TO: Jonathan Rogers Subject: RE: EVOLUTION VS. CREATIO Date: 15 Jan 90 23:50:55 We have pr
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.
B |