Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

ONLY TWO!

Expand Messages
  • Laurie Appleton
    LA Dr. Henry M. Morris -- noted Creation scientist, points out the following; ... If evolution is true, then there must be some innovational and integrative
    Message 1 of 27 , Nov 10, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      LA> Dr. Henry M. Morris -- noted Creation scientist, points out the following;
      -------------------------------

      If evolution is true, then there must be
      some innovational and integrative principle
      operating in the natural world which
      develops order out of randomness and
      higher order from lower order. Since, by
      uniformitarianism, this principle is still in
      effect, scientists should be able to observe
      and quantify it.

      The creation model, on the other hand,
      suggests that there should be a conservational
      and disintegrative principle operating in nature.

      Since the total quantity
      of matter and energy, as well as the perfect
      degree of order, were created super-
      naturally in the beginning, we could not expect
      to see naturalistic processes of innovation
      and integration, as required by evolution,
      working today.

      From the creation model, in fact, one
      would quickly predict two universal natural
      laws: (1) a law of conservation, tending to
      preserve the basic categories created in
      the beginning (laws of nature, matter,
      energy, basic kinds of organisms, etc.), in
      order to enable them to accomplish the purpose
      for which they were created; (2) a law
      of decay, tending to reduce the available
      matter, energy, kinds, etc., as the perfect
      order of the created cosmos runs down to
      disorder. As far as changes are concerned,
      one would expect from the creation model
      that there would be "horizontal" changes
      within limits (that is, energy conversions,
      variation within biologic kinds, etc.), and even
      "vertically downward" changes in accordance with the
      law of decay (for example, mutations,
      wear, extinction, etc.), but never any net
      "vertically upward" changes, as required
      by evolution.

      These two contrary sets of predictions
      from the two models should be testable in
      terms of structures and processes in the
      real world.
      It is noteworthy, then, that no
      one has ever observed any phenomenon
      requiring a universal principle of innovation
      or integration to explain it. Localized
      temporary phenomena of apparent increasing
      order (e.g., a growing organism)
      are only superficial, developing within
      broader systems of decreasing order which
      always "win out" in the end.

      On the other hand, universal laws of conservation
      and decay have been observed. In fact, these principles
      are called the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.

      (The Scientific Case for Creation, Henry M. Morris, Ph.D, 1984, p.11-12)
      ====================

      LA> In the light of the above it is hardly surprising that various evolutionists have admitted at various times and in various ways that the Creation scientists regularly "routed" their evolutionary opponents in that decade of all those hundreds of open, public, scientific debates!


      Laurie.

      "No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen."
      (Niles Eldredge, famous evolutionist, 1995)

      . .



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • VictorM
      ... Unfortunately Morris did not read his Bible carefully. God commanded the ground and the animals to change and the verb is passive in Hebrew. In other words
      Message 2 of 27 , Nov 10, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Laurie Appleton" <lappleto@...> wrote:
        >
        > LA> Dr. Henry M. Morris -- noted Creation scientist, points out the following;
        > -------------------------------
        >
        > If evolution is true, then there must be
        > some innovational and integrative principle
        > operating in the natural world which
        > develops order out of randomness and
        > higher order from lower order. Since, by
        > uniformitarianism, this principle is still in
        > effect, scientists should be able to observe
        > and quantify it.
        >
        > The creation model, on the other hand,
        > suggests that there should be a conservational
        > and disintegrative principle operating in nature.
        >
        > Since the total quantity
        > of matter and energy, as well as the perfect
        > degree of order, were created super-
        > naturally in the beginning, we could not expect
        > to see naturalistic processes of innovation
        > and integration, as required by evolution,
        > working today.
        >

        Unfortunately Morris did not read his Bible carefully. God commanded the ground and the animals to change and the verb is passive in Hebrew. In other words change is absolutely natural in matter, in animals and in plants. The changes in matter are the easiest to prove since we can see the past. Every atomic clock in hundreds of billions of galaxies clocks a different frequency than modern atoms. What we see is relational changes, where everything changes in an orderly manner, together, just like the verbs the Apostle Paul used to describe how the universe is enslaved to change.

        1. Natural processes are at work both in matter, in animals and in plants. These processes degenerate the original state of things.

        2. God personally acts in nature to preserve His creation. For example, lions used to eat plants. Today lions are carnivores. God said He did it - Job 38. Yet lions are still lions - they did not arise from whales. Reproduction remains within kinds.

        3. Much of the rhetoric creationists use against evolution is miss directed. Change is everywhere and the Bible not only allows for change but it explains the change. The most powerful evidence for a literal, rather than a scientific interpretation of creation, is how galaxies grew from tiny globs of formless matter to great, spread out growth spirals as the properties of matter kept on changing. What we see is the very thing the Creator says He does in unbroken continuity.

        How totally complete will be the triumph of the words of God over science, the system that was founded on the idea the Bible predicted for the last days - the notion that all things remain the same.

        Victor


        > From the creation model, in fact, one
        > would quickly predict two universal natural
        > laws: (1) a law of conservation, tending to
        > preserve the basic categories created in
        > the beginning (laws of nature, matter,
        > energy, basic kinds of organisms, etc.), in
        > order to enable them to accomplish the purpose
        > for which they were created; (2) a law
        > of decay, tending to reduce the available
        > matter, energy, kinds, etc., as the perfect
        > order of the created cosmos runs down to
        > disorder. As far as changes are concerned,
        > one would expect from the creation model
        > that there would be "horizontal" changes
        > within limits (that is, energy conversions,
        > variation within biologic kinds, etc.), and even
        > "vertically downward" changes in accordance with the
        > law of decay (for example, mutations,
        > wear, extinction, etc.), but never any net
        > "vertically upward" changes, as required
        > by evolution.
        >
        > These two contrary sets of predictions
        > from the two models should be testable in
        > terms of structures and processes in the
        > real world.
        > It is noteworthy, then, that no
        > one has ever observed any phenomenon
        > requiring a universal principle of innovation
        > or integration to explain it. Localized
        > temporary phenomena of apparent increasing
        > order (e.g., a growing organism)
        > are only superficial, developing within
        > broader systems of decreasing order which
        > always "win out" in the end.
        >
        > On the other hand, universal laws of conservation
        > and decay have been observed. In fact, these principles
        > are called the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.
        >
        > (The Scientific Case for Creation, Henry M. Morris, Ph.D, 1984, p.11-12)
        > ====================
        >
        > LA> In the light of the above it is hardly surprising that various evolutionists have admitted at various times and in various ways that the Creation scientists regularly "routed" their evolutionary opponents in that decade of all those hundreds of open, public, scientific debates!
        >
        >
        > Laurie.
        >
        > "No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen."
        > (Niles Eldredge, famous evolutionist, 1995)
        >
        > . .
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      • D R Lindberg
        ... following; ... p.11-12) ... evolutionists have admitted at various times and in various ways that the Creation scientists regularly routed their
        Message 3 of 27 , Nov 10, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Laurie Appleton" <lappleto@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > LA> Dr. Henry M. Morris -- noted Creation scientist, points out the
          following;
          > -------------------------------
          >
          > If evolution is true, then there must be
          > some innovational and integrative principle
          > operating in the natural world which
          > develops order out of randomness and
          > higher order from lower order. Since, by
          > uniformitarianism, this principle is still in
          > effect, scientists should be able to observe
          > and quantify it.
          >
          > The creation model, on the other hand,
          > suggests that there should be a conservational
          > and disintegrative principle operating in nature.
          >
          > Since the total quantity
          > of matter and energy, as well as the perfect
          > degree of order, were created super-
          > naturally in the beginning, we could not expect
          > to see naturalistic processes of innovation
          > and integration, as required by evolution,
          > working today.
          >
          > From the creation model, in fact, one
          > would quickly predict two universal natural
          > laws: (1) a law of conservation, tending to
          > preserve the basic categories created in
          > the beginning (laws of nature, matter,
          > energy, basic kinds of organisms, etc.), in
          > order to enable them to accomplish the purpose
          > for which they were created; (2) a law
          > of decay, tending to reduce the available
          > matter, energy, kinds, etc., as the perfect
          > order of the created cosmos runs down to
          > disorder. As far as changes are concerned,
          > one would expect from the creation model
          > that there would be "horizontal" changes
          > within limits (that is, energy conversions,
          > variation within biologic kinds, etc.), and even
          > "vertically downward" changes in accordance with the
          > law of decay (for example, mutations,
          > wear, extinction, etc.), but never any net
          > "vertically upward" changes, as required
          > by evolution.
          >
          > These two contrary sets of predictions
          > from the two models should be testable in
          > terms of structures and processes in the
          > real world.
          > It is noteworthy, then, that no
          > one has ever observed any phenomenon
          > requiring a universal principle of innovation
          > or integration to explain it. Localized
          > temporary phenomena of apparent increasing
          > order (e.g., a growing organism)
          > are only superficial, developing within
          > broader systems of decreasing order which
          > always "win out" in the end.
          >
          > On the other hand, universal laws of conservation
          > and decay have been observed. In fact, these principles
          > are called the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.
          >
          > (The Scientific Case for Creation, Henry M. Morris, Ph.D, 1984,
          p.11-12)
          > ====================
          >
          > LA> In the light of the above it is hardly surprising that various
          evolutionists have admitted at various times and in various ways that
          the Creation scientists regularly "routed" their evolutionary opponents
          in that decade of all those hundreds of open, public, scientific
          debates!
          >
          >

          A phenomenon going back to Socrates. Fast-talking sophists can always
          appear to the ignorant to know more than people who actually study the
          subject.

          Next time you're sick, try a doctor whose treatment is based on biblical
          methods like casting out evil spirits and making burnt offerings.

          Try and see if a mechanic can fix your car by prayer and the laying on
          of hands.

          Next time your computer is on the blink, find a tecnician who will
          repair it by sacrificing a goat or two.

          Then come back and tell us how it all worked out.

          Cheers!






          "An evolution vs creationism debate before the scientifically naïve
          is comparable to a debate on the merits of eating candy between a
          nutritionist and a candy maker before an audience of children." ~ Leon
          Albert, Prof. of Anthropology (Ret.)


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • stewart8724
          LA Dr. Henry M. Morris -- noted Creation scientist, points out the following; ... If evolution is true, then there must be some innovational and integrative
          Message 4 of 27 , Nov 11, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            LA> Dr. Henry M. Morris -- noted Creation scientist, points out the following;
            -------------------------------

            If evolution is true, then there must be some innovational and integrative principle operating in the natural world which develops order out of randomness and higher order from lower order.

            Stewart: Why must there be? Order is as we perceive it or as we classify it. Who is to determine the height or lowliness of those orders? Life is as it is and in an environment without a creator (or even with one), one form of life is as significant as any other.

            Since, by uniformitarianism, this principle is still in effect, scientists should be able to observe
            and quantify it.

            Stewart: Dr. Henry M. Morris makes the mistake of assuming that there are higher orders (more important forms) of living things. He then moves from this false premiss to ponder that the evidence of how they are maintained should be measurable. How do we measure a process such as natural selection?


            The creation model, on the other hand, suggests that there should be a conservational and disintegrative principle operating in nature.

            Stewart: How can something conserve and disintegrate at the same time?


            Since the total quantity of matter and energy, as well as the perfect degree of order, were created super-naturally in the beginning, we could not expect to see naturalistic processes of innovation
            and integration, as required by evolution, working today.

            Stewart: Again by beginning with an assumption for which there is no evidence, the author moves directly to a conclusion based on that fallacious assumption. If we remove the first sentence from the (above) text, the remainder becomes a nonsensical statement which is easily disputed by science.


            From the creation model, in fact, one would quickly predict two universal natural
            laws: (1) a law of conservation, tending to preserve the basic categories created in
            the beginning (laws of nature, matter, energy, basic kinds of organisms, etc.), in order to enable them to accomplish the purpose for which they were created;

            Stewart: We don't see evidence of the preservation of any life forms nor have we identified the "purpose" Morris speaks of. In fact all the evidence shows that living species are fluid in the forms they take. In order to survive they must evolve and adapt to changes in their environment. If this is the mechanism by which "a law of conservation" operates, then what does it matter if we call it evolution.

            (2) a law of decay, tending to reduce the available matter, energy, kinds, etc., as the perfect order of the created cosmos runs down to disorder. As far as changes are concerned, one would expect from the creation model that there would be "horizontal" changes within limits (that is, energy conversions, variation within biologic kinds, etc.), and even "vertically downward" changes in accordance with the law of decay (for example, mutations, wear, extinction, etc.), but never any net "vertically upward" changes, as required by evolution.

            Stewart: Up, down, sideways, here again he talks about unobserved changes based on a religiously biased notion that nature regards humans as a favoured 'creation'. Again the evidence doesn't match the predictions his theory makes.


            These two contrary sets of predictions from the two models should be testable in terms of structures and processes in the real world. It is noteworthy, then, that no one has ever observed any phenomenon requiring a universal principle of innovation or integration to explain it. Localized temporary phenomena of apparent increasing order (e.g., a growing organism) are only superficial, developing within broader systems of decreasing order which always "win out" in the end.

            On the other hand, universal laws of conservation and decay have been observed. In fact, these principles are called the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.

            (The Scientific Case for Creation, Henry M. Morris, Ph.D, 1984, p.11-12)


            Stewart: The laws of thermodynamics apply to physics, they do not apply to life. If they did, life would have begun in perfect form and become less ordered as it progressed. Evidence shows that life has not become less ordered, and that in fact it has become more diverse. An increase in diversity is not indicative of a decrease in order because the order didn't exist in the first place.
            Life progresses in a random process and the order of things is determined by the biological changes being subjected to natural selection. When the selection criteria of today becomes redundant it doesn't mean life becomes disordered, it just becomes different.

            ..

            --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Laurie Appleton" <lappleto@...> wrote:
            >
            > LA> Dr. Henry M. Morris -- noted Creation scientist, points out the following;
            > -------------------------------
            >
            > If evolution is true, then there must be
            > some innovational and integrative principle
            > operating in the natural world which
            > develops order out of randomness and
            > higher order from lower order. Since, by
            > uniformitarianism, this principle is still in
            > effect, scientists should be able to observe
            > and quantify it.
            >
            > The creation model, on the other hand,
            > suggests that there should be a conservational
            > and disintegrative principle operating in nature.
            >
            > Since the total quantity
            > of matter and energy, as well as the perfect
            > degree of order, were created super-
            > naturally in the beginning, we could not expect
            > to see naturalistic processes of innovation
            > and integration, as required by evolution,
            > working today.
            >
            > From the creation model, in fact, one
            > would quickly predict two universal natural
            > laws: (1) a law of conservation, tending to
            > preserve the basic categories created in
            > the beginning (laws of nature, matter,
            > energy, basic kinds of organisms, etc.), in
            > order to enable them to accomplish the purpose
            > for which they were created; (2) a law
            > of decay, tending to reduce the available
            > matter, energy, kinds, etc., as the perfect
            > order of the created cosmos runs down to
            > disorder. As far as changes are concerned,
            > one would expect from the creation model
            > that there would be "horizontal" changes
            > within limits (that is, energy conversions,
            > variation within biologic kinds, etc.), and even
            > "vertically downward" changes in accordance with the
            > law of decay (for example, mutations,
            > wear, extinction, etc.), but never any net
            > "vertically upward" changes, as required
            > by evolution.
            >
            > These two contrary sets of predictions
            > from the two models should be testable in
            > terms of structures and processes in the
            > real world.
            > It is noteworthy, then, that no
            > one has ever observed any phenomenon
            > requiring a universal principle of innovation
            > or integration to explain it. Localized
            > temporary phenomena of apparent increasing
            > order (e.g., a growing organism)
            > are only superficial, developing within
            > broader systems of decreasing order which
            > always "win out" in the end.
            >
            > On the other hand, universal laws of conservation
            > and decay have been observed. In fact, these principles
            > are called the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.
            >
            > (The Scientific Case for Creation, Henry M. Morris, Ph.D, 1984, p.11-12)
            > ====================
            >
            > LA> In the light of the above it is hardly surprising that various evolutionists have admitted at various times and in various ways that the Creation scientists regularly "routed" their evolutionary opponents in that decade of all those hundreds of open, public, scientific debates!
            >
            >
            > Laurie.
            >
            > "No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen."
            > (Niles Eldredge, famous evolutionist, 1995)
            >
            > . .
            >
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
          • gluadys
            ... There is. Darwin named this principle natural selection . ... We do.
            Message 5 of 27 , Nov 11, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Laurie Appleton" <lappleto@...> wrote:
              >
              > LA> Dr. Henry M. Morris -- noted Creation scientist, points out the following;
              > -------------------------------
              >
              > If evolution is true, then there must be
              > some innovational and integrative principle
              > operating in the natural world which
              > develops order out of randomness and
              > higher order from lower order.
              >
              >

              There is. Darwin named this principle "natural selection".





              > Since, by
              > uniformitarianism, this principle is still in
              > effect, scientists should be able to observe
              > and quantify it.
              >

              We do.
            • Laurie Appleton
              ... From: D R Lindberg To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 2:28 PM Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: ONLY TWO! Cheers! An evolution vs
              Message 6 of 27 , Nov 11, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: D R Lindberg
                To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 2:28 PM
                Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: ONLY TWO!




                Cheers!

                "An evolution vs creationism debate before the scientifically naïve
                is comparable to a debate on the merits of eating candy between a
                nutritionist and a candy maker before an audience of children." ~ Leon
                Albert, Prof. of Anthropology (Ret.)


                LA> Prof. Leon Albert (Ret.) would be quite right in that statement IF the winning and/or losing of all those debates was based on the votes of such an audience. The facts are, of course, that there is no record of any votes being taken at those debates to establish winners or losers.



                Laurie.

                "No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen."
                (Niles Eldredge, eminenrt evolutionist, 1995).



                ..



                No virus found in this message.
                Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                Version: 2013.0.2793 / Virus Database: 2624/5887 - Release Date: 11/10/12


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Laurie Appleton
                ... From: VictorM To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 1:09 PM Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: ONLY TWO! ... Victor: Unfortunately
                Message 7 of 27 , Nov 11, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: VictorM
                  To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 1:09 PM
                  Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: ONLY TWO!



                  --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Laurie Appleton" <lappleto@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > LA> Dr. Henry M. Morris -- noted Creation scientist, points out the following;
                  > -------------------------------
                  >
                  > If evolution is true, then there must be
                  > some innovational and integrative principle
                  > operating in the natural world which
                  > develops order out of randomness and
                  > higher order from lower order. Since, by
                  > uniformitarianism, this principle is still in
                  > effect, scientists should be able to observe
                  > and quantify it.
                  >
                  > The creation model, on the other hand,
                  > suggests that there should be a conservational
                  > and disintegrative principle operating in nature.
                  >
                  > Since the total quantity
                  > of matter and energy, as well as the perfect
                  > degree of order, were created super-
                  > naturally in the beginning, we could not expect
                  > to see naturalistic processes of innovation
                  > and integration, as required by evolution,
                  > working today.
                  >

                  Victor: Unfortunately Morris did not read his Bible carefully. God commanded the ground and the animals to change and the verb is passive in Hebrew. In other words change is absolutely natural in matter, in animals and in plants. The changes in matter are the easiest to prove since we can see the past. Every atomic clock in hundreds of billions of galaxies clocks a different frequency than modern atoms. What we see is relational changes, where everything changes in an orderly manner, together, just like the verbs the Apostle Paul used to describe how the universe is enslaved to change.


                  LA> Are you claiming then that "monkeys changed into people"?



                  Victor: How totally complete will be the triumph of the words of God over science, the system that was founded on the idea the Bible predicted for the last days - the notion that all things remain the same.


                  LA> Are you referring to "Evolutionary science" then? Such "scientists" claim that all living things "change" UPWARDS from simple to more and more complex forms, don't they? If that is the "science" that you predict will be refuted then you would be correct of course.


                  Laurie.

                  "No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen."
                  (Niles Eldredge, 1995)

                  ..





                  No virus found in this message.
                  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                  Version: 2013.0.2793 / Virus Database: 2624/5887 - Release Date: 11/10/12


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Laurie Appleton
                  ... From: gluadys To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 12:48 AM Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: ONLY TWO! ... GLU: There is. Darwin
                  Message 8 of 27 , Nov 11, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: gluadys
                    To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 12:48 AM
                    Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: ONLY TWO!





                    --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Laurie Appleton" <lappleto@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > LA> Dr. Henry M. Morris -- noted Creation scientist, points out the following;
                    > -------------------------------
                    >
                    > If evolution is true, then there must be
                    > some innovational and integrative principle
                    > operating in the natural world which
                    > develops order out of randomness and
                    > higher order from lower order.
                    >
                    >

                    GLU: There is. Darwin named this principle "natural selection".


                    LA> On the contrary. Creation scientists always accepted natural selection. However "selection" can ONLY select AFTER something has already evolved upwards and improved and this is the very thing that does NOT happen!


                    > Since, by
                    > uniformitarianism, this principle is still in
                    > effect, scientists should be able to observe
                    > and quantify it.
                    >

                    GLU: We do.



                    LA> That is NOT correct at all, since all research has shown that all mutations are either neutral or harmful.


                    Laurie.

                    "From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed. (Chandra Wickramasinghe, noted astronomer and ex-atheist Buddhist, 1981)

                    ..




                    No virus found in this message.
                    Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                    Version: 2013.0.2793 / Virus Database: 2624/5887 - Release Date: 11/10/12


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Laurie Appleton
                    ... From: stewart8724 To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 12:38 AM Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: ONLY TWO! LA Dr. Henry M. Morris --
                    Message 9 of 27 , Nov 11, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: stewart8724
                      To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 12:38 AM
                      Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: ONLY TWO!



                      LA> Dr. Henry M. Morris -- noted Creation scientist, points out the following;
                      -------------------------------

                      If evolution is true, then there must be some innovational and integrative principle operating in the natural world which develops order out of randomness and higher order from lower order.

                      Stewart: Why must there be? Order is as we perceive it or as we classify it. Who is to determine the height or lowliness of those orders? Life is as it is and in an environment without a creator (or even with one), one form of life is as significant as any other.


                      LA> Isn't that the very thing that Darwinian evolutionists have determined? Didn't you know that the basic concept of evolutionism is one of "simple to more and more complex forms"? Doesn't evolutionism consistently place people at the "top" of the tree of life?


                      Laurie.

                      "From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed
                      to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate
                      creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed.
                      (Chandra Wickramasinghe, noted astronomer and ex-atheist Buddhist, 1981)

                      ..



                      No virus found in this message.
                      Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                      Version: 2013.0.2793 / Virus Database: 2624/5887 - Release Date: 11/10/12


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • D R Lindberg
                      ... naïve ... Leon ... IF the winning and/or losing of all those debates was based on the votes of such an audience. The facts are, of course, that there
                      Message 10 of 27 , Nov 11, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Laurie Appleton" <lappleto@...>
                        wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        > ----- Original Message -----
                        > From: D R Lindberg
                        > To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                        > Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 2:28 PM
                        > Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: ONLY TWO!
                        >
                        > Cheers!
                        >
                        > "An evolution vs creationism debate before the scientifically
                        naïve
                        > is comparable to a debate on the merits of eating candy between a
                        > nutritionist and a candy maker before an audience of children." ~
                        Leon
                        > Albert, Prof. of Anthropology (Ret.)
                        >
                        >
                        > LA> Prof. Leon Albert (Ret.) would be quite right in that statement
                        IF the winning and/or losing of all those debates was based on the votes
                        of such an audience. The facts are, of course, that there is no
                        record of any votes being taken at those debates to establish winners or
                        losers.
                        >

                        Well then, please tell us just how the "winners" of all those debates
                        you are incessantly praising WERE determined.

                        Where are there any records at all of those debates and who were the
                        winners? You have been asked for that info before many times.

                        Cheers!





                        "I know that there are people who do not love their fellow man, and I
                        hate people like that!" -- Tom Lehrer


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • D R Lindberg
                        ... the following; ... selection. However selection can ONLY select AFTER something has already evolved upwards and improved and this is the very thing that
                        Message 11 of 27 , Nov 11, 2012
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Laurie Appleton" <lappleto@...>
                          wrote:
                          >
                          >
                          > ----- Original Message -----
                          > From: gluadys
                          > To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                          > Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 12:48 AM
                          > Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: ONLY TWO!
                          >
                          > --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Laurie Appleton" lappleto@
                          wrote:
                          > >
                          > > LA> Dr. Henry M. Morris -- noted Creation scientist, points out
                          the following;
                          > > -------------------------------
                          > >
                          > > If evolution is true, then there must be
                          > > some innovational and integrative principle
                          > > operating in the natural world which
                          > > develops order out of randomness and
                          > > higher order from lower order.
                          > >
                          > >
                          >
                          > GLU: There is. Darwin named this principle "natural selection".
                          >
                          >
                          > LA> On the contrary. Creation scientists always accepted natural
                          selection. However "selection" can ONLY select AFTER something has
                          already evolved upwards and improved and this is the very thing that
                          does NOT happen!
                          >
                          >
                          > > Since, by
                          > > uniformitarianism, this principle is still in
                          > > effect, scientists should be able to observe
                          > > and quantify it.
                          > >
                          >
                          > GLU: We do.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > LA> That is NOT correct at all, since all research has shown that
                          all mutations are either neutral or harmful.
                          >
                          Can you drink milk? If you can, that is thanks to a mutation that arose
                          in humans only a few thousand years ago. Most adult mammals cannot.

                          How is that mutation "neutral or harmful"?

                          Cheers!





                          "Most modern calendars mar the sweet simplicity of our lives by
                          reminding us that each day that passes is the anniversary of some
                          perfectly uninteresting event." -- Oscar Wilde


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • David
                          ... David Williams: Evolution happens whether or not you believe. In real science, The Theory Of Evolution won out against creationism in the 19th Century.
                          Message 12 of 27 , Nov 11, 2012
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Laurie Appleton" <lappleto@...> wrote:
                            >
                            >
                            > ----- Original Message -----
                            > From: gluadys
                            > To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                            > Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 12:48 AM
                            > Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: ONLY TWO!
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Laurie Appleton" <lappleto@> wrote:
                            > >
                            > > LA> Dr. Henry M. Morris -- noted Creation scientist, points out the following;
                            > > -------------------------------
                            > >
                            > > If evolution is true, then there must be
                            > > some innovational and integrative principle
                            > > operating in the natural world which
                            > > develops order out of randomness and
                            > > higher order from lower order.
                            > >
                            > >
                            >
                            > GLU: There is. Darwin named this principle "natural selection".
                            >
                            >
                            > LA> On the contrary. Creation scientists always accepted natural selection. However "selection" can ONLY select AFTER something has already evolved upwards and improved and this is the very thing that does NOT happen!
                            >

                            David Williams: Evolution happens whether or not you believe. In real science, The Theory Of Evolution won out against creationism in the 19th Century. All the creationist claptrap that you endlessly quote will never change that.


                            > > Since, by
                            > > uniformitarianism, this principle is still in
                            > > effect, scientists should be able to observe
                            > > and quantify it.
                            > >
                            >
                            > GLU: We do.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > LA> That is NOT correct at all, since all research has shown that all mutations are either neutral or harmful.
                            >
                            >

                            David Williams: This is nonsense. Some adults carry a mutated gene that allows them to drink milk.

                            http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/070401_lactose

                            Got lactase?

                            From above article:



                            In the US and many other countries, we've certainly "got milk," but not everyone can enjoy it. For around 10% of Americans, 10% of Africa's Tutsi tribe, 50% of Spanish and French people, and 99% of Chinese, a tall cold glass of milk means an upset stomach and other unpleasant digestive side effects. In fact, most adults in the world are lactose intolerant and cannot digest lactose, the primary sugar in milk. And yet, regardless of our ancestry, most of us began our lives happily drinking milk from a bottle or breast — so what happened in the intervening time? Why do so many babies enjoy lactose and so many adults avoid it? Lactose is broken down by a protein called lactase, which acts as a pair of molecular scissors, snipping the lactose molecule in two. Anyone who drank milk as a baby carries a working version of the gene that codes for lactase. In lactose tolerant individuals, that gene keeps working into adulthood, producing the protein that digests lactose and makes eating ice cream a pleasant experience. But in people who are lactose intolerant, that lactase gene is switched off after weaning. Now, new research reveals that the Stone Age ancestors of European dairy-lovers probably couldn't digest milk either. So how did they get from bellyaches to milk mustaches? The answer is an evolutionary story that takes us from the milkmaids of the Alps to the Maasai herdsmen of Africa.


                            print print
                            Resource library : Evo in the news :

                            Got lactase?
                            April 2007

                            In the US and many other countries, we've certainly "got milk," but not everyone can enjoy it. For around 10% of Americans, 10% of Africa's Tutsi tribe, 50% of Spanish and French people, and 99% of Chinese, a tall cold glass of milk means an upset stomach and other unpleasant digestive side effects. In fact, most adults in the world are lactose intolerant and cannot digest lactose, the primary sugar in milk. And yet, regardless of our ancestry, most of us began our lives happily drinking milk from a bottle or breast — so what happened in the intervening time? Why do so many babies enjoy lactose and so many adults avoid it? Lactose is broken down by a protein called lactase, which acts as a pair of molecular scissors, snipping the lactose molecule in two. Anyone who drank milk as a baby carries a working version of the gene that codes for lactase. In lactose tolerant individuals, that gene keeps working into adulthood, producing the protein that digests lactose and makes eating ice cream a pleasant experience. But in people who are lactose intolerant, that lactase gene is switched off after weaning. Now, new research reveals that the Stone Age ancestors of European dairy-lovers probably couldn't digest milk either. So how did they get from bellyaches to milk mustaches? The answer is an evolutionary story that takes us from the milkmaids of the Alps to the Maasai herdsmen of Africa.

                            people and cattle people and cattle
                            Prevalance of lactose tolerance and reliance on dairy products vary throughout the world.
                            Where's the evolution?
                            Mutations that keep the lactase gene permanently switched on are common among modern Europeans — but not among their ancestors. In March 2007, a team of German and British researchers announced that they went looking for that mutation in the 7000-year-old fossils of ancient Europeans and came up empty-handed. The researchers managed to extract the length of DNA corresponding to the lactose tolerance mutation from eight Neolithic human fossils and one Mesolithic fossil, but those DNA sequences did not carry the telltale mutation. The results suggest that as late as 5000 BC most ancient Europeans could not have digested milk as adults — and that they only later evolved into milk-drinking societies.

                            Today, the ability to digest milk as an adult seems like a clear benefit, but that wasn't always the case. Lactose tolerance is only advantageous in environments and cultures where humans have access to domesticated dairy animals. Multiple lines of evidence from human genetics, cattle genetics, and archaeological records suggest that Middle Eastern and North Africans populations domesticated cattle between 7500 and 9000 years ago, and that these animals were later brought into Europe. In that cow-friendly environment, being able to drink milk directly (instead of having to process it into lower-lactose cheese) would have been advantageous, providing additional sustenance and, during droughts, a source of water. The lactose tolerance mutation arose randomly (as all mutations do), but once it arose, it had a distinct advantage in these populations. Natural selection would have favored individuals carrying the lactose tolerance mutation, spreading it through ancient European populations that depended on dairying. Many thousands of years later, we see the indirect (but delicious) effects of this mutation's success in European cuisines: oozing French cheeses, Swiss milk chocolate, and creamy Italian gelatos.
                          • David
                            ... David Williams: http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/creation-evolution-debates-whos-winning-them-now Creation-Evolution Debates: Who s Winning Them Now? From above
                            Message 13 of 27 , Nov 11, 2012
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "D R Lindberg" <dr.lindberg@...> wrote:
                              >
                              >
                              > --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Laurie Appleton" <lappleto@>
                              > wrote:
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > ----- Original Message -----
                              > > From: D R Lindberg
                              > > To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                              > > Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 2:28 PM
                              > > Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: ONLY TWO!
                              > >
                              > > Cheers!
                              > >
                              > > "An evolution vs creationism debate before the scientifically
                              > naïve
                              > > is comparable to a debate on the merits of eating candy between a
                              > > nutritionist and a candy maker before an audience of children." ~
                              > Leon
                              > > Albert, Prof. of Anthropology (Ret.)
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > LA> Prof. Leon Albert (Ret.) would be quite right in that statement
                              > IF the winning and/or losing of all those debates was based on the votes
                              > of such an audience. The facts are, of course, that there is no
                              > record of any votes being taken at those debates to establish winners or
                              > losers.
                              > >
                              >
                              > Well then, please tell us just how the "winners" of all those debates
                              > you are incessantly praising WERE determined.
                              >
                              > Where are there any records at all of those debates and who were the
                              > winners? You have been asked for that info before many times.
                              >
                              > Cheers!
                              >
                              >

                              David Williams:

                              http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/creation-evolution-debates-whos-winning-them-now

                              Creation-Evolution Debates: Who's Winning Them Now?

                              From above article:

                              The Purdue Debate

                              Since the last quarter of 1981, those arguing for evolution have scored a number of significant victories over creationists in debate. It appears no longer necessary to say, "Creationists usually win their debates." That situation has changed, and the evolution side is now coming out on top.

                              One thing that has helped reverse the trend is the willingness of more debaters to devote time and study to understanding creationism. For example, Dr. Craig Nelson, who debated creationist Dr. Henry Morris at Purdue University on October 29, 1981, had extensively studied literature from the Institute for Creation Research. He had also had his biology students at the University of Indiana critique Dr. Morris's book, The Scientific Case for Creationism. This allowed him to challenge Dr. Morris on his flood geology arguments during the debate and to show how the earth couldn't possibly be a mere ten thousand years old. Dr. Morris, however claimed in rebuttal that discussion of the flood was bringing religion into the debate and that the age of the earth was not germane to the creation-evolution issue. This common creationist tactic of avoiding a firm defense of the weakest parts of the creation model didn't stop Dr. Nelson from coming back with more arguments against creationism. Dr. Nelson also presented evidence for evolution, particularly in reference to DNA and protein chemistry similarities between related animals. He also gave examples of transitional forms. An audience of over two thousand witnessed this debate.

                              The Guelph Debate

                              Another debate script that is available is of my debate with Dr. Gish at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, on February 2, 1982. In this debate, I began by pointing out the disagreements among creationists on whether creation is or is not science. I then spelled out the "strictly scientific" creation model, as it appeared in the Arkansas law. Using the Arkansas creation model as an outline, I then presented evidence against each part of it. As part of my attack on this model, I spelled out the evidence for evolution, particularly as it relates to descent with modification, beneficial mutations, natural selection, and transitional forms. I also argued that the creationist acceptance of "horizontal" or "micro" evolution, which allows for "variations within created kinds," actually puts creationists uncomfortably (for them) closer to the evolutionary camp. I concluded by showing that creationists cannot agree on what to do with Homo erectus because it is so transitional between ape and human.

                              Dr. Gish had very little to say against these arguments. He ignored most of them and attempted to answer the others by quoting "leading scientists" who appeared to say the opposite. This strategy by Gish didn't appear to move those in the audience, however, since they seemed to want evidence rather than quotations.

                              The proof that this debate was indeed a "win" for evolution was evidenced in the newspaper accounts that followed the event. The Guelph Daily Mercury stated it mildly: "Both scholars exchanged broadsides during the debate, and, although Gish was seen to be limping out of the hall, there were no casualties." But the Ontarion, the university student newspaper, was more bold. In an article headlined "Edwards Goes Ape on Gish," the paper declared:

                              As the arguments unfolded ... it became apparent that Edwords was presenting evidence in support of his case, while systematically attacking creationist principles, and [that] Gish's presentation was almost exclusively based on problems with the evolution model. It was anti-evolutionist, not pro-creationist. Much of Gish's "evidence" was badly out of date, and some of it consisted of work that was in disrepute from the time of its publication.

                              - page 37 -

                              Edwards was able to counter the bulk of the creationist argument convincingly and with ease, and, in the absence of any comprehensive pro-creationist argument from Gish, the humanist looked to have got the better of the exchange.

                              David Williams: These debates happened in the 1980s. Creationists never win scientific debates. They can't win court cases either. Creationism is a flop as a serious challenge to real science, as it has since the 19th Century.

                              >
                              > "I know that there are people who do not love their fellow man, and I
                              > hate people like that!" -- Tom Lehrer
                              >
                              >
                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              >
                            • stewart8724
                              If evolution is true, then there must be some innovational and integrative principle operating in the natural world which develops order out of randomness and
                              Message 14 of 27 , Nov 11, 2012
                              • 0 Attachment
                                If evolution is true, then there must be some innovational and integrative principle operating in the natural world which develops order out of randomness and higher order from lower order.

                                Stewart: Why must there be? Order is as we perceive it or as we classify it. Who is to determine the height or lowliness of those orders? Life is as it is and in an environment without a creator (or even with one), one form of life is as significant as any other.

                                LA> Isn't that the very thing that Darwinian evolutionists have determined? Didn't you know that the basic concept of evolutionism is one of "simple to more and more complex forms"? Doesn't evolutionism consistently place people at the "top" of the tree of life?

                                Laurie.


                                Stewart: No it doesn't. Evolution would place humans as the most recent of hominids but we are no higher on the tree of life than dung beetles, sparrows, giraffes or daffodils. Everything that exists today is at the top of its respective branch on the tree of life.
                                There are also very simple life forms which have been around since millions of years before mammals appeared, so evolution doesn't require that creatures become more complex. If complexity was a measure of the progress of life, humans would have a greater number of genomes than bananas, but they don't.
                                I think you would do well to learn the basic concept of evolution before you lecture others on it.


                                GLU: There is. Darwin named this principle "natural selection".

                                LA> On the contrary. Creation scientists always accepted natural selection. However "selection" can ONLY select AFTER something has already evolved upwards and improved and this is the very thing that does NOT happen!

                                Stewart: What mechanism is it that causes "something to evolve upwards and improve"? Since you confirm that creationists accept natural selection, how does natural selection begin if the precursor "(evolving upwards)" "does NOT happen" ?
                                As you would have it, creationists accept something they reject the possibility of. Now do you understand why real scientists don't pay any attention to what they think?


                                ..

                                --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Laurie Appleton" <lappleto@...> wrote:
                                >
                                >
                                > ----- Original Message -----
                                > From: stewart8724
                                > To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                                > Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 12:38 AM
                                > Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: ONLY TWO!
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > LA> Dr. Henry M. Morris -- noted Creation scientist, points out the following;
                                > -------------------------------
                                >
                                > If evolution is true, then there must be some innovational and integrative principle operating in the natural world which develops order out of randomness and higher order from lower order.
                                >
                                > Stewart: Why must there be? Order is as we perceive it or as we classify it. Who is to determine the height or lowliness of those orders? Life is as it is and in an environment without a creator (or even with one), one form of life is as significant as any other.
                                >
                                >
                                > LA> Isn't that the very thing that Darwinian evolutionists have determined? Didn't you know that the basic concept of evolutionism is one of "simple to more and more complex forms"? Doesn't evolutionism consistently place people at the "top" of the tree of life?
                                >
                                >
                                > Laurie.
                                >
                                > "From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed
                                > to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate
                                > creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed.
                                > (Chandra Wickramasinghe, noted astronomer and ex-atheist Buddhist, 1981)
                                >
                                > ..
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > No virus found in this message.
                                > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                                > Version: 2013.0.2793 / Virus Database: 2624/5887 - Release Date: 11/10/12
                                >
                                >
                                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                >
                              • gluadys
                                ... Balderdash. Like you, most evolution deniers can t even describe natural selection properly. Furthermore, nothing can evolve in any direction except when
                                Message 15 of 27 , Nov 11, 2012
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Laurie Appleton" <lappleto@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > ----- Original Message -----
                                  > From: gluadys
                                  > To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                                  > Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 12:48 AM
                                  > Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: ONLY TWO!
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Laurie Appleton" <lappleto@> wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > > LA> Dr. Henry M. Morris -- noted Creation scientist, points out the following;
                                  > > -------------------------------
                                  > >
                                  > > If evolution is true, then there must be
                                  > > some innovational and integrative principle
                                  > > operating in the natural world which
                                  > > develops order out of randomness and
                                  > > higher order from lower order.
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > GLU: There is. Darwin named this principle "natural selection".
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > LA> On the contrary. Creation scientists always accepted natural selection. However "selection" can ONLY select AFTER something has already evolved upwards and improved and this is the very thing that does NOT happen!
                                  >
                                  >

                                  Balderdash. Like you, most evolution deniers can't even describe natural selection properly. Furthermore, nothing can evolve in any direction except when natural selection sets the direction--and that direction is always to maintain or improve fitness in the current circumstances.



                                  > > Since, by
                                  > > uniformitarianism, this principle is still in
                                  > > effect, scientists should be able to observe
                                  > > and quantify it.
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > GLU: We do.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > LA> That is NOT correct at all, since all research has shown that all mutations are either neutral or harmful.
                                  >
                                  >


                                  Natural selection is independent of mutations. It is natural selection that makes sure only a few individuals are harmed by deleterious mutations while preserving the fitness of the bulk of the population. So harmful mutations don't have much effect on evolution. Natural selection sees to that.

                                  And most mutations are not harmful anyway. There is evidence that natural selection also works to maintain genetic diversity in a species as well, so that there is always an array of options to select from according to what is best in a variety of circumstances encountered. It appears that having a supply of neutral variations in a species contributes to its overall fitness.

                                  Since "harmful", "neutral" & "beneficial" applied to mutations is always relative to local circumstance, these evaluations change as circumstances change. IOW, it is natural selection which evaluates mutations and which may evaluate the same mutations differently in differing circumstances.
                                • Laurie Appleton
                                  ... From: gluadys To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 2:43 PM Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: ONLY TWO! ... Balderdash. Like you, most
                                  Message 16 of 27 , Nov 12, 2012
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    ----- Original Message -----
                                    From: gluadys
                                    To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                                    Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 2:43 PM
                                    Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: ONLY TWO!





                                    --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Laurie Appleton" <lappleto@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > ----- Original Message -----
                                    > From: gluadys
                                    > To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                                    > Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 12:48 AM
                                    > Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: ONLY TWO!
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Laurie Appleton" <lappleto@> wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > > LA> Dr. Henry M. Morris -- noted Creation scientist, points out the following;
                                    > > -------------------------------
                                    > >
                                    > > If evolution is true, then there must be
                                    > > some innovational and integrative principle
                                    > > operating in the natural world which
                                    > > develops order out of randomness and
                                    > > higher order from lower order.
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    > GLU: There is. Darwin named this principle "natural selection".
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > LA> On the contrary. Creation scientists always accepted natural selection. However "selection" can ONLY select AFTER something has already evolved upwards and improved and this is the very thing that does NOT happen!
                                    >
                                    >

                                    Balderdash. Like you, most evolution deniers can't even describe natural selection properly. Furthermore, nothing can evolve in any direction except when natural selection sets the direction--and that direction is always to maintain or improve fitness in the current circumstances.

                                    > > Since, by
                                    > > uniformitarianism, this principle is still in
                                    > > effect, scientists should be able to observe
                                    > > and quantify it.
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    > GLU: We do.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > LA> That is NOT correct at all, since all research has shown that all mutations are either neutral or harmful.
                                    >
                                    >

                                    Natural selection is independent of mutations. It is natural selection that makes sure only a few individuals are harmed by deleterious mutations while preserving the fitness of the bulk of the population. So harmful mutations don't have much effect on evolution. Natural selection sees to that.

                                    And most mutations are not harmful anyway. There is evidence that natural selection also works to maintain genetic diversity in a species as well, so that there is always an array of options to select from according to what is best in a variety of circumstances encountered. It appears that having a supply of neutral variations in a species contributes to its overall fitness.

                                    Since "harmful", "neutral" & "beneficial" applied to mutations is always relative to local circumstance, these evaluations change as circumstances change. IOW, it is natural selection which evaluates mutations and which may evaluate the same mutations differently in differing circumstances.



                                    LA> Your comments are a clear example of the conclusion of the noted scientist who wrote the Introduction to the 1956 publication of Darwin's "On the Origin of Species". He stated the following;

                                    --------------------------------------

                                    "To establish the continuity required by theory,
                                    historical arguments are invoked, even though
                                    historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered
                                    those fragile towers of hypotheses based on hypotheses,
                                    where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable
                                    confusion."

                                    (New Challenging "Introduction" to the Origin of Species
                                    Everyman Library No. 811 (1956), Prof. W.R. Thompson, FRS. p. 5)

                                    ==========================



                                    Laurie.

                                    "No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen."
                                    (Niles Eldredge, eminent evolutionist, 1995)

                                    ..






                                    No virus found in this message.
                                    Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                                    Version: 2013.0.2793 / Virus Database: 2629/5890 - Release Date: 11/12/12


                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • Laurie Appleton
                                    ... From: David To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 10:50 AM Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: ONLY TWO! ... David Williams: Evolution
                                    Message 17 of 27 , Nov 12, 2012
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      ----- Original Message -----
                                      From: David
                                      To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                                      Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 10:50 AM
                                      Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: ONLY TWO!





                                      > --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Laurie Appleton" <lappleto@> wrote:
                                      > >
                                      > > LA> Dr. Henry M. Morris -- noted Creation scientist, points out the following;
                                      > > -------------------------------
                                      > >
                                      > > If evolution is true, then there must be
                                      > > some innovational and integrative principle
                                      > > operating in the natural world which
                                      > > develops order out of randomness and
                                      > > higher order from lower order.
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > GLU: There is. Darwin named this principle "natural selection".
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > LA> On the contrary. Creation scientists always accepted natural selection. However "selection" can ONLY select AFTER something has already evolved upwards and improved and this is the very thing that does NOT happen!
                                      >

                                      David Williams: Evolution happens whether or not you believe.



                                      LA> Strange comment because a leading evolutionist, Prof. Niles Eldredge has stated in his 1995 book entitled; "Reinventing Darwin", quite clearly that; "No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never happen." (p.95)



                                      Laurie.

                                      "From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed
                                      to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate
                                      creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed.
                                      (Chandra Wickramasinghe, noted astronomer and ex-atheist Buddhist, 1981)

                                      ..





                                      No virus found in this message.
                                      Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                                      Version: 2013.0.2793 / Virus Database: 2624/5887 - Release Date: 11/10/12


                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • David
                                      ... David Williams: It seems it never happens does not mean it never happens.
                                      Message 18 of 27 , Nov 12, 2012
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Laurie Appleton" <lappleto@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > ----- Original Message -----
                                        > From: David
                                        > To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                                        > Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 10:50 AM
                                        > Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: ONLY TWO!
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > > --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Laurie Appleton" <lappleto@> wrote:
                                        > > >
                                        > > > LA> Dr. Henry M. Morris -- noted Creation scientist, points out the following;
                                        > > > -------------------------------
                                        > > >
                                        > > > If evolution is true, then there must be
                                        > > > some innovational and integrative principle
                                        > > > operating in the natural world which
                                        > > > develops order out of randomness and
                                        > > > higher order from lower order.
                                        > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > >
                                        > > GLU: There is. Darwin named this principle "natural selection".
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > > LA> On the contrary. Creation scientists always accepted natural selection. However "selection" can ONLY select AFTER something has already evolved upwards and improved and this is the very thing that does NOT happen!
                                        > >
                                        >
                                        > David Williams: Evolution happens whether or not you believe.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > LA> Strange comment because a leading evolutionist, Prof. Niles Eldredge has stated in his 1995 book entitled; "Reinventing Darwin", quite clearly that; "No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never happen." (p.95)
                                        >


                                        David Williams: It seems it never happens does not mean it never happens.

                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Laurie.
                                        >
                                        > "From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed
                                        > to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate
                                        > creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed.
                                        > (Chandra Wickramasinghe, noted astronomer and ex-atheist Buddhist, 1981)
                                        >
                                        > ..
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > No virus found in this message.
                                        > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                                        > Version: 2013.0.2793 / Virus Database: 2624/5887 - Release Date: 11/10/12
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        >
                                      • Charles Palm
                                        David Williams: Evolution happens whether or not you believe. Evolution: http://creationwiki.org/Evolution The word evolution basically means gradual
                                        Message 19 of 27 , Nov 12, 2012
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          David Williams: Evolution happens whether or not you believe.

                                          Evolution: http://creationwiki.org/Evolution The word evolution basically
                                          means "gradual change". In the broadest sense the word is all-pervasive;
                                          stars, galaxies, languages, attitudes, maturity and political systems all
                                          evolve through time. Beyond this broad definition, the word evolution is
                                          used in a number of different ways, leading to a great deal of confusion.

                                          Laurie Appleton: Strange comment because a leading evolutionist, Prof.
                                          Niles Eldredge has stated in his 1995 book entitled; "Reinventing Darwin",
                                          quite clearly that; "No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution
                                          for so long. It seems never happen." (p.95).

                                          Charles P: James A Shapiro has concluded that living things are designed
                                          to evolve. The disagreement that Eldredge mentions seems to be between
                                          geneticists and paleontologists. Paleontologists do not seem to believe
                                          that evolution was "gradual change" as described by some geneticists. If I
                                          am wrong, please provide some empirical and verifiable evidence so that I
                                          may correct any misunderstandings.

                                          Reinventing Darwin:
                                          http://www.amazon.com/Reinventing-Darwin-Debate-Evolutionary-Theory/dp/0471303011
                                          On the one side are the geneticists. They contend that evolution
                                          proceeds
                                          slowly but surely, driven by competition among organisms to transmit their
                                          genes from generation to generation. On the other are the paleontologists,
                                          like Eldredge and Gould, who show in the fossil record that in fact
                                          evolution proceeds only sporadically. Long periods of no
                                          change—equilibria—are "punctuated" by episodes of rapid evolutionary
                                          activity. According to the paleontologists, this pattern shows that
                                          evolution is driven far more by environmental forces than by genetic
                                          competition.

                                          James A Shapiro: References #1151, #1152-#1154: An evolutionary process
                                          that follows these principles [of natural genetic engineering] will
                                          naturally display the kind of episodic and abrupt changes found in both the
                                          fossil and genomic records. Indeed, the punctuated equilibrium pattern of
                                          Gould and Eldridge should be the default situation, because the stimulating
                                          role of ecological challenges is unpredictable.

                                          James A Shapiro: References #34, #35, #36-39: Living cells do not operate
                                          blindly. They continually acquire information about the external
                                          environment and monitor their internal operations. Then they use this
                                          information to guide the processes essential to survival, growth, and
                                          reproduction. Cells constantly adjust their metabolism to available
                                          nutrients, control their progress through the cell cycle to make sure that
                                          all progeny are complete at the time of division, repair damage as it
                                          occurs, and interact appropriately with other cells. In a multicellular
                                          context, they even undergo programmed cell death when suicide is beneficial
                                          to the entire population or to the multicellular organism as a whole.
                                          Without an elaborate sensory apparatus to pick up signals about chemicals
                                          in the environment (nutrients, poisons, signals emitted by other cells) or
                                          to keep track of intracellular events (DNA replication, organelle growth,
                                          oxidative damage), a cell’s opportunity to proliferate or contribute to
                                          whole-organism development would be severely restricted.

