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

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

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

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank