academy of Science
Ohio Academy of Science
Society of Vertibrate Paleontology
Southern Anthropological Society
West Virginia Academy of Science
Gee, hardly any support at all.
--- QuickBBS v2.61 [REGISTERED]
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
MESSAGE: 213
FROM: James Hay
TO: George Erdel
Subject: Re: Evolution Vs. Creation
Date: 10 Feb 90 07:44:00
Few fossils would be young enough to use Carbon 14 dating. Other radioactives
would be used.
You reply about Chinese history was unresponsive. What current Chinese beliefs
are aboutt GOd is irrelevant to the fact that their history goes back over
6,000 years - longer ago that the supposed flood. HOw do you explain that?
--- QuickBBS v2.61 [REGISTERED]
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
MESSAGE: 214
FROM: James Hay
TO: Scott Canion
Subject: Re: Evolution
Date: 10 Feb 90 07:54:00
Again, NO, evolution is NOT starting out general and specializing. Evolution
is change thru time, or, more specifically, change in population genetic
content with time. While the overall tendency so far would seem to be greater
complexity (how could it not be since we are talking about starting from basic
chemicals?), this is not necessarily so; there are many occurances of loss of
complexity or specialization.
Re benefical mutations:
1) You said "there is no widely accepted evidence to support benefical
gene mutation." I disproved this but you choose to try to alter your statement
to get around this.
2) relative to your redirection: Can you show that beneficial mutation is
ALWAYS linked to harmful mutation, and;
3) You are ignoring, as antievolutionists always do when looking at
mutation, natural selection which can allow preferential proliferation of the
beneficial mutations, thus allowing their eventual effect to overwhelm that of
harmful mutations.
"I know that you teacher didn't tell you this, but when you irradiate the
bacteria, ability to produce methionine isn't the only 'effect'."
This statement is:
1) Uncalled for
2) Unworthy
3) WRONG
4) A poor attempt to avoid the fact that you original
statement was shown to be incorrect.
--- QuickBBS v2.61 [REGISTERED]
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
MESSAGE: 215
FROM: James Hay
TO: Scott Canion
Subject: Re: Evolution
Date: 10 Feb 90 07:55:00
You are correct, Darwin discovered natural selection not evolution which had
been thought of long before. However, most of his examples were animals:
Finches, Iguanas, Tortoises, etc.
--- QuickBBS v2.61 [REGISTERED]
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
MESSAGE: 216
FROM: James Hay
TO: Scott Canion
Subject: Re: Evolution
Date: 10 Feb 90 07:56:00
Do you similarly object when gravity is called a fact? It is, after all, the
THEORY of universal gravitation.
--- QuickBBS v2.61 [REGISTERED]
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
MESSAGE: 217
FROM: Doug Bell
TO: David White
Subject: Re: Evidence
Date: 08 Feb 90 11:07:00
Hi David, There is no reason to quote all you said in this post which in
essence stated that a person must believe all the Bible to be a Christian, but
I only wanted to say that that is patently untrue.
Nothing is written in the Bible which supports this. If you care to discuss
this further, please do it in netmail. Thanks Doug.
--- SLMAIL v1.34M (#0268)
* Origin: Deltona Lakes BBS * Deltona, Fl * HST * (407) 574-9246 (1:363/59)
MESSAGE: 218
FROM: Phil Nicholls
TO: Scott Canion
Subject: Re: Evolution
Date: 09 Feb 90 22:44:49
Evolution is defined by population geneticists as a change in
gene frequency. Natural selection is an important mechanism for achieving this
change, but it is not the only mechanism.
A mutation is any change in the genetic make-up of an individual.
This can be anything from a change in the kind of base forming the nucleotide
(one nucleotide) to a gross relocation of chromosome
segments. The research on mutation is vast. If you want me to, I
can dig up some references for you. There are many cases of documented
mutations that are harmful, beneficial and neutral in terms of the fitness of
the individual.
Evolution does not proscribe any kind of change. In some cases, organisms go
form very generalized to very specialized. The recent adaptive radiation of
mammals in the Cenozoic is an excellent example. Some organisms, however,
remain generalists. The only thing mandated by evolution is that variablity,
whatever its source, is required.
Mutation, by the way, is not the only source of variation. Genetic
recombination, one of the main purposes of sexual reproduction, also produces
variation.
I hope this has helped clear some things up.
Phil Nicholls
Department of Anthropology
San Francisco State University
---
* Origin: The Chemist's ComPort(415-359-6036)Pacifica CA. (125/190) (Opus
1:125/190)
MESSAGE: 219
FROM: Phil Nicholls
TO: Scott Canion
Subject: Re: Evolution
Date: 09 Feb 90 22:57:42
Darwin formulated (not discovered) natural selection, a theory to explain what
is regarded by most biologists today to be a fact: evolution.
In _On the Origin of Species_, Darwin describes in great detail the
evidence for his theory. This evidence uses examples of both plant and animal.
His second book _The Descent of Man_ , applied natural selection to human
origins. Darwin correctly predicted that the first human ancestors would be
found in Africa.
---
* Origin: The Chemist's ComPort(415-359-6036)Pacifica CA. (125/190) (Opus
1:125/190)
MESSAGE: 220
FROM: Larry Mayo
TO: Jonathan Rogers
Subject: Re: The Bible(proof)
Date: 10 Feb 90 17:50:03
You seem to disagree with the theory of evolution. I disagree with you.
I am a staunch Christian and a God fearing man, yet (to paraphrase Albert
Einstien) I cannot possibly concieve of a God who would not order his universe
with balance, order and laws (as you have observed). One of the more elegant
biological laws may well be 'the survival of the fittest' laws postulated by
evolution.
I believe in God, ergo, I believe in science.
--- QuickBBS v2.62 [Reg]
* Origin: Albanian Cheese Institute - We've Got Cheese For You! (1:260/228)
MESSAGE: 221
FROM: Jim Speiser
TO: Jonathan Rogers
Subject: Re: The Bible(proof)
Date: 11 Feb 90 16:13:00
>
>
> How do I prove something that has God as it's basis? You can't
> prove God in a labratory therefore you've shot that idea down.
My point is, you CAN prove evolution in a laboratory, as well as in the field.
Why should I go with something that CAN'T be proven, over something that can?
> Give me exact bible verses that contradict themselves and examples
> of how life as we know it contradict that, if you did give me such
> information then I didn't see it.
Forget what I posted, I didn't have the exact verses. Go back a few messages to
where one of the participants posted about the contradiction between Genesis 1
and Genesis 2. Can't get around that one too easily.
> The point I was making is that
> if evolutionists acknowledged that God created the universe and
> life on it then you and the evolutionists would have to realize
> that he would then have a right to tell you how to life your(that
> was supposed to be live) life and that scares many of you.
Even if a deity made me, I would not acknowledge that he had a right to tell me
how to live. If God created me, then he created me with imperfections. I would
then have good reason not to claim responsibility for my actions. But that's
another topic.
Just because you perceive a suitable "excuse" for us not to acknowledge
Creationism as a science, is not a valid reason to impute that Creationism is
therefore valid, and that evolution is not.
> If you
> are so sure that life evolved(and I still don't buy that) then
> what the heck is the purpose of continuing this discussion, isn't
> discussions for the purpose of learning something?
Exactly. That is the purpose of discussions. I am not so certain of evolution
that my mind is not open to valid creationist arguments. The trouble is, I have
seen none. Every single argument that creationists have come up with, SO FAR,
has been effectively rendered invalid by counter-arguments from the
evolutionists. But I am still willing to listen to your arguments, if you have
anything new that shows Creationism in a better light. In other words, I am
here to learn something new, and I pledge that I am open to new arguments.
Anyone who knows me can verify that for you. As an example, there was a time
when I was a proponent of further testing of the Shroud of Turin, because I was
dissatisfied with the arguments that had been presented against it. I
maintained this advocacy despite a near-lifetime of Atheism, because I have an
abiding sense of fairness in approaching scientifically verifiable claims. My
curiosity has since been satisfied by the recent radiological testing, but up
to that point, I maintained that there MIGHT be something here. Is that the
mark of a closed mind?
As to the rest of your post, I will let the others here handle that, and see
what the counter-arguments are. I'm not familiar with the passage you quote. If
the counter-arguments are weak, I will say that you have made a good point.
That's how discussions work.
Jim
--- FD 1.99b
* Origin: -==- ParaNet Zeta Reticuli 602-951-3431 HST (1:114/37)
MESSAGE: 222
FROM: Jim Speiser
TO: Doug Bell
Subject: The Flood?
Date: 11 Feb 90 16:38:00
>
> I understand your criticism of the flood, for I ponder on the
> question myself. But I also have to wonder how it is that there
> are many other ancient people who have a flood story in there
> writings. Why is that?
That's a good question, but our inability to answer it does not even slightly
prove Creationism. The proper question for Creationists is, why don't ALL
cultures have such flood stories?
I also wonder about such myths(?) as
> Atlantis. Maybe by approach the problem from the standpoint of
> enough water is not the proper approach. Maybe their was a major
> upheaval in the land masses which displaced much of the water
> today?
But why should we speculate on something for which there is no evidence?
Doesn't it require a lot less mental gymnastics and apologetics to simply say,
"the Flood never happened"?
--- FD 1.99b
* Origin: -==- ParaNet Zeta Reticuli 602-951-3431 HST (1:114/37)
MESSAGE: 223
FROM: Greg Hansen
TO: Warp 12
Subject: Re: Amoebas and Evolution
Date: 10 Feb 90 22:06:50
Hello, Warp 12. Yyou have a nicely approachable veiwpoint on the subject,
one of the best I've seen in your "camp". It's refreshing. I'd like to
discuss a few points with you.
> I have never attacked the science of biology on this or any other
> conference. I AM attacking the theory of macro-evolution, and the
> attitude that causes it so widely to be treated as fact.
Many have denied the possibility of macro-evolution. But assuming that
micro-evolution is the result of natural selection acting on a changing
set of DNA, what prevents micro-evolution from eventually becoming
macro-evolution? I've seen this quesion asked many times, but have
never seen an answer.
> Biology exists without the involvement of evolution theory; biology
> involves, primarily, the study of life as it exists today.
I don't know if you realized this, but evolution is the single theory
that unifies all fields of biology. I don't want to argue on
this, I just want to point out that evolution is a very important
theory in modern biology.
> I'm not even saying, categorically, that the theory of evolution is
> wrong - I don't know that for sure. I'm just saying that my interpretation
> of the evidence leads me to believe that it is not correct in its present
> form, and that, in any case, theories should never be treated as facts.
I admire your open mindedness. And I'm wondering how you feel the data has
been misinterpreted. Frankly, the only evidence I've seen that disproves
evolution is missapplication or alteration of science (thermodynamics,
speed of light changes, etc.), false info (Gish and the bombadier beetle),
and appeals to emotion and intuitin.
On the other hand, the only evidence I've seen in favor of creation
are Bible quotes, and, well, Bible quotes. (The general method seems to be
that by disproving evolution, creation wins by default.) So I hope you
understand if I'm a little biased on this. I would really like to consider
a rational, well-thought argument for creation, as much for curiosity as
anything else, because I was beginning to wonder if such a thing exists.
Or against the current theory of evolution, even if no alternative is
advanced.
Thanks for any intelligent discussion!