                                          James A Shapiro: References #40, #41, #42, #43: Life requires cognition
                                          at all levels. Molecular biology has successfully documented many
                                          examples of cellular information acquisition, transmission, and
                                          processing, some of which will be described here in Part I. But we
                                          should remember that there is not yet any deep theoretical understanding
                                          of the basic principles of cell informatics. Developing that understanding
                                          is a major biological research goal of the present century. The best we can
                                          do right now is to recognize that cells utilize many kinds of molecular
                                          interactions to process information and execute appropriate decisions.


                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • gluadys
                                          ... There is confusion only if one imports non-biological meanings into biology. Scientists know precisely what they mean by biological evolution and they
                                          Message 20 of 27 , Nov 13, 2012
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...> wrote:
                                            >
                                            > David Williams: Evolution happens whether or not you believe.
                                            >
                                            > Evolution: http://creationwiki.org/Evolution The word evolution basically
                                            > means "gradual change". In the broadest sense the word is all-pervasive;
                                            > stars, galaxies, languages, attitudes, maturity and political systems all
                                            > evolve through time. Beyond this broad definition, the word evolution is
                                            > used in a number of different ways, leading to a great deal of confusion.
                                            >


                                            There is confusion only if one imports non-biological meanings into biology. Scientists know precisely what they mean by biological evolution and they know a great deal about the mechanisms of biological evolution.





                                            > Charles P: The disagreement that Eldredge mentions seems to be between
                                            > geneticists and paleontologists. Paleontologists do not seem to believe
                                            > that evolution was "gradual change" as described by some geneticists. If I
                                            > am wrong, please provide some empirical and verifiable evidence so that I
                                            > may correct any misunderstandings.
                                            >

                                            You are wrong, for paleontologists do agree that evolution is gradual change, just as the geneticists do. You will find evidence of that agreement when you read more than quote-mined snippets from Eldredge and his colleague, Gould.

                                            The main difference is that geneticists measure change in the frequency of alleles, which includes a lot of change that may not show up morphologically. Genetic change does occur at rates too rapid to be preserved geologically. Paleontologists, for the most part, have no access to the alleles of their specimens, and have to rely on visible morphological change, much of which is never preserved in the fossil record either.

                                            The primary contribution of Gould and Eldredge to evolutionary theory was to show 1)that speciation is usually cladistic i.e. a branching off of one population from another rather than a whole species slowly changing over time, and 2)speciation occurs mostly in small isolated populations on the fringe of a species range.

                                            What the fossil record often shows is the replacement of one species by another through immigration--giving it a jumpy "punctuated" appearance.

                                            Gould also made the point that Darwin did not distinguish between two meanings of "gradual": 1) at a slow pace, and 2)in small incremental steps. He assumed the small, incremental steps would be taken slowly. Gould agrees with the second meaning--evolution requires small incremental steps, but disagrees that the rate must always be slow. On this geneticists agree with him. There is abundant evidence now that genetic change can happen quickly.

                                            What holds back rapid species change is not genetics, but natural selection. This is another point made and illustrated by Sean Carroll in The Making of the Fittest.
                                          • stewart8724
                                            GLU: Natural selection is independent of mutations. LA Your comments are a clear example of the conclusion of the noted scientist who wrote the Introduction
                                            Message 21 of 27 , Nov 13, 2012
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              GLU:
                                              Natural selection is independent of mutations.

                                              LA> Your comments are a clear example of the conclusion of the noted scientist who wrote the Introduction to the 1956 publication of Darwin's "On the Origin of Species". He stated the following;

                                              "To establish the continuity required by theory,
                                              historical arguments are invoked, even though
                                              historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered
                                              those fragile towers of hypotheses based on hypotheses,
                                              where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable
                                              confusion."


                                              David Williams: Evolution happens whether or not you believe.

                                              LA> Strange comment because a leading evolutionist, Prof. Niles Eldredge has stated in his 1995 book entitled; "Reinventing Darwin", quite clearly that; "No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never happen." (p.95)

                                              Laurie.

                                              Stewart: As a not very famous ex-atheist, converted to an ex-Christian who became a former creationist turned one time evolutionist wrote:-
                                              "You don't know anything do you Laurie, I mean you haven't discovered anything at all? You have no thoughts to call your own and no ambition to find a way of forming any. Some people leave the world a better place than when they entered it, others leave it scarred and wounded by their existence. You will leave it as tough you were never here, and opportunity squandered is the worst sin of all".


                                              ..

                                              --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Laurie Appleton" <lappleto@...> wrote:
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > ----- Original Message -----
                                              > From: David
                                              > To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                                              > Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 10:50 AM
                                              > Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: ONLY TWO!
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > > --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Laurie Appleton" <lappleto@> wrote:
                                              > > >
                                              > > > LA> Dr. Henry M. Morris -- noted Creation scientist, points out the following;
                                              > > > -------------------------------
                                              > > >
                                              > > > If evolution is true, then there must be
                                              > > > some innovational and integrative principle
                                              > > > operating in the natural world which
                                              > > > develops order out of randomness and
                                              > > > higher order from lower order.
                                              > > >
                                              > > >
                                              > >
                                              > > GLU: There is. Darwin named this principle "natural selection".
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > > LA> On the contrary. Creation scientists always accepted natural selection. However "selection" can ONLY select AFTER something has already evolved upwards and improved and this is the very thing that does NOT happen!
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > David Williams: Evolution happens whether or not you believe.
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > LA> Strange comment because a leading evolutionist, Prof. Niles Eldredge has stated in his 1995 book entitled; "Reinventing Darwin", quite clearly that; "No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never happen." (p.95)
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > Laurie.
                                              >
                                              > "From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed
                                              > to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate
                                              > creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed.
                                              > (Chandra Wickramasinghe, noted astronomer and ex-atheist Buddhist, 1981)
                                              >
                                              > ..
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > No virus found in this message.
                                              > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                                              > Version: 2013.0.2793 / Virus Database: 2624/5887 - Release Date: 11/10/12
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              >
                                            • Laurie Appleton
                                              ... From: David To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 10:49 AM Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: ONLY TWO! ... David Williams: It seems it
                                              Message 22 of 27 , Nov 13, 2012
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                ----- Original Message -----
                                                From: David
                                                To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                                                Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 10:49 AM
                                                Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: ONLY TWO!





                                                > > > LA> Dr. Henry M. Morris -- noted Creation scientist, points out the following;
                                                > > > -------------------------------
                                                > > >
                                                > > > If evolution is true, then there must be
                                                > > > some innovational and integrative principle
                                                > > > operating in the natural world which
                                                > > > develops order out of randomness and
                                                > > > higher order from lower order.
                                                > > >
                                                > > >
                                                > >
                                                > > GLU: There is. Darwin named this principle "natural selection".
                                                > >
                                                > >
                                                > > LA> On the contrary. Creation scientists always accepted natural selection. However "selection" can ONLY select AFTER something has already evolved upwards and improved and this is the very thing that does NOT happen!
                                                > >
                                                >
                                                > David Williams: Evolution happens whether or not you believe.
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > LA> Strange comment because a leading evolutionist, Prof. Niles Eldredge has stated in his 1995 book entitled; "Reinventing Darwin", quite clearly that; "No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never happen." (p.95)
                                                >

                                                David Williams: It seems it never happens does not mean it never happens.


                                                LA> Nor does it mean that it does happen and therefore evolutionism is "barely a postulate". Little wonder then, as the respected scientist who was asked to write the introduction to the 1956 publication of Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" wrote in his concluding remarks;

                                                ------------------------------

                                                "To establish the continuity required by theory,
                                                historical arguments are invoked, even though
                                                historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered
                                                those fragile towers of hypotheses based on hypotheses,
                                                where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable
                                                confusion."

                                                (New Challenging "Introduction" to the Origin of Species
                                                Everyman Library No. 811 (1956), Prof. W.R. Thompson, FRS. p. 5)

                                                =================================


                                                Laurie.

                                                Evidence from the fossil record now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school; (Newsweek, November, 1980)

                                                ..


                                                No virus found in this message.
                                                Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                                                Version: 2013.0.2793 / Virus Database: 2629/5890 - Release Date: 11/12/12


                                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              • VictorM
                                                ... Many creationist fight a war against evolution. They can t win their war because the Bible plainly mentions changes in matter, changes in animals and
                                                Message 23 of 27 , Nov 13, 2012
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...> wrote:
                                                  >
                                                  > David Williams: Evolution happens whether or not you believe.
                                                  >
                                                  > Evolution: http://creationwiki.org/Evolution The word evolution basically
                                                  > means "gradual change". In the broadest sense the word is all-pervasive;
                                                  > stars, galaxies, languages, attitudes, maturity and political systems all
                                                  > evolve through time. Beyond this broad definition, the word evolution is
                                                  > used in a number of different ways, leading to a great deal of confusion.
                                                  >

                                                  Many creationist fight a war against evolution. They can't win their war because the Bible plainly mentions changes in matter, changes in animals and changes in plants. The changes occurred in the first week as well as subsequently.