---
* Origin: Nick's Nest (612) 490-1187, (612) 490-0341 HST (Opus 1:282/3)
MESSAGE: 224
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry @ 930/17
TO: Phil Nicholls @ 914/207
Subject: seas And Flooding
Date: 11 Feb 90 03:46:00
> Thanks for the information. I like posing that question
> to creationists
> because it usually stops them for awhile as they don't
> expect it. Now
> I suppose I can expect to see some distorted rendering
> of your most
> excellent response.
Thanks for the kind words. I got to thinking later on, though, that my bias
toward marine life was showing in that post. Most fresh-water ecologies would
have been destroyed as well, given a global mountain-covering flood. As far as
I know, no record of such a die-off has been found for fresh-water species
either.
--- TPBEdit v3.2
# Origin: Central Neural System, 817-551-9363, HST, TPBoard 5.2 (8:930/17)
* Origin: Network Gateway to RBBS-NET (RBBS-PC 1:10/8)
MESSAGE: 225
FROM: Charles Harden
TO: Scott Canion
Subject: Re: Evolution
Date: 11 Feb 90 23:00:00
Evolution can be disproven, however, there is a great volume of evidence that
points to evolution, and very little that doesn't. If given a good enough
argument, backed with enough plausible evidence, I would believe in the
Cherokee Indian theory of creation (a beaver created America, by diving to the
bottom of the ocean, and picking up some mud), however, with weak arguments I
don't even buy creationism as portrayed in Genesis (and I am a practicing and
believing Christian).
--- QuickBBS v2.62 [Eval]
* Origin: SURFACE INTERVAL,S.Fla Divers BBS (305)246 DIVE (1:135/50)
MESSAGE: 226
FROM: Charles Harden
TO: Warp 12
Subject: Re: Evolution, continued
Date: 11 Feb 90 23:20:00
Jefferson,
If there is no evidence of "macro-evolution", then what is fossil
evidence. I have seen very plausible fossil sequences (in books) that outline
the evolution of mammals from fish-like vertebrates. In the second place,
evolution does not change things drastically, for example, we treat lions and
tigers as separate species. They both evolved from a common ancestor sometime
in the past. However, given a female tiger and lion that have both been died
black, I certainly couldn't tell the difference, yet they are separate and
different species. Most speciation (theoretically) occurs with a single
population of a certain species that has somehow been geographically isolated,
for example a flock of birds is blown off course, and is blown onto an island.
The genes in this flock are slightly different than the population as a whole
(by basic probability). Eventually these two populations grow to have
different characteristics, due to different gene frequencies. Before long, the
two groups can no longer breed with one another, and thus become different
species, by definition. In other words, micro-evolution if combined with other
things, such as geographic isolation, and given enough time, can result in
macroevolution. Macroevolution can be observed in the lab with fruit flies
(Drosophila) and different bacteria.
BTW, as I understand, the One nation under God, section of the pledge
is a fairly recent addition (1950's?). In addition, I believe that religion
and politics should not mix as such, however, I wish more TRULY religious
people (not hypocrites like Reagan) would enter politics. (Give unto Caesar
what is Caesar's, Give unto GOD what is GOD's)
--- QuickBBS v2.62 [Eval]
* Origin: SURFACE INTERVAL,S.Fla Divers BBS (305)246 DIVE (1:135/50)
MESSAGE: 227
FROM: Charles Harden
TO: Jonathan Rogers
Subject: Re: The Bible(proof)
Date: 11 Feb 90 23:56:00
Jonathan,
You say that evolutionists won't acknowledge God's role in creation
because then they would have to acknowledge that God's way is the right way to
live. In my opinion, most people who don't accept the scientific fact of
evolution do so because they don't have enough faith in God to believe in Him
if everything in the Bible is not found to be absolutely true (in the literal
sense).
BTW, why would the idea of evolution turn anyone's stomach? The idea
that people wouldn't accept concepts that they can examine critically turns my
stomach. (BTW, I am not an atheist evolutionist, I am a fairly religious
(Christian) evolutionist, who has no qualms in accepting the evidence on
evolution)
I don't know how much you have really researched the matter, but I
recommend anyone who is arguing on evolution should read on the subject. I am
a graduate student in biology, and the evidence for evolution presented to me
has been very strong. All evidence for creation rests on "Because God wanted
it that way," (this may be true, but is unnecessary, as evolution is a fairly
good explanation). One good book on evolution is "What Darwin Began" by Laurie
Rohde Godfrey. It presents the evolution of the theory of evolution, as well
as explaining it in the modern sense, discusses creationism, and some topics of
discussion in evolutionary theory. It can sometimes get a bit technical, but
is mostly fairly straight forward. I would also recommend any of Stephen J.
Gould's books of essays (The Panda's Thumb, The Flamingo's Smile, and Hen's
teeth and Horse's toes), although they don't strictly discuss evolution, but
science in general.
--- QuickBBS v2.62 [Eval]
* Origin: SURFACE INTERVAL,S.Fla Divers BBS (305)246 DIVE (1:135/50)
MESSAGE: 228
FROM: Charles Harden
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: natural selection
Date: 12 Feb 90 00:33:00
Pat,
First, you are not breeding goats for the fittest goats, but for the
best milking goats, which is a totally different thing. It could be that
traits that result in good milkers result in poor survival against diseases.
All of man's selection suffers from that same problem, we breed for
what is in OUR best interest, not the plant or animals. This is the problem.
Secondly, the increase in genetic diseases is probably due to the fact
that people are not dying of other things--i.e. diseases that we can now cure.
--- QuickBBS v2.62 [Eval]
* Origin: SURFACE INTERVAL,S.Fla Divers BBS (305)246 DIVE (1:135/50)
MESSAGE: 229
FROM: Charles Harden
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: my messages
Date: 12 Feb 90 00:51:00
Yes, science is about sifting through evidence and finding a good explanation
for things, however, it is not about reinventing the wheel everytime that you
build a car. In science, we generally accept theories until a better one
explains the evidence. In terms of evolution, there is no scientific theory
that explains things as well. The lines of evidence are solid, and fairly
conclusive. Creation science is not science--I have seen NO evidence of it. I
personally believe in creation, but IT IS NOT SCIENTIFIC, and should not be
taught as such. Kids should be taught to think, and then they can examine
things on their own. I am very sad, as a biologist, to hear that people such
as Jonathan Rogers, and yourself, are losing respect for scientists. I hope
that I have done nothing to cause you to lose that respect, but you have to
remember scientists are just people, too. We have our faults, but some of us
do what we do because we feel that God has called us to this profession. I
personally plan to be a biology teacher in a high school somewhere (after I
finish my master's degree), and hope that I can instill some of my love of
science, and life in general to all of my students.
BTW, the reinventing the wheel analogy was meant to bring about the
point that often science is viewed as being based on faith. Well, it is but
not in the religious sense. There is no use for every biologist to verify
every experiment or observation done on evolution. We just hope that the
process of examination at the time the findings are published, catch any major
errors. Many theories are reexamined for accuracy by specialists, but there is
no need for every scientist to reevaluate every theory.
--- QuickBBS v2.62 [Eval]
* Origin: SURFACE INTERVAL,S.Fla Divers BBS (305)246 DIVE (1:135/50)
MESSAGE: 230
FROM: Larry McGee
TO: Marty Leipzig
Subject: Re: Evolution
Date: 11 Feb 90 06:53:22
ML> Wrong. Evolution is science. It is falsifiable (i.e.
ML> it can
ML> be disproven). All it takes is temporally discordant
ML> fossils.
ML> For example, if human remains were found in strata
ML> that contain dinosaur remains, evolution would be
ML> falsified. (Or pick any prior/latter group:
With arguments like this in favor of Science, who needs enemies. It would take
a lot more than discordant fossils to disprove evolution. Even finding
currently living examples of 'believed-to-be' extinct animals would not
disprove the concept.
All these would mean is that some of our ideas on the subject are incorrect.
Those ideas would be changed and our overall understanding would be one step
closer to the reality.
I'm not arguing in favor of creationsim, but you won't make any debating points
by ignoring the appearance behind their question. The statement was that
something is belief if no matter what you discover, you could never falsify the
concept. At a superficial level, such as what I just gave, it certainly appears
that evolution is the same thing. No matter what is discovered, someone will
find a way to accomodate it in some version of evolutionary theory.
--- Sirius 1.0v+
* Origin: The Chemist's ComPort--Pacifica CA 415-359-6036(1:125/190.0)
MESSAGE: 231
FROM: Brook Monroe
TO: George Erdel
Subject: Re: Evolution Vs. Creation
Date: 09 Feb 90 22:23:00
In a message to Brook Monroe <02-07-90 18:51> George Erdel wrote:
GE> Are you dating these fossils with the inaccurate carbon
GE> dating technique?
It really wouldn't matter what dating technique was used--I suspect you'd just
claim it was inaccurate.
GE> Not all cultures accept the fact that the flood appeared.
There wouldn't be any accepting or not accepting, George. You'd either die or
not. Nevertheless, the fact that one culture accepts it doesn't prove that it
does, any more than another culture denying it makes it false. The point is
that if one says "yea" and another says "nay" it casts the assertion into
doubt. Your interpretation is that the one group is wrong. My interpretation
is that there is room for debate.
GE> The chineese that are here today as well as the entire
GE> population of the world are descendants from the three
GE> familys on the ark.
Not much of a gene pool, George. How come we're not all club-footed,
brachycephalic hemophiliacs by now from all that inbreeding? The Romanov's
went sour in much less time...
GE> Whether it is in or out of context it proovs the same
GE> point.
Typically, out-of-context information isn't permissible under the rules of
semantics as applied to debate. Perhaps you've forgotten this.
GE> This echo is limited to the scope of subject matter. To go
GE> this far mught be pushing it to the limit. To go farther
GE> will certainly be going outside the limit do I am unable to
GE> delve deeper into this line of facts because of the
GE> constraints of the echo.
Well, you may not know Science, but you sure know how to duck. Ole'!
--- QuickBBS v2.61 [REGISTERED]
* Origin: Psychotronic |(919)286-7738|Durham NC| HST*PCP*StarLink (1:151/223.
MESSAGE: 232
FROM: Brook Monroe
TO: George Erdel
Subject: Re: Evolution Vs. Creatio
Date: 09 Feb 90 22:28:00
In a message to Brook Monroe <02-07-90 18:53> George Erdel wrote:
GE> There have been million that have not bought the line of
GE> science as well.
And what exactly does this prove? I was trying to get an answer as to why
you're so closed to discussion on the topic, and why you look down on people
who do scientific inquiry.
GE> As for explaining it all pleease see the answer to your
GE> other message.
You're still ducking, George. As near as I can tell, accurate evidence
scientifically analyzed and intelligently presented is permissible in this
forum. Since you are attempting to provide counter-evidence on a scientific
topic, that makes it permissible. Besides, if you didn't think this was a
proper forum for your viewpoint you wouldn't have put a message in here in the
first place.
Your reticence suggests certain things that I'm just basically too polite to
enumerate.
--- QuickBBS v2.61 [REGISTERED]
* Origin: Psychotronic |(919)286-7738|Durham NC| HST*PCP*StarLink (1:151/223.
MESSAGE: 233
FROM: Brook Monroe
TO: George Erdel
Subject: Re: The Bible(proof)
Date: 10 Feb 90 10:48:00
In a message to Brook Monroe <02-08-90 07:01> George Erdel wrote:
GE> It seems to me that fact IS truth. at least it is here.
Fact is independently verifiable. Truth is up to each man and woman to
decide. If it seems to you they are the same, then you are making a
semantically fallacious assumption.
GE> For somone to feel that the divine hand of God is what made
GE> these things happen is not foolish or illogical. As a
GE> matter of fact it is much easier to beleive that God had a
GE> part in it than it is for accepting the notion that it
GE> happened all by itself.
This is not about what is easy. This is about what the evidence indicates, and
what conclusions we draw from the evidence. Besides, I'm not saying that God
didn't have a part in it--I'm saying that He must have used a method. I'm
interested in the method. You've backed down from saying that evolution wasn't
the method to saying that we're asserting God wasn't involved. At least pick a
position and stick to it.
GE> Lets don't equate THEORY with FACT. Both evolution and
GE> creation are theorys. No PROOF can be made for or against
GE> either one.
Ahem. Creation, as presented by the Christian religions, is not taught as
THEORY (see, I can capitalize for no apparent reason, too). It is taught as
FACT. No teacher in any Sunday school in any Church I have ever been to has
ever said "Our interpretation of events is that God created the Earth and man
in seven days." They said, without preface, "God created the Earth and Man in
seven days." The latter statement takes on the semblance of fact, while the
former takes the semblance of theory. And I'm hardly equating theory with
fact. As a computer scientist by profession, physicist by avocation, and as a
man married to a physical chemist, I'm well aware of the differences between
the two. Facts stand on their own, and cannot be debated. Theories rest on
facts, and are interpretations of them. Don't presume to tutor me on the
difference, 'cause I'm 'way ahead of you on that score.
Finally, if no proof can be made for Creation, why are you arguing so hard,
George?
--- QuickBBS v2.62 [Reg]
* Origin: Psychotronic |(919)286-7738|Durham NC| HST*PCP*StarLink (1:151/223)
MESSAGE: 234
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry @ 930/17
TO: Billy Reynolds
Subject: Darwin
Date: 12 Feb 90 06:08:43
> Not only would they have published before Darwin, they
> DID. IN fact, Darwin read the initial publication at the
> meeting in which he introduced the Theory to his peers.
> He took the liberty of reading his own first.
Excuse me?
Alfred Russel Wallace, the independent co-discoverer of the theory of natural
selection, had been in correspondence with Darwin. When presented with the
voluminous quantity of notes and data which Darwin had compiled, Wallace
allowed Lyell to schedule their joint presentation to the Linnean Society in
the order of Darwin, then Wallace. Wallace even made some commendable comments
concerning not wishing to assert priority over Darwin, since it was obvious to
Wallace that Darwin had gotten there first.
Billy, we went through this a year and a half ago, and you still have your
history all mixed up. Ignorance can be cured ... but it takes effort.
--- TPBEdit v3.2
# Origin: Central Neural System, 817-551-9363, HST, TPBoard 5.2 (8:930/17)
* Origin: Network Gateway to RBBS-NET (RBBS-PC 1:10/8)
MESSAGE: 235
FROM: James Hay
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: ICR scientists
Date: 12 Feb 90 18:49:00
re creationist disinformation: Whaat about the examples I cited? They just
don't look like honest mistakes to me.
--- QuickBBS v2.61 [REGISTERED]
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
MESSAGE: 236
FROM: James Hay
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: natural selection
Date: 12 Feb 90 18:58:00
Ah, but pitiless nature DOES select for the hardiest animals. YOu are looking
for the best benefits for YOU not for the survival of the animal's genetic
compliment. Crop disease problems are another good example - we're breeding
for increased food production and quality not survival. (We're also inbreeding
and reducing diversity, which is VERY counterproductive to survival and
generally opposite of what is found in nature.)
Our breeding decisions make more sense than random chance? 1) FOr whom? Us or
the plants? 2) How do you know? 3) Random chance is not the other side of
this "competition" - natural selection is.
Actually, random chance (genetic drift) is much more an influence on your goats
than in most natural populations. Small populations are MUCH more influenced
by random occurances (the bottleneck effect).
--- QuickBBS v2.61 [REGISTERED]
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
MESSAGE: 237
FROM: Warp 12
TO: Greg Hansen
Subject: Re: Evolution
Date: 08 Feb 90 12:32:30
In a message of <05 Feb 90 13:02:39>, Greg Hansen (1:282/3) writes:
>GH>Darwin discovered evolution after
>GH>travelling all over the world for five years on the HMS Beagle as a
>GH>naturalist, studying nature. He gathered a lot of data, and it all
>GH>pointed towards an evolving process. Like you said, the theory was
>GH>made to fit the observable facts.
The evidence that Darwin found can be interpreted in many different ways. He
did find evidence that micro-evolution took place; this is an observable
phenomenon.
He did not, however, *observe* macro-evolution; he found evidence which he
thought supported the idea.
If the macro-evolution theory is correct, then there should be lots of evidence
of intermediate forms - the animals that came in-between others. There is
hardly
any evidence of this; so, did evolution take place in huge leaps, skipping from
one species to another? That's not what the theory claims.
>GH>If all life was created within a few days, then there should
>GH>be mammalian fossils (including humans) as old as the oldest dinosaurs
>GH>and trilobytes. Why haven't they been found? Flood geology? That
>GH>postulates that faster animals were able to escape from the flood
>GH>longer
>GH>than slower animals. But sloths are pretty new on this planet, and
>GH>there were some dinosaurs that were pretty quick.
Please don't generalize this way. There are many "species" of creationist,
from those who accept the Bible's account completely literally to those that
believe God used evolution as a tool for creation. I'm in-between. For
myself,
I do not believe that God created the earth in 6 literal, 24-hour days; and
I'm not convinced that there was a flood that covered the entire earth. In
addition, I see no reason to lump creation and evolution together, as some have
tried to do. I don't believe that the earth is just a few thousand years old,
as a literal translation of the Bible would seem to indicate. My basic stand
is that evolution theory (as it stands today) is not proven and has lots of
problems, and that we should consider other, more promising options.
Jefferson Davis Williams
--- msged 1.99S ZTC
* Origin: Warp 12's Discount Asteroids (FidoNet 1:233/6.5)
MESSAGE: 238
FROM: Warp 12
TO: Phil Nicholls @ 914-207
Subject: Evolution
Date: 08 Feb 90 11:41:30
In a message of <04 Feb 90 12:30:10>, Phil Nicholls @ 914-207 (1:10/8) writes:
>PN>Part of the test of a theory is how well those predictions agree
>PN>with new information as it is recovered. On this score,
>PN>evolutionary theory has done very well indeed. Fossil sequences
>PN>and biochemical data have performed as predicted.
Where are all the intermediate forms that evolution demands must have existed?
>PN>I have yet to find a version of creationism that fits
>PN>ANY facts. What are the tenets of your version of creationism?
I do not take the entire Bible literally; I do not believe in a literal 6-day
creation, nor do I believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old.
I believe that micro-evolution does take place, that life is adaptable and will
change over time so that it interacts with the environment in ways that better
suit it; this is observable (Darwin observed it) and I accept it.
It is not my belief that all life sprang from a single form, but rather that
there was a multitude of forms which have altered over the ages in varying
ways,
depending on their environments, to produce the variety of life-forms that we
see today.
This one realizes that to you and others like you, it is inconceivable that
religion and science can be successfully mixed. Nevertheless, I still maintain
that, given the proper attitude, they are not only perfectly compatible but
completely inseparable.
I do not happen to have my material on hand at the moment (telecommunicating,
as I am, from the computer in my office, rather than on a *personal* personal
computer at home); however, I will be presenting some more solid positional
data shortly.
Jefferson Davis Williams
--- msged 1.99S ZTC
* Origin: Warp 12's Discount Asteroids (FidoNet 1:233/6.5)
MESSAGE: 239
FROM: Warp 12
TO: Bruce Donohue
Subject: Re: Amoebas and Evolution
Date: 08 Feb 90 12:31:51
In a message of <05 Feb 89 21:17:00>, Bruce Donohue (1:343/27) writes:
>BD> I happen to dislike creationist belief greatly, I admit. Creationism
>BD>is an
>BD>abhorent bunch of dogma which preys on ingorance and stupidity. I'll
>BD>never understand
>BD>why anyone would fall for an obvious bunch of hypocritical bull.
You, like a multitude of others, are severely over-generalizing. There is no
one "creationist belief" - there are many. I don't agree with many of them,
myself. Some are founded completely in literal interpretations of the Bible;
I do not criticize this - in fact, I admire it in many ways, being a Christian
myself. I find, however, that this approach does not work for me. I choose
to take the Bible as a guide in interpreting the world; when I find
inconsistencies
between the portions of the Bible that describe the material world and the
world
I can observe, then I will go with the observations.
The Bible, for me, is a philosophical work, not a scientific journal. It is
the most important book in the world, as far as I am concerned, but it does
not even attempt to explain science - that's not the purpose of the Bible.
There's no need to use such emotive language - you're only fanning the fire.
Jefferson Davis Williams
--- msged 1.99S ZTC
* Origin: Warp 12's Discount Asteroids (FidoNet 1:233/6.5)
MESSAGE: 240
FROM: Warp 12
TO: James Hay
Subject: Re: The Bible(proof)
Date: 08 Feb 90 12:31:12
In a message of <06 Feb 90 20:04:00>, James Hay (1:202/302) writes:
>JH>MANY evolutionists acknowledge God including some of the most
>JH>important names
>JH>in the history of evolution (Darwin, Wallace, Dobjansky), ...
The phrase "accept God *and* evolution" is self-contradictory, unless accepting
God means simply that one has a vague idea that there might be some great power
around here somewhere. In it's present form, the theory of macro-evolution
denies the existence of a deity.
Jefferson Davis Williams
--- msged 1.99S ZTC
* Origin: Warp 12's Discount Asteroids (FidoNet 1:233/6.5)
MESSAGE: 241
FROM: Warp 12
TO: James Hay
Subject: Re: Evolution Vs. Creation
Date: 08 Feb 90 12:20:49
In a message of <06 Feb 90 20:06:00>, James Hay (1:202/302) writes:
>JH>It was realized that if the Big Bang [theory] were
>JH>true, there would be a uniform background radiation to the universe.
>JH>This ramification
>JH>was checked and found correct. If the radiation had not been found,
>JH>the Big
>JH>Band theory would have had tto have been modified or abandoned.
Your statement is true, but the converse of it is not.
If a theory predicts something, and it is found that the prediction was
definitely
wrong, then the theory, as it stands, is disproved. It must either be altered
or discarded.
If, on the other hand, a prediction is made and it is found to be correct, this
cannot be taken for absolute proof that the *theory* is correct. There might
be many explanations for any one event or condition.
Jefferson Davis Williams
--- msged 1.99S ZTC
* Origin: Warp 12's Discount Asteroids (FidoNet 1:233/6.5)
MESSAGE: 242
FROM: Warp 12
TO: James Hay
Subject: Re: Evolution
Date: 08 Feb 90 12:31:32
In a message of <06 Feb 90 20:17:00>, James Hay (1:202/302) writes:
>JH>A dish of bacteria is selected against
>JH>so as to eliminate any individuals which possess the ability to
>JH>manufacture
>JH>their own, say, methionine. The bacteria are then allowed to multiply
>JH>and are
>JH>irradiated or otherwise subject to increased mutation. Subsequent
>JH>selection
>JH>experiments will then show that some bacteria have mutated so that
>JH>they CAN
>JH>produce methionine.
Mutations are observable, all right. For instance, fruit flies can mutate into
forms that have extra heads, or legs, or wings. The point is that the bacteria
are *still* bacteria, and the fruit flies are *still* fruit flies, not another
species.
Jefferson Davis Williams
--- msged 1.99S ZTC
* Origin: Warp 12's Discount Asteroids (FidoNet 1:233/6.5)
MESSAGE: 243
FROM: Warp 12
TO: Marty Leipzig
Subject: Evolution
Date: 09 Feb 90 12:08:48
Well, to you evolution is the basis of biology - but that's just one viewpoint.
There are biologists who are not evolutionists, and still manage to be
biologist
perfectly well. The problem lies in the definition of biology, and, as is
often
the case in such matters, there are several - not just one.
Jefferson Davis Williams
--- msged 1.99S ZTC
* Origin: Warp 12's Discount Asteroids (FidoNet 1:233/6.5)
MESSAGE: 244
FROM: Netrunner
TO: George Erdel
Subject: Re: Evolution Vs. Creation
Date: 11 Feb 90 06:42:00
In a message to Jim Karkanias <02-07-90 18:35> George Erdel wrote:
GE>GOD SAID IT
GE>I BELEIVE IT
GE>THAT SETTLES IT!!
Settles it for whom, George? You are convinced, but must I be convinced? If I
am not convinced, must I be forced to behave as if I am?
I have no problem with your faith; I have a problem when you force your faith
upon me. Look at the spotty history of the Christian faith, or most any faith
for that matter. When the few enlightened ones FORCED their views upon the
Great Unwashed, we had the Crusades, the Inquisition, the recent brouhaha in
Iran after the Shah was deposed. None of these things are pretty, George. And
ALL of them fell back on:
GE>GOD SAID IT
GE>I BELEIVE IT
GE>THAT SETTLES IT!!
to justify the slaughter.
--- QuickBBS v2.61 [EVALUATION]
* Origin: Eschew Obfuscation! [Cyberspace Nexus (419) 686-4227] (1:234/19.0)
MESSAGE: 245
FROM: Netrunner
TO: George Erdel
Subject: Re: Evolution Vs. Creatio
Date: 11 Feb 90 07:16:00
In a message to George Emery <02-08-90 18:10> George Erdel wrote:
GE>IT TOOK OVER A HUNDRED AND 20 YEARS TO BUILD THE ARK!!!
To George Erdel:
Could you cite Scriptural evidence for this statement? I am honestly
curious, after many years of religious education, I have never heard the length
of time needed to build the Ark.
--- QuickBBS v2.61 [EVALUATION]
* Origin: Eschew Obfuscation! [Cyberspace Nexus (419) 686-4227] (1:234/19.0)
MESSAGE: 246
FROM: Harlow Campbell
TO: Doug Bell
Subject: The Flood?
Date: 12 Feb 90 07:26:00
> I understand your criticism of the flood, for I ponder on the question
> myself. But I also have to wonder how it is that there are many other
> ancient people who have a flood story in there writings. Why is that? I
> also wonder about such myths(?) as Atlantis. Maybe by approach the
The people you are referrring to as having all these legends all live on the
Mespotanina Plains do they not? So far as I know, the Japanese and Chinese have
no legends of WORLDWIDE floods, nor do the Australians.
--- ZMailQ 1.10 @1:132/130.0
* Origin: By the banks of the mighty Merrimack (1:132/130)
MESSAGE: 247
FROM: Marty Leipzig
TO: Billy Reynolds
Subject: Re: Fact or fanaticism
Date: 12 Feb 90 10:08:58
> My old Professor still says that anyone who calls evolutional
> theory fact is rushing to conclusions. The data is still
> coming in. We find very complex organisims dated at over
> 3.6 billion years. Up until recently scientist didn't
> believe there were such complexities so distant. Just this
> year new evidence has forced the masters of evolution to
> re-theorize survival of the fitest. Maybe in another hundred
> years or so, we'll have the facts. Until then, opinions
> are still in abundance. Don't confuse the two or you might
> be embarrased.
> Don't cop out on me here. I am not a religious fanatic.
> I am a supporter of evolutional theory. The key word is
> theory. Nothing is engraved in concrete just now. If you're
> privy to some new data please enlighten me.
>
>
Here again, confusion over what constitutes fact and what is theory.
Evolution is a fact. It has occured (and still is!). Organisms have
proceeded from the simple to the more complex over geologic time.
Facts are the Earths data. That we possess in abundant supply. Every
fossil uncovered is a fact, which fits into evolutionary theory.
Ahhh....Theory...(Here's the rub)....Facts do not = theory.
There is no ladder of causality that runs from speculation to guess
to hypothesis to theory to fact. Facts and theories are two separate
and distinct entities. Theories explain groups of facts. As such, are
in constant revision as new data becomes available. Your 3.6 BY old
critters do not cause any change to the fact that evolution has occured,
but causes us to re-think just how (and how fast) it has.
You note that no-one should call "Evolutional theory fact". True, true,
true. Evolutionary theory (mode and tempo) is just that: theory.
Evolutionary fact is that it HAS occured. Let us not compare oranges and
orang-utans, and lose sight of the forest for the trees.
Finally, the evolutionary masters are not still debating the utility of
survival of the fittest. The arena has shifted more towards mutation,
chormosonal cross-over, geographic speciation, disjunct endemisms,
punctuated equilibria, neo-darwinism...and a host of other explanatory
theories...Science marches on.....
---
* Origin: The Edge -=[ Concepts With Integrity ]=- (Opus 1:106/9430)
MESSAGE: 248
FROM: Jim Karkanias
TO: George Emery
Subject: Re: Evolution Vs. Creatio
Date: 12 Feb 90 12:54:22
In a message of < 7 Feb 90 23:43:10>, George Emery (1:105/4.42) writes:
GE>The main reason ventured for the difference in chimpanzee
GE>intelligence and
GE>human intelligence is that humans develop much more slowly. Retard
GE>the
GE>growth rate of chimpanzees and it's very likely they'd be
GE>discussing our
GE>poor intellectual abilities!
I've never heard this argument before but you present a very interesting case!
Has this been done to your knowledge? It shouldn't be that hard to test...
Hmmm...
--- msged 1.99S ZTC
* Origin: Mount Olympus - Home of the Gods (1:273/720)
MESSAGE: 250
FROM: Don Martin
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: various
Date: 14 Feb 90 14:22:19
Writing to Larry Mcgee 08 Feb 90, Pat Goltz states:
> Often other scientists build uncritically upon earlier work.
> Scientists are human, and have presuppositions just like those
> of religion. If society tends to encourage a given set of
> presuppositions, then the scientist's work will reflect it. The
> history of science is replete with different eras of scientific
> belief.
While this can, I suppose, happen with bad scientists, the good ones are pretty
unlikely to work this way. In fact, they are probably more likely to operate
the way this echo does--one takes a position, and dozens leap on it every which
way from Sunday. If the position survives, it is reckoned a pretty good one,
at least until somebody thinks up a better way to attack it. As an interesting
and fairly discrete example, are you not aware of what has been happening with
"cold fusion" over the past year? The "success" announced by University of
Utah scientists has become an international laughingstock as scientist after
scientist attempts to make the thing work as advertised. See the posts of
others on this echo for the importance of "falsification" to the process of
science. Frankly, I know of no reputable scientists who "build uncritically
upon earlier work". Can you name any? Speaking of Darwin, you say:
> As a result of his observations, AND the conclusions he
> reached, I understand he ABANDONED the Christian faith. Thus,
> his SCIENCE drastically affected his RELIGION.
According to Garrett Hardin in <> this
would not appear to be the case. Darwin formulated his theory and
agonized over it for two decades of what would look to be severe
psychomatic upset over its impact upon religion before writing and
publishing it. If he abandoned Christianity, that fact is unnoted
by the Concise Dictionary of National Biography, which is usually
pretty good at picking up on such things.
In another letter, you present yourself as questing for knowledge
on this echo, maintaining that the business of science is the
asking of questions, you join in that highly laudable endeavor:
> My motives here are to learn and to encourage others to learn.
> The apparent dogmatism I see in science is very distressing to
> me, and I share some of Jonathan Rogers' loss of respect for
> scientists. I have seen too many instances of people here being
> attacked for being ignorant. As I have pointed out privately to
> some correspondents, it is all well and good for us to be told
> to go read a book, but you cannot ask a book questions. Since
> this is my only ready access to scientists in many different
> disciplines, I come here to ask questions.
What right-thinking person could object to a position of such
reason? Yet when one goes through the eleven messages you have
posted here on the same day, one can find but three question
marks, and all three seem to this humble writer attached to things
more rhetorical than knowledge seeking:
> Will scientists admit that the evidence might indicate the moon
> is young, or will they keep rationalizing it? Are scientists
> prepared to give up such pet notions?
Questions leading to yes/no answers, particularly those
concerned with wringing admissions from others are not what most
people would call scientific. Propagandistic, perhaps, as is the
next example, a question that sort of LOOKS like science by
--- QuickBBS v2.62 [Eval]
* Origin: Grand Slam! BBS (1:264/167)
MESSAGE: 251
FROM: Jim Lemke
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: various
Date: 12 Feb 90 12:52:00
Where does Darwin hold that acquired characteristics are inherited?
I don't remember ever reading that...
jim
--- QuickBBS v2.62 [Reg]
* Origin: Al's Cabin in Milford, PA (717)-686-3037 *[HST]* *[SDS]* (1:13/75)
MESSAGE: 252
FROM: Jim Lemke
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: natural selection
Date: 12 Feb 90 13:24:00
PG> I think that the fact that human beings consciously and
PG>deliberately
PG> make breeding choices more than makes up for the eons of
PG>time that random chance has had to operate in the
PG>evolutionist's opinion. That's just my opinion, but I
PG>daresay my opinion is as good as the next fellow's.
Pat,
I think it is important to remember that human consciousness has also e
evolved over time. Aesthetic choices are related to the way we perceive things
physically and thus affected those perceptions. It is a feedback loop. These
behavioral tendencies will be very persistant over time because they are
connected to the physical system at a very basic level.
About some of your other postings:
I find your motivations above reproch and your questions sincere. That is why
I respond to them. Science however is a democracy only in the sense that all
ideas are listened to (being human all ideas are not always given equal
consideration, but aside from that..) Scientists do not vote on the validity
of hypotheses, they evaluate them experimentally. Creation science has not
been able to convince most scientists that what they claim is valid.
There are sound epistomological reasons for this which many refuse to allow.
In another posting you reasoned that science influences religion and vice
versa. Of course it does, but logically, the two processes are not reciprocal.
Science assumes a universe in which hypotheses (our educated guesses as to the
way things work) can be tested and falsified, disproven.
There is no way you can disprove a creator. It just can't be done and science
is unable to deal with it. Over time we have found that scientific inquiry at
least allows us to manipulate the world a little better...build better mouse
traps if you will. Forcing creationism into science will impede the
understanding of the way science works...and that will ruin it...science is
only a method.
--- QuickBBS v2.62 [Reg]
* Origin: Al's Cabin in Milford, PA (717)-686-3037 *[HST]* *[SDS]* (1:13/75)
MESSAGE: 253
FROM: Jim Lemke
TO: George Emery
Subject: Re: Evolution Vs. Creation
Date: 12 Feb 90 20:15:00
> > The Aztecs and Mayan cultures date back nearly as long,
>and they don't
> > mention any flood either.
>
>No, they definitely don't! They were, at best,
>contemporary with the
>Egyptians and, more likely, contemporary with the Romans in
>the case of
>the Mayans.
The relative dating is ok, but Maya mythology does mention a flood, or in the
case of the Popul Vuh the aftermath of a flood. These myths are heavilly laced
with Christian stuff however. A lot of South American groups have flood
myths...but dont use this as proof for or against a great flood.
regards,
jim
--- ZMailQ 1.10 @1:269/203.0
* Origin: Shadow Spawn BBS Montague, NJ (201) 293-7778 (1:269/203)
MESSAGE: 254
FROM: Mike Bloom
TO: Greg Keller
Subject: Re: Evolution Vs. Creatio
Date: 11 Feb 90 16:49:19
> AR> GE>Nothing I say NOTHING is impossible for GOD!
> AR>
Then it is possible for GOD to be evil.
If that's the case then Good and Evil are the only absolutes
and God is just a better rule follower than the rest of us.
If that's not the case, then SOMETHING is impossible for "GOD".
(is this off-topic??) hehe
---
* Origin: THE EXCHANGE (214) 517-8553 Plano, TX (Opus 1:124/3220)
MESSAGE: 255
FROM: Paul Bijhouwer
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Scientific Turtlism
Date: 12 Feb 90 06:15:03
In a message of <08 Feb 90 20:55:22>, Pat Goltz (1:300/3) writes:
PG>I think that they
PG>believe that the evidence points to creation a few thousand years ago,
PG>and that you don't need to postulate any placing of false evidence or
PG>any interventions to fit this idea to the evidentiary facts.
If that is what they believe then they are seriously out of step with
the rest of the scientific world. Of course the rest of the world could
theoretically be proven wrong (since we are talking science), but I find it
highly unlikely. The only "evidence" that points to a date of creation a few
thousand years ago is the bible. I'm sorry, but I continue to reject this as
scientific evidence. All efforts to back up the bible by physical evidence
of recent creation have been debunked.
This is also a serious violation of the principles of the scientific
method. How would you feel about a project which tried to find proof that
the world was really on the back of a turtle floating around in a vast ocean
because I had read that in a book of mythology? What if I insisted that the
book was a real scientific document because it contained some things that
were true (geneologies, history, good moral advice). You would probably say
that there was no reason to investigate the question scientifically in the
absence of more compelling evidence. If I continued to insist on my thesis
and quoted earthquakes as evidence of the swimming of the giant turtle and I
claimed that tidal waves were evidence of the great winds blowing on the vast
ocean you would probably start quoting back to me studies on how earthquakes
and tidal waves are generated according to more conventional views. But if I
insisted that I was right and you were wrong, you would have no real way to
disprove my "scientific turtlism." After all we are talking science, and if
I could come up with a "Theory of Scientific Turtlism" which explained the
world better than current views then maybe I would be the one who was right.
You would probably warn me that I was wasting my time, and you'd be
right! The perponderance of scientific evidence which holds up the accepted
evolutionary/genetic view of the world is immense. The likelyhood that it is
incorrect is very slim indeed. I warn you: You are wasting your time.
Unfortunately this debate is wasting too much of _my_ time. I may
occasionally browse through this echo, but I am going to have to stop trying
to keep up with all the threads: It is cutting into my schoolwork :^) As a
result I may not get any replies you send to this message.
Adios,
Paul 1:396/10.3
--- msged 1.99S ZTC
* Origin: The Beehive (1:396/10.3)
MESSAGE: 256
FROM: Billy Reynolds
TO: Jim Speiser
Subject: Evolution
Date: 06 Feb 90 20:31:47
If I received the message right on this end; it was about evolution. I asked
for sources of "proof" for evolution. I was under the impression that the only
proof at this time was limited and inconclusive. What "proof" were you thinking
of? In fact, didn't Gould publish a book entitled "Wonderful Life" ( Harvard )
in which inadvertently ( He denies it. ) Darwin's Theory of Survival of the
Fitest is challenged.
---
* Origin: NCC-1701: "Beam me up, Scotty!!" (Opus 1:124/1701)
MESSAGE: 257
FROM: Scott Canion
TO: Marty Leipzig
Subject: Re: Evolution, continued
Date: 07 Feb 90 15:06:55
On , Marty Leipzig wrote to Warp 12:
ML>My dear "Warp 12"...
ML>1. Evolution is a fact. Organisms have progressed from the simple to
ML>the more complex over the span of geologic time. FACT. How this has
ML>happened ("mode and tempo") are the theory.
You are totally discrediting yourself by stating that evolution is a "fact".
Don't you realize you have become a member of the "evolution faith"? You, like
others who claim evolution as "fact", do not even grasp the idea of scientific
theory of "evolution".
Speaking of which, "evolution" is far from even being considered an
"accepeted" theory. No one has yet to demonstrate the existence of
"beneficial gene mutation".
I am a Christian, but do not claim Christianity as a "science". It is a
faith. I also believe that the Bible is accurate in all accounts, as obtuse as
it may sometimes be. What is your basis for your "faith" in evolution?
--- QM v1.00 & Opus 1.03c
* Origin: Scott's Excellent BBS:Austin TX *HST DS* 650mb (1:382/17.0)
MESSAGE: 258
FROM: James Hay
TO: Warp 12
Subject: Re: The Bible(proof)
Date: 14 Feb 90 15:59:00
"The theory of macro-evolution denies the existence of a diety." How so?
--- QuickBBS v2.61 [REGISTERED]
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
MESSAGE: 259
FROM: James Hay
TO: Jim Karkanias
Subject: Re: Evolution
Date: 14 Feb 90 16:22:00
The first message was from Scott Canion, in which he wrote:
"One of the most important principles in devoping (sic) a Scientific
(sic), is the ability to disprove it. That is, if a theory is stated in such a
way that there is no way to disprove it, it isn't a very good scientific
theory."
To which you responded:
"I assume that you want (sic) you meant instead of 'no way to disprove'
was no way to test. A good scientific theory is one that can't be disproven."
Which I stated was incorrect. TO be a scientific theory, the theory MUST have
some observation which would disprove it. On the other hand, to be accepted,
it must not have been disproven. Being disprovABLE and disprovEN are
different. The first only says that there is a way to disprove the theory.
The latter says that the the observations were made which DID disprove it.
FOr instance: If the big bang theory was correct, then there should be a low
temperature background radiation pervading the universe, which will be uniform
and observable no matter which way you look from the earth. If there isn't,
then something is wrong with the big bang theory and you would have to modify
or disgard it. Thus, the big bang theory is DISPROVABLE. However, when the
background radiation was looked for, it was found. Thus, the theory is not
DISPROVEN.
To quote a coworker of mine: "We are dealing with subtleties."
--- QuickBBS v2.61 [REGISTERED]
* Origin: Gandalf's - FrontDoor/QuickBBS/HST - 619-466-9505 (1:202/302.0)
MESSAGE: 260
FROM: Phil Nicholls @ 914/207
TO: Larry Mcgee
Subject: Re: Evolution
Date: 13 Feb 90 21:51:03
I must disagree here. I am what I guess you would call a professional
evolutionary biologists. I have spent many years trying to make sense
of a certain section of the fossil record. If you were to show me a
modern human skull that can be verified as Mesozoic in origin and if
such anomalies continued to appear, it would force me to accept that my
position regarding the origin of life is wrong.
This does not make a creationist position right by default, however.
Still, as scientific theories get more refined, it becomes very
difficult to dislodge them completely. Newtonian physics was not tossed
out with the advent of quantum physics. This is perhaps because as time
goes by, science come closer and closer to a true understanding of the
universe.
As scientists, however, we have to always allow room for being wrong.
--- RBBSMail 17.2B
# Origin: The Skeptic's Board - High weirdness by modem (RBBS-PC 8:914/207)
* Origin: Network Gateway to RBBS-NET (RBBS-PC 1:10/8)
MESSAGE: 261
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry @ 930/17
TO: Scott Canion
Subject: Mutation
Date: 13 Feb 90 18:50:54
> I admit to have greatly exceeded my scope of knowledge
> on this subject. I honestly did not wish to offend anyone.
> I suspect I might have offended you,
> Wesley, because of your criticism of my mis-spelling..
>
> Scott - Creationist and Christian - although far from omnipotent
Scott, you did ask for correction of _any_ inaccuracies. Why should I not be
thorough? "Spare the rod ...", you know.
Let me explain something. I have spent a lot of time coming to an appreciation
of how ignorant I am on many things and how much I have yet to learn. Along
the way, I have tried to learn forbearance -- knowing when shut up ("Remain
silent, and you will not be thought a fool.") on topics that I grasped only
shakily, and when to fold on discussions where I obviously was out of my depth.
I need a lot more practice on the forbearance to have fully developed it,
though.
What I found particularly galling about your original post was the attitude
that "I haven't heard anything about Subject X, so there must be no evidence
which supports Hypothesis Y." You knew going into this conversation that you
were, shall we say, underinformed about the specifics. Yet, rather than ask
for information to fill in the gaps in your own knowledge, you launched
full-bore into an attack on concepts you knew next to nothing about. (Instead
of, "There is no such thing as a beneficial mutation," you might have tried, "I
have never seen anything that would indicate that beneficial mutations exist,
so could anyone provide examples that would show how such might be
discovered?").
What I am asking for is that you will embark upon a program of discovery --
find out what it is that you scorn out of ignorance now, so that you can decide
on your own whether it makes sense or not. Later, you may find that you've
been sold a bill of goods about the subject. Even if you don't, though, it is
a _lot_ more satisfying to debate evolutionary mechanism theory with an
informed adversary. So far it seems that another term for "informed
creationist" is "evolutionist".
Put me down as a person who is convinced that God created the universe,
scripture is handy for helping learn "why", and science tells us "how".
--- TPBEdit v3.2
# Origin: Central Neural System, 817-551-9363, HST, TPBoard 5.2 (8:930/17)
* Origin: Network Gateway to RBBS-NET (RBBS-PC 1:10/8)
MESSAGE: 262
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry @ 930/17
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Overfitting data
Date: 14 Feb 90 21:43:17
> Finally in a message to Cheryl Shelton, you said,
> >The last major reversal in the magnetic field occurred
> about 700,000
> years ago.
>
> Please describe what constitutes a "major" reversal as
> opposed to a "minor" one, and tell me if the last "major"
> one occurred 700,000 years ago, then given the curve of
> the present rate of decay, why was the earth not molten
> from the heat energy thereof approximately 10,000 years
> ago as some creationist scientists aver?
Assuming that you are referring to Barnes' little paper on magnetic field
strength and extrapolating the age of the earth, I think I can help you.
Barnes plotted a relatively small number of dipole components of magnetic
moment measurements (n=25) taken from the year 1835 to 1965, then fitted them
to an exponential curve. Barnes states that this gives a decay half-life of
1,400 years for the earth's magnetic field, and thus a relatively young age for
the earth, since extrapolating back further than a few thousand years gives
magnetic moment strengths that are simply absurd. Barnes does not plot the
data for the reader.
The magnetic moment values were taken from a study done by McDonald and Gunst,
published in 1967. What do these researchers, who actually did the work of
locating or collecting data, say concerning the decreasing field strength
trend? "Since the time of Gauss's measurements the earth's dipole moment has
decreased, sensibly linearly, at approximately the rate of 5 percent per
hundred years."
There is a considerable difference between linear and exponential decay. Who,
then, has the right curve fit, and how does this relate to the interpretation
of the data?
I fed the data into a curve-fitting program a couple of years ago, just to find
out for myself (I don't "take it on faith" if I don't have to, Pat). If my
recall is correct, the linear fit had a goodness of fit measure around 0.77,
and the exponential curve had a measure of 0.83 or so. Obviously, the goodness
of fit is somewhat better for the exponential curve. Somewhat less obviously,
the linear fit is actually the "better" choice for modelling the data.
This conclusion involves a concept called "overfitting the data." The concept
states that when comparing alternative curve fitting equations, one should
accept the least complex function which adequately explains the most data.
Complexity of curve fit goes from constant to linear to powers of two on up to
exponential (and by extension, logarithmic). (Polynomial curves are placed
into this sequence on the basis of their order, which is the largest exponent
occurring in any term.) The constant case results in very low goodness of fit
measures, the linear case jumps to 0.77 or so, and increasing complexity of
curve fit seems to give small increments in goodness of fit measures. The
explanatory power of a curve fitting function, when comparing several, is most
usefully related to the change in goodness of fit from that of the next less
complex curve fit category. So the linear case explains more of the data
(~0.77 - ~0.20 = ~0.57) than the exponential case (~0.83 - ~0.77 [I'm feeling
generous] = ~0.06).
Since we have now determined that the linear model is the way to go, what does
this say concerning Barnes's insistence upon an exponential fit? It seems to
suggest that Barnes either does not have much savvy in curve fitting, or that
he was deliberately manipulating the data to appear to vindicate certain
religiously held beliefs. I personally lean toward the "deliberate fudge"
hypothesis of action, since various other evidences point that way. Barnes
included no plot of the data. When the data is plotted and the exponential and
linear fit curves added, it is apparent that the experimental error in
measurement far exceeds the difference in the two differing curves. Showing
this relationship, of course, would have sunk any hopes of having his paper
published in refereed journals. [Not, of course, that it was published in any
such journal.] More importantly, even the layman most cursorily acquainted
with curve fitting would have seen immediately that there was no justification
for attributing an exponential decay fit for the data. Of course, without an
exponential decay model, it becomes impossible to "extrapolate back" to absurd
magnetic moment strengths within the limited time frame the SciCre movement
wishes. Which brings me to another failing of Barnes: besides overfitting the
data, he proceeds to use the data in a way which is not supported by the
observations. Barnes _does_ extrapolate back, and in so doing extrapolates
beyond the limits of observation. SciCre'ers seem to feel that radioactive
decay dating methods are flawed because "we cannot be sure that decay rates
were constant in the past." Barnes asks us to set aside the voluminous
evidence collected elsewhere in favor of 25 observations taken under widely
varying circumstances without great precision, interpreted in a way what can be
described, at best, as "dubious", and which assume that exponential decay
properly describes the magnetic moment of the magnetic field of the Earth prior
to 1835. Barnes did not, himself, actually collect any of this data. And
Barnes handily ignores the point that his basic assumption, that the Earth's
magnetic field is characterized by a simple monotonic decay since the origin of
the Earth, is contradicted by paleostratigraphic evidence. Barnes cites an
1883 paper by Lamb to bolster that assumption, but Lamb dealt with electric
currents, not magnetic fields.
In summary, Barnes's "work" on magnetic moment due to the Earth's magnetic
field is flawed in execution and doomed by adherence to demonstrably false
assumptions.
--- TPBEdit v3.2
# Origin: Central Neural System, 817-551-9363, HST, TPBoard 5.2 (8:930/17)
* Origin: Network Gateway to RBBS-NET (RBBS-PC 1:10/8)
MESSAGE: 263
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry @ 930/17
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Overfitting data
Date: 14 Feb 90 21:43:17
> Finally in a message to Cheryl Shelton, you said,
> >The last major reversal in the magnetic field occurred
> about 700,000
> years ago.
>
> Please describe what constitutes a "major" reversal as
> opposed to a "minor" one, and tell me if the last "major"
> one occurred 700,000 years ago, then given the curve of
> the present rate of decay, why was the earth not molten
> from the heat energy thereof approximately 10,000 years
> ago as some creationist scientists aver?
Assuming that you are referring to Barnes' little paper on magnetic field
strength and extrapolating the age of the earth, I think I can help you.
Barnes plotted a relatively small number of dipole components of magnetic
moment measurements (n=25) taken from the year 1835 to 1965, then fitted them
to an exponential curve. Barnes states that this gives a decay half-life of
1,400 years for the earth's magnetic field, and thus a relatively young age for
the earth, since extrapolating back further than a few thousand years gives
magnetic moment strengths that are simply absurd. Barnes does not plot the
data for the reader.
The magnetic moment values were taken from a study done by McDonald and Gunst,
published in 1967. What do these researchers, who actually did the work of
locating or collecting data, say concerning the decreasing field strength
trend? "Since the time of Gauss's measurements the earth's dipole moment has
decreased, sensibly linearly, at approximately the rate of 5 percent per
hundred years."
There is a considerable difference between linear and exponential decay. Who,
then, has the right curve fit, and how does this relate to the interpretation
of the data?
I fed the data into a curve-fitting program a couple of years ago, just to find
out for myself (I don't "take it on faith" if I don't have to, Pat). If my
recall is correct, the linear fit had a goodness of fit measure around 0.77,
and the exponential curve had a measure of 0.83 or so. Obviously, the goodness
of fit is somewhat better for the exponential curve. Somewhat less obviously,
the linear fit is actually the "better" choice for modelling the data.
This conclusion involves a concept called "overfitting the data." The concept
states that when comparing alternative curve fitting equations, one should
accept the least complex function which adequately explains the most data.
Complexity of curve fit goes from constant to linear to powers of two on up to
exponential (and by extension, logarithmic). (Polynomial curves are placed
into this sequence on the basis of their order, which is the largest exponent
occurring in any term.) The constant case results in very low goodness of fit
measures, the linear case jumps to 0.77 or so, and increasing complexity of
curve fit seems to give small increments in goodness of fit measures. The
explanatory power of a curve fitting function, when comparing several, is most
usefully related to the change in goodness of fit from that of the next less
complex curve fit category. So the linear case explains more of the data
(~0.77 - ~0.20 = ~0.57) than the exponential case (~0.83 - ~0.77 [I'm feeling
generous] = ~0.06).
Since we have now determined that the linear model is the way to go, what does
this say concerning Barnes's insistence upon an exponential fit? It seems to
suggest that Barnes either does not have much savvy in curve fitting, or that
he was deliberately manipulating the data to appear to vindicate certain
religiously held beliefs. I personally lean toward the "deliberate fudge"
hypothesis of action, since various other evidences point that way. Barnes
included no plot of the data. When the data is plotted and the exponential and
linear fit curves added, it is apparent that the experimental error in
measurement far exceeds the difference in the two differing curves. Showing
this relationship, of course, would have sunk any hopes of having his paper
published in refereed journals. [Not, of course, that it was published in any
such journal.] More importantly, even the layman most cursorily acquainted
with curve fitting would have seen immediately that there was no justification
for attributing an exponential decay fit for the data. Of course, without an
exponential decay model, it becomes impossible to "extrapolate back" to absurd
magnetic moment strengths within the limited time frame the SciCre movement
wishes. Which brings me to another failing of Barnes: besides overfitting the
data, he proceeds to use the data in a way which is not supported by the
observations. Barnes _does_ extrapolate back, and in so doing extrapolates
beyond the limits of observation. SciCre'ers seem to feel that radioactive
decay dating methods are flawed because "we cannot be sure that decay rates
were constant in the past." Barnes asks us to set aside the voluminous
evidence collected elsewhere in favor of 25 observations taken under widely
varying circumstances without great precision, interpreted in a way what can be
described, at best, as "dubious", and which assume that exponential decay
properly describes the magnetic moment of the magnetic field of the Earth prior
to 1835. Barnes did not, himself, actually collect any of this data. And
Barnes handily ignores the point that his basic assumption, that the Earth's
magnetic field is characterized by a simple monotonic decay since the origin of
the Earth, is contradicted by paleostratigraphic evidence. Barnes cites an
1883 paper by Lamb to bolster that assumption, but Lamb dealt with electric
currents, not magnetic fields.
In summary, Barnes's "work" on magnetic moment due to the Earth's magnetic
field is flawed in execution and doomed by adherence to demonstrably false
assumptions.
--- TPBEdit v3.2
# Origin: Central Neural System, 817-551-9363, HST, TPBoard 5.2 (8:930/17)
* Origin: Network Gateway to RBBS-NET (RBBS-PC 1:10/8)
MESSAGE: 264
FROM: John Thompson
TO: Billy Reynolds
Subject: Re: Darwin
Date: 12 Feb 90 21:30:00
In a message to Charles Harden <02-09-90 19:47> Billy Reynolds wrote:
BR> Not only would they have published before Darwin, they
BR> DID. IN fact, Darwin read the initial publication at the
BR> meeting in which he introduced the Theory to his peers. He
BR> took the liberty of reading his own first.
Not quite. Darwin and Wallace's papers on natural selection were presented
together, but neither man was present to read them. Darwin though that his
claim of primacy was valid, but didn't want to steal all the thunder from
Wallace, who had sent him his paper not knowing Darwin had come up with the
same idea. Wallace was still in Malaysia at the time, so Darwin requested that
the papers be read by third parties (Huxley and Lyell, I believe) to avoid any
impression of bad intent in the matter.
--- QuickBBS 2.63+
* Origin: APPLEGATE - a Quick(er)BBS in Appleton, Wisc. (1:139/630)
MESSAGE: 265
FROM: Marty Leipzig
TO: Larry McGee
Subject: Re: Evolution
Date: 13 Feb 90 09:39:19
> enemies. It would take a lot more than discordant fossils
> to disprove evolution. Even finding currently living examples
> of 'believed-to-be' extinct animals would not disprove the
> concept.
Hello, Larry...
Discordant fossils would falsify evolution. Therefore it is falsifiable,
therefore it is scientific. Creationism is not, nor can it be made to be,
falsiable. Therefore, it is not science. Period.
And what do "Living fossils" have to do with disproving evolution?
Non sequiter...
> no matter what you discover, you could never falsify the
> concept. At a superficial level, such as what I just gave,
> it certainly appears that evolution is the same thing. No
> matter what is discovered, someone will find a way to accomodate
> it in some version of evolutionary theory.
And if that way ("to accomodate it in some version of evolutionary theory") is
valid and withstands the rigors of critical examination,
then it is accepted. This is how science progresses. Interpretation,
re-interpretation, and analysis. It is also self correcting. Inherant
in science is a series of checks and balances. It also tests itself. Can any of
this also be said of Creationism? No. For it is not science, but religion.
Religion offers unquestioned answers, science offers unanswered questions.
---
* Origin: The Debate Place BBS Houston, Texas (713)451-6066 (Opus 1:106/113)
MESSAGE: 266
FROM: Greg Hansen
TO: Scott Canion
Subject: Re: Evolution
Date: 12 Feb 90 12:14:32
Darwin did apply evolution and natural selection to humans. But at the time,
the idea was so heretical that he didn't include it in his book. I'm checking
my references for the other things you've mentioned...
---
* Origin: Nick's Nest (612) 490-1187, (612) 490-0341 HST (Opus 1:282/3)
MESSAGE: 267
FROM: Greg Hansen
TO: Scott Canion
Subject: Re: Evolution
Date: 12 Feb 90 13:13:51
Okay. Evolution started with Darwin, which he called "Descent with
Modification" until the "evolution" label was applied to it, after the theory
that was formerly called evolution was rejected.
Darwin discovered the species changing in time, and he proposed natural
selection to explain it. But Darwin had no idea what the mechanisms behind
natural selection were, because in those days nothing was known of genetics.
---
* Origin: Nick's Nest (612) 490-1187, (612) 490-0341 HST (Opus 1:282/3)
MESSAGE: 268
FROM: John Thompson
TO: Warp12
Subject: "microevolution" vs. "macroevolution"
Date: 13 Feb 90 18:06:00
A theory proposing that only microevolutionary change is possible within
certain separately created "kinds" of organisms must begin with an adequate
description of just what "kinds" of organisms were originally created and
the nature of the mechanism that prevents them from diverging into grossly
different kinds of organisms. I assume that your insistence on separate
creation and evolution for all living species is based on a preference for a
Biblically inspired divine creation, since no other group seems to think
that this type of distinction is terribly important. Any attempt to
scientifically justify such a position is fraught with difficulties which
you may not have considered.
Traditional scriptural hermeneutics would imply that species as apparently
similar as humans and apes were in fact created separately, while (for
example) the hundreds of thousands of diverse species of insects all derive
from a single created "kind". How do you account for this without resorting
to "ad hoc" explanations? Furthermore, the many hundreds of thousands of
species of Monera and Protista (single celled organisms) are not mentioned
at all in the Bible. Even if you do not agree with my suggestions of what
is meant by a "kind", you must agree that a precise definition is necessary
to place this in a scientific context.
Separate creation and the relative immutability of the originally created
"kinds" should also imply that we will find some sorts of physical
mechanisms that prevent these "kinds" from changing except within certain
definable limits. What are these limits? If you accept the popular idea
that the created "kinds" are roughly congruent with biological species, and
that species are similar organisms that are reproductively isolated from
other organisms (no fertile hybrids) your theory will have trouble
explaining many well documented cases of allopatric speciation. See for
example E. Mayr, "Animal Species and Evolution" Belknap, 1963, and F.J.
Ayala and J.W. Valentine "Evolving: The theory and Process of Organic
Evolution", Benjamin Cummings 1979. Since in these cases diverging
populations continuously grade into each other across the range of the
genus, they are easily understood to have radiated from a common ancestor,
but there is no evidence that there is any mechanism operating to prevent
these changes from continuing indefinitely, ultimately giving rise to new
species. In fact, at the extremes of the ranges of such allopatrically
diverging populations the differences between member populations are
sufficient to prevent offspring from being produced when members of each
population are brought together to breed. Are these populations separate
species? Were they created separately? If so, how do you explain the
continuous range of interbreeding populations separating them? Separate
creation would seem to require a thoroughly capricious and arbitrary
creator, in which case any scientific inquiry is entirely pointless.
If you are finding this "reproductive isolation" criterion too restrictive
and the prospect of an arbitrary and inscrutable creator philosophically
unacceptable (as do most scientists and many theologians), at this point,
you have little choice but to either abandon separate creation or adopt a
less restrictive definition of the created "kind". But what will you base
it on? If you choose anatomical, ontological, biochemical, or genetic
criteria, you will find great difficulty in justifying separate creation of
humans and apes on anything other than an "ad hoc" basis to uphold
preconceived ideas on how these species came into being. I am at a loss to
suggest an alternative that would not encounter similar difficulties.
Indeed, it is entirely possible to define the catagories of created "kinds"
so broadly as to render the concept totally meaningless.
(continued in next message)
--- QuickBBS 2.63+
* Origin: APPLEGATE - a Quick(er)BBS in Appleton, Wisc. (1:139/630)
MESSAGE: 269
FROM: John Thompson
TO: Warp12
Subject: "microevolution" vs. "macroevolution"
Date: 13 Feb 90 18:08:01
In short, a Biblically based evolutionary theory supporting "microevolution"
within separately created "kinds" of organisms finds itself between the rock
of requiring separate creation of humans and apes and the hard place of
explaining the observed processes of geographic distribution of populations,
allopatric speciation and the observed patterns of anatomical, ontological,
biochemical, and genetic similarities and differences among organisms.
Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, is fully compatible with all these
observed phenomena.
Unless and until someone comes up with definition of the nature of the
originally created "kinds", an empirically verifiable mechanism for limiting
variation to within these "kinds", AND a consistent explanation of the
anatomical, ontological, biochemical and genetic similarities and
differences found in nature, scientists are fully justified in accepting
current evolutionary theory as a more valid explanation for these observed
phenomena than your idea of evolution only occurring within certain bounds.
--- QuickBBS 2.63+
* Origin: APPLEGATE - a Quick(er)BBS in Appleton, Wisc. (1:139/630)
MESSAGE: 270
FROM: Jack Kilmon
TO: Warp 12
Subject: Re: Evolution
Date: 13 Feb 90 21:00:09
My, my....here I go again. What transitional "forms" are you looking
for? There are many fossils that represent intermediates between, lets say,
amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and birds, reptiles and mammals...even
familial intermediates leading to modern Equus. Are you asking for
intermediated between species?? If so, that's silly considering that
individuals do not evolve.....populations evolve.
---
* Origin: -=[ SoundingBoard of Houston (713)821-4148 HST ]=- (Opus 1:106/12)
MESSAGE: 271
FROM: Jack Kilmon
TO: Warp 12
Subject: Re: The Bible(proof)
Date: 13 Feb 90 21:06:29
"The theory of macro-evolution (whatever the hell that is) denies
the existence of a deity?????" Sigh......
1. What is your perception of the "theory of macro-evolution?"
2. What the hell does a construct for explaining the dynamics of
allele frequencies of living organisms have to do with ontological
musings about God?
---
* Origin: -=[ SoundingBoard of Houston (713)821-4148 HST ]=- (Opus 1:106/12)
MESSAGE: 272
FROM: Jack Kilmon
TO: Warp 12
Subject: Re: Evolution
Date: 13 Feb 90 21:13:05
Sorry...but the statement that there are biologists who are not
evolutionists is like saying there are Roman Catholic Priests....or
Popes.....or Methodist ministers who are NOT Christians. Yep, there have been
priests, popes, and ministers who were not Christians but they weren't REALLY
good priests, popes or ministers. Today, a biologist without evolution is like
a surgeon without a scalpel...out of work.
---
* Origin: -=[ SoundingBoard of Houston (713)821-4148 HST ]=- (Opus 1:106/12)
MESSAGE: 273
FROM: Jack Kilmon
TO: Netrunner
Subject: Re: Evolution Vs. Creatio
Date: 13 Feb 90 21:20:02
I would think that if anyone really believes that a 900 year old
little Babylonian feller floated around in a big wooden bathtub with the
representative genders of the entire earthly biomass atop a flood that covered
the entire earth above the highest mountains...wants to believe that it took
that feller 120 years to build the bathtub...das ok! (sigh)
---
* Origin: -=[ SoundingBoard of Houston (713)821-4148 HST ]=- (Opus 1:106/12)
MESSAGE: 274
FROM: George Emery
TO: Jonathan Rogers
Subject: Re: Noah
Date: 13 Feb 90 00:12:34
It would seem appropriate now to mention, in passing, the lizard from
the American Southwest that can reproduce parthogenitically. This is
the first of the 'higher' animals which has shown a parthogenetic ability,
something insects have already proven able to do.
Does anybody know more about this lizard species? In the back of my head
is a little voice telling me that this species doesn't even have males --
is this correct?
--- GS-Point v0.61
* Origin: George Emery, ST GS-Point off of TECHBooks (1:105/4.42)
MESSAGE: 275
FROM: Larry McGee
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: All Those Provers
Date: 14 Feb 90 06:41:54
PG> should. Granted, it works to an extent. But I keep
PG> hearing tales of massive fraud. For example, there has
The fact that you hear about the fraud shows the system works. If you never
heard of fraud being discovered, then you should worry about the system
failing.
Fraudulent claims will be uncovered in direct proportion to the importance of
the 'so-called' discovery. The more important the discovery, the more people
will attempt to use and build upon it. If it doesn't work, they will try to
figure out why. When they eliminate all reasonable explanations of failure,
they look for fraud.
An insignificant result will probably not get tested as soon and so may remain
as undetected fraud for a longer time, but then the damage is small because the
supposed result is insignificant anyway.
Self-correction works and it works in proportion to the significance of the
result.
--- Sirius 1.0v+
* Origin: The Chemist's ComPort--Pacifica CA 415-359-6036(1:125/190.0)
MESSAGE: 276
FROM: Doug Bell
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re: ICR scientists
Date: 13 Feb 90 21:53:00
You might already know this Pat, but several people on this ECHO have stated
that Duane Gish ha only debated once in front of a scientific audience. I have
to wonder what they mean by that, because I know for a fact that he has debated
many other scientists. I have audio copies of at least two debates betweeen
Gish and evolutionists. One of them was opposite Ashley Montegue.
As a footnote, Robert Gentry spoke at Stetson University and had invited the
science department to debate him last April. None showed!
--- SLMAIL v1.34M (#0268)
* Origin: Deltona Lakes BBS * Deltona, Fl * HST * (407) 574-9246 (1:363/59)
MESSAGE: 277
FROM: Xan Enazi
TO: James Hay
Subject: Re: Evolution Vs. Creatio
Date: 14 Feb 90 09:38:34
JH> Only 39 mutations needed to go from mouse to man? Can you give me a
JH> reference for this study? I'd like to see it.
Yep, I sure can. "Of URFs and ORFs : A Primer on How to Analyze Derived
Amino Acid Sequences", by R.F. Doolittle, copyright 1986. The number of
mutations is not that surprising when you consider that this is an
IDEALIZED number - the absolute minimum - it has nothing to do with
nature whatsoever. Further, the data is (probably) extrapolated from
known genetic differences.
--- QM v1.00
* Origin: Rediffusion - RBBS (213) 665-5332 (1:102/752.0)
MESSAGE: 278
FROM: Xan Enazi
TO: Warp 12
Subject: Re: Evolution
Date: 14 Feb 90 22:45:48
W1> Mutations are observable, all right. For instance, fruit flies can mu
W1> into
W1> forms that have extra heads, or legs, or wings. The point is that the
W1> bacteria
W1> are *still* bacteria, and the fruit flies are *still* fruit flies, not
W1> another
W1> species.
I think you should update your information a little! Molecular Biology
has came a long way, baby. We CAN mutate between species! I'm in the
Molecular Biology department at UCLA, by the way.
--- QM v1.00
* Origin: Rediffusion - RBBS (213) 665-5332 (1:102/752.0)
MESSAGE: 279
FROM: Phil Nicholls @ 914/207
TO: George Erdel
Subject: Re: Evolution Vs. Creatio
Date: 14 Feb 90 21:30:36
> Dear Phil:
>
> Am I to understand you to say that the earth was always a perfectly
> round core that was completely covered with water of a uniform depth,
> and that it remained that way until the plate techtonic aparqatus came
> in to play? For one to think that this is possible would take as much,
> or more FAITH than it does to believe in the great flood.
> Furthermore I ask HOW is this explanation "VERIFIED"? as you state in
> your posting? I am curious to find out how one "VERIFIES" something
> that was not witnessed by any man. Wouldn't it be more accurate to
> state that it is highly speculated, or most likely?
> Lastly I do not understand the last part of your posting. The part
> that reads,
George,
It is important to make sure you understand something before you offer
criticism of it. Plate tectonics (the existence and movements of the
crust along faults) can be observed today. Besides earthquakes, the
pressure of one plate against the other also forms mountains. This can
also be observed today. It is not a leap of faith to assume that the
same forces forming the earths surface today were active in the earth's
past as well. No more faith than that the sun will rise tomorrow.
The reference to marine animals was corrected by another poster.
I assumed that a flood would not affect animals living in the sea.
I was mistaken on this point.
Looking forward to your reply
Phil Nicholls
Department of Anthropology
San Francisco State University
--- RBBSMail 17.2B
# Origin: The Skeptic's Board - High weirdness by modem (RBBS-PC 8:914/207)
* Origin: Network Gateway to RBBS-NET (RBBS-PC 1:10/8)
MESSAGE: 280
FROM: Phil Nicholls @ 914/207
TO: Pat Goltz
Subject: Re:icr Scientists
Date: 14 Feb 90 22:05:43
Pat,
The "Creationist's Myths" article was intended to be the first in a
series of posts challanging creationist's claims. Creationism claims to
be scientific. The ICR staff claim to have scientific training. As I
said in the original article, degrees from non-accredited institutions
does not characterize all ICR staff members. Morris, for example, is a
respected hydrologists and has authored at least one textbook on the
subject. Generally, ICR staff members fall into three groups:
1. Those with scientific training in areas not related to biology,
geology, paleontology or any other area related to evolution.
2. Those who have no formal scientific training at all (this would in
clude all listed in my "Myth's" posting).
3. Those with training in biology but whose work has been in fields
that can operate independently of evolutionary theory. In other
words, it is possible to do work in the life sciences that is
descriptive and which does not invoke evolution.
You are correct that some ICR staff have published in journals. My
comments on publication concerned specifically evidence for creationism.
I had assumed that this was understood. I still maintain that the claim
of bias is a false one. It is difficult to challange the orthodoxy, but
not impossible. Any member of any scientific society can present a
paper at that societies annual meetings. If members of the ICR wanted
to present evidence for creationism at the next meeting of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, no one could stop them. If
enough of them got together, they could insist on a session devoted to
creationist data. If they have evidence, it is important that they
present it in such a forum where it can be evaluated by those with
the training to do so. Public debates are not where science is done.
IF the ICR has important information, they are acting irresponsibly by
not insisting that a session be held at AAAS meetings.
I have recently checked on this with the AAAS. No representatives of
the ICR or any other creationist organisation has attempted to hold such
a session. The reason, I suspect, is that at such a meeting, they would
be presenting information to people with enough training to pick the
ideas apart and expose the weaknesses.
Your comments on Mr. Bliss are interesting. Are you saying that he did
not obtain his degree from Saratoga, or that Saratoga is not a diploma
mill? Regardless, the ICR is hardly an objective source of information
on this point. Also, your opinion of Mr. Bliss can hardly be objective
either. Despite earlier claims to be a seeker of information from both
sides, you have, by you own admission, not availed yourself of the
reference materials supplied to you. You therefore have no formal
training or informal training in evolutionary biology or historical
geology. I do not doubt that Bliss is an excellent speaker. I have
heard many creationist speakers and as speakers, they have all been
excellent. It is the facts they present that I am critical off and
again, by your own admission, you are not in a position to evaluate
objectively the information Bliss presents.
As long as we are talking about backgrounds, I have been teaching high
school biology for the last six years and have been working toward a
graduate degree in anthropology for three of those (part time, of
course). Many of the materials, especially fossil materials, discussed
here I have seen myself. I am currently working on a thesis about early
primate evolution. I am a member of the American Anthropological
Association, the Society for the Study of Human Evolution, the American
Association of Physical Anthropologists and the American Association for
the Advancement of Science. Also, the National Center for Science
Education (the only organized anti-creationist group in the country, to
my knowledge).
Not that this means anything or by itself makes my arguements correct.
It does indicate that I have spent alot of time in evolutionary
biology.
One final word about the ICR. Members are still required, I believe, to
sign an "oath" affirming their belief in a literal reading of Genesis.
No truely scientific society would require such an oath. This oath, by
itself, puts the activities of the ICR outside of science.
Well, I hope that covers everything.
I look forward to your rely and will attempt to be less confrontational
in the future. I am prepared, at any time, to discuss the evidence for
evolution or creationism.
Phil Nicholls
Department of Anthropology
San Francisco State University
--- RBBSMail 17.2B
# Origin: The Skeptic's Board - High weirdness by modem (RBBS-PC 8:914/207)
* Origin: Network Gateway to RBBS-NET (RBBS-PC 1:10/8)
MESSAGE: 281
FROM: Phil Nicholls @ 914/207
TO: Doug Bell
Subject: Re: Creationist Myths#1
Date: 14 Feb 90 22:11:18
> Yo, Phil. Does a person have to have a degree in an area they are
> studying in order to do good scientific work?
>
Of course not. A person should, however, not make claims to
training they do not have. To do good work in science, one need only
use the scientific method. Creationists, especially ICR staff, have
signed an "oath" affirming their belief in the literal reading of
genesis. This makes it impossible for them to follow the scientific
method, since they cannot admit that they might be wrong.
Hope that clears things up.
Regards,
Phil Nicholls
Department of Anthropology
San Francisco State University
--- RBBSMail 17.2B
# Origin: The Skeptic's Board - High weirdness by modem (RBBS-PC 8:914/207)
* Origin: Network Gateway to RBBS-NET (RBBS-PC 1:10/8)
MESSAGE: 282
FROM: Chris Sonnack
TO: Cary Campbell
Subject: Re: Evolution Vs. Creatio
Date: 13 Feb 89 12:22:00
> If a 1% difference in DNA means the difference between
> intelligence and "non-intelligence", I would like to think
> that that is enough of a leap that 1% is a significant
> difference and that maybe scientists shouldn't be using
> that kind of probability...
1% can be a huge difference....would you drink wine from a barrel
that had 1% sewage?
But what's your point about "shouldn't be using that"?
-Chris
--- QuickBBS v2.04
* Origin: Beg, Borrow or Steal (BBS) (1:282/37)
MESSAGE: 283
FROM: Bob Capone
TO: Jim Karkanias
Subject: Re: Evolution Vs. Creatio
Date: 13 Feb 90 19:50:53
-> In a message of < 5 Feb 90 21:40:00>, George Erdel (1:112/5) writes:
-> GE>I can't accept that the CHANCE of all the right things just being
-> GE>here and Just happening to be in the right proportions one to
-> GE>another for the Earth to evolve to its present state.
-> GE>I would have an easier time beleiving that you could put all the
-> GE>parts of a swiss watch in a bag cose it, and shake it up allowing
-> GE>all the parts to assemble themselvs and the outcome be an accurate
well i don't believe that all life started from the big bang. as
evolution would have it as seen by the scientist. if there was a big
bang and we evolved from monkeys then why aren't monkeys turning ino men
every other day??? I mean we do make monkeys of ourselfs from time to
time but this is not the same. I guess we really won't know tll the
final judgement day.
--- RiBBS v2.0
* Origin: Garf's BBS Reading PA (215)375-8814 (1:273/103.0)
MESSAGE: 284
FROM: John Tender
TO: Phil Nicholls
Subject: Re: Evolution
Date: 14 Feb 90 17:22:16
PN> generalists. The only thing mandated by evolution is that
PN> variablity, whatever its source, is required.
PN> Mutation, by the way, is not the only source of variation.
PN> Genetic recombination, one of the main purposes of sexual
PN> reproduction, also produces variation.
What exactly is the difference between variation and mutation?
Is variation alone sufficient to account for the evolution of one
species from another species?
--- Via Silver Xpress V2.20
* Origin: NSS BSS - Ad Astra: To the Stars (412) 366-5208 1:129/104
MESSAGE: 285
FROM: John Tender
TO: Phil Nicholls
Subject: Re: Evolution
Date: 14 Feb 90 17:40:20
PN> A fact, in science, is something that is considered to have
PN> objective reality. Facts can and are challanged. Not long
PN> ago, it was considered a fact that the earth is the center of
PN> the universe. As new information is presented, facts can
PN> change.
Considering facts, which you describe as having objective reality,
to be changable seems to introduce an unnecessary "placticity" to
reality. To take an example from the current topic, can't we say that we
can call a fact that at a certain time, rocks, resemblimg seashells, of
a determined constitution, were dug up at a certain location at a
certain depth. No matter what theory you later apply to this fact, it
will remain unchanged.
That the earth was considered to be the center of the universe was
not a fact, but rather was deduced from observations (= facts) which
were interpreted incorrectly (i.e., a bad theory), the most obvious
being that we do not routinely sense any motion of the earth. Removing the
earth from the center of universe has not changed those observations,
but rather our interpretation of them.
PN> Facts describe, list or catalog, but do not explain. If I say,
PN> for example, that the earth moves around the sun, that does not
PN> explain why it does so.
Does it explain retrograde motion of some planets?
PN> Biologists regard evolution as a fact. Someone mentioned the
If I follow you message correctly:
Evolution is a fact.
Facts do not explain anything.
Therefore:
Evolution does not explain anything.
Might it be better to say that evolution is a THEORY that explains
a substantial number of FACTS?
Just out of curiosity, I would like to know the names of some
biologists who regard evolution as fact, and the names of the
institutions where they got their degrees,
PN> The "fact vs theory" arguement is empty. There is no scale of
PN> truth from fact to theory.
Complicated perhaps, but not empty. Certainly facts are more real
than theories. Or facts are reality and theories are ideas. Or any way
you want to express it.
--- Via Silver Xpress V2.20
* Origin: NSS BSS - Ad Astra: To the Stars (412) 366-5208 1:129/104
MESSAGE: 286
FROM: Larry Mayo
TO: Vincent Mazzarella
Subject: Get off this echo!
Date: 15 Feb 90 22:45:05
I guess I have to agree. I am a Christian but damn, this Creation stuff
a) Doesnt wash scientifically
b) Isn't very good fodder for cognitive type, because of a)
c) Really doesn't apply to this echo.
While you will see the occasional quasi-humorous message (like the previous
one) from me, most of my messages will be in the correct vein.
---
* Origin: I Found Quayle's Brain -- Whoops, Dropped It (1:260/228)
MESSAGE: 287
FROM: David Edwards
TO: Rick Ellis
Subject: my messages
Date: 14 Feb 90 11:49:20
In a message of <11 Feb 90 18:20:11>, Rick Ellis (1:103/302) writes:
>There are many examples in science of someone daring to introduce
>unorthodox thoughts. Some of these are now the accepted views.
>
One example is Peter Mitchell who was awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry in
1978 for his work with the "chemiosmosis hypothesis." _Biology: The Science of
Life_ (ISBN 0-673-15591-9) described Dr. Mitchell's fifteen year struggle like
this:
Scientists may often be hostile to heretical new ideas. Perhaps it is just as
well; otherwise science would be innundated by half-baked notions. But
scientists are generally receptive to well-done research, and the chemiosmosis
hypothesis has gradually won acceptance.
--- msged 1.99L MSC
* Origin: Cabin in the Corner (1:370/16.5)
MESSAGE: 288
FROM: Xan Enazi
TO: George Emery
Subject: Re: Noah
Date: 17 Feb 90 11:12:52
'Lizard' is not a species. The order is Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order,
Family, Genus, and Species. 'Lizard' isn't a word used in any of these
catagories to the best of my knowledge, but rather a layman's term for
reptile. Without some more precise information about what species you
actually mean I don't know anyone who could guess. If you ACTUALLY
meant 'lizards' (i.e. reptiles) - then you are dead wrong - every
species that I know of has males and females. Their sex organs are not
visible to the untrained eye, but they have no difficulty finding them!
--- QM v1.00
* Origin: Rediffusion - RBBS (213) 665-5332 (1:102/752.0)