                                                  Elohim continued to command ground to produce living planets that reproduced and grew into trees that bore fruit - all on half a day.
                                                  He continued to command waters to team with reproducing life. He continued to command the ground to produce living creature. He continued to command stars to continued to form, from the formless stuff created on the first day. He continued to form the Sun, Moon and stars and continued to place them in the spreading place. Notice that nature itself is commanded to act, so that inanimate things produced life at Gods continuing commands. We confirm the Biblical account with our telescopes. Billions of galaxies that were originally naked and whose atoms shone at tiny fractions of the frequencies of modern atoms, shot out streams of dense globs that later spread out into stars. Billions of galaxies intrinsically grew into huge growth spirals. This is the most powerful evidence for creation and for intrinsic changes in matter.

                                                  Later God cursed the animals and the ground so that it would produce thorns and thistles. Notice He did not make the thorns and thistles - the ground did. Animals and plants have continued to change, but they do not change into different kinds.

                                                  God Himself claims to change animals for their survival - feeding the lions who originally were vegetarians.

                                                  In other words some aspects of evolution are Biblical, because GOd commanded ground and animals and plants to change passively, that is naturally. The evolution of matter is one of the most powerful confirmation of creation. We can see hundreds of billions of galaxies at many ranges back through the vast eons to the beginning of the universe. Not a single one of them clocks the frequencies of modern atoms. We observe how the orbits accelerate along with the accelerating atomic clocks as galaxies intrinsically grew into huge growth spirals. NOt only did the galaxies grow, but the Earth has grown from a tiny body without major seas - the continents only fit together on a tiny globe. Even when we sent calibrated clocks out of the solar system, their signals transmitted hours ago kept on accelerating, compared to the NASA's clocks of the moment.

                                                  How utterly devastating will be the triumph of the literal words of God over science, the system that was founded on the very idea the Bible predicted for the false teachers of the last days - the notion that all things remain the same.

                                                  Victor
                                                • David
                                                  ... David Williams: If you can drink milk, then you are descended from people who had a mutation that kept the gene for lactase activated in adulthood. That is
                                                  Message 24 of 27 , Nov 13, 2012
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Laurie Appleton" <lappleto@...> wrote:
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > ----- Original Message -----
                                                    > From: David
                                                    > To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                                                    > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 10:49 AM
                                                    > Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: ONLY TWO!
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > > > > LA> Dr. Henry M. Morris -- noted Creation scientist, points out the following;
                                                    > > > > -------------------------------
                                                    > > > >
                                                    > > > > If evolution is true, then there must be
                                                    > > > > some innovational and integrative principle
                                                    > > > > operating in the natural world which
                                                    > > > > develops order out of randomness and
                                                    > > > > higher order from lower order.
                                                    > > > >
                                                    > > > >
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > > GLU: There is. Darwin named this principle "natural selection".
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > > LA> On the contrary. Creation scientists always accepted natural selection. However "selection" can ONLY select AFTER something has already evolved upwards and improved and this is the very thing that does NOT happen!
                                                    > > >
                                                    > >
                                                    > > David Williams: Evolution happens whether or not you believe.
                                                    > >
                                                    > >
                                                    > >
                                                    > > LA> Strange comment because a leading evolutionist, Prof. Niles Eldredge has stated in his 1995 book entitled; "Reinventing Darwin", quite clearly that; "No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never happen." (p.95)
                                                    > >
                                                    >
                                                    > David Williams: It seems it never happens does not mean it never happens.
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > LA> Nor does it mean that it does happen and therefore evolutionism is "barely a postulate". Little wonder then, as the respected scientist who was asked to write the introduction to the 1956 publication of Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" wrote in his concluding remarks;
                                                    >

                                                    David Williams: If you can drink milk, then you are descended from people who had a mutation that kept the gene for lactase activated in adulthood. That is one example of evolution. Many of the world's adults feel ill if they try to drink milk. All of your so called evidence against evolution is pathetic.


                                                    -----------------------------
                                                    >
                                                    > "To establish the continuity required by theory,
                                                    > historical arguments are invoked, even though
                                                    > historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered
                                                    > those fragile towers of hypotheses based on hypotheses,
                                                    > where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable
                                                    > confusion."
                                                    >
                                                    > (New Challenging "Introduction" to the Origin of Species
                                                    > Everyman Library No. 811 (1956), Prof. W.R. Thompson, FRS. p. 5)
                                                    >
                                                    > =================================
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > Laurie.
                                                    >
                                                    > Evidence from the fossil record now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school; (Newsweek, November, 1980)
                                                    >
                                                    > ..
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > No virus found in this message.
                                                    > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                                                    > Version: 2013.0.2793 / Virus Database: 2629/5890 - Release Date: 11/12/12
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                    >
                                                  • Laurie Appleton
                                                    ... From: David To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 12:59 PM Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: ONLY TWO! ... David Williams: If you can
                                                    Message 25 of 27 , Nov 14, 2012
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      ----- Original Message -----
                                                      From: David
                                                      To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                                                      Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 12:59 PM
                                                      Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: ONLY TWO!





                                                      > > > > LA> Dr. Henry M. Morris -- noted Creation scientist, points out the following;
                                                      > > > > -------------------------------
                                                      > > > >
                                                      > > > > If evolution is true, then there must be
                                                      > > > > some innovational and integrative principle
                                                      > > > > operating in the natural world which
                                                      > > > > develops order out of randomness and
                                                      > > > > higher order from lower order.
                                                      > > > >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      > > >
                                                      > > > GLU: There is. Darwin named this principle "natural selection".
                                                      > > >
                                                      > > >
                                                      > > > LA> On the contrary. Creation scientists always accepted natural selection. However "selection" can ONLY select AFTER something has already evolved upwards and improved and this is the very thing that does NOT happen!
                                                      > > >
                                                      > >
                                                      > > David Williams: Evolution happens whether or not you believe.
                                                      > >
                                                      > >
                                                      > >
                                                      > > LA> Strange comment because a leading evolutionist, Prof. Niles Eldredge has stated in his 1995 book entitled; "Reinventing Darwin", quite clearly that; "No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never happen." (p.95)
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > David Williams: It seems it never happens does not mean it never happens.
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > LA> Nor does it mean that it does happen and therefore evolutionism is "barely a postulate". Little wonder then, as the respected scientist who was asked to write the introduction to the 1956 publication of Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" wrote in his concluding remarks;
                                                      >

                                                      David Williams: If you can drink milk, then you are descended from people who had a mutation that kept the gene for lactase activated in adulthood. That is one example of evolution. Many of the world's adults feel ill if they try to drink milk. All of your so called evidence against evolution is pathetic.



                                                      LA> Are you seriously trying to say that this "mutation" is evidence that convinces you that "people came from monkeys"? Sounds like you are really really "struggling" with the subject! Perhaps you have something else that convinces you that everything came from nothing and for no reason?



                                                      Laurie.

                                                      Evidence from the fossil record now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school; (Newsweek, November, 1980)
                                                      ..



                                                      No virus found in this message.
                                                      Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                                                      Version: 2013.0.2793 / Virus Database: 2629/5893 - Release Date: 11/13/12


                                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                    • David
                                                      ... David Williams: I do not of any adult monkeys that can drink milk without discomfort. Nothing and something are different sides of the same coin. Neither
                                                      Message 26 of 27 , Nov 14, 2012
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Laurie Appleton" <lappleto@...> wrote:
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        > ----- Original Message -----
                                                        > From: David
                                                        > To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                                                        > Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 12:59 PM
                                                        > Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: ONLY TWO!
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        > > > > > LA> Dr. Henry M. Morris -- noted Creation scientist, points out the following;
                                                        > > > > > -------------------------------
                                                        > > > > >
                                                        > > > > > If evolution is true, then there must be
                                                        > > > > > some innovational and integrative principle
                                                        > > > > > operating in the natural world which
                                                        > > > > > develops order out of randomness and
                                                        > > > > > higher order from lower order.
                                                        > > > > >
                                                        > > > > >
                                                        > > > >
                                                        > > > > GLU: There is. Darwin named this principle "natural selection".
                                                        > > > >
                                                        > > > >
                                                        > > > > LA> On the contrary. Creation scientists always accepted natural selection. However "selection" can ONLY select AFTER something has already evolved upwards and improved and this is the very thing that does NOT happen!
                                                        > > > >
                                                        > > >
                                                        > > > David Williams: Evolution happens whether or not you believe.
                                                        > > >
                                                        > > >
                                                        > > >
                                                        > > > LA> Strange comment because a leading evolutionist, Prof. Niles Eldredge has stated in his 1995 book entitled; "Reinventing Darwin", quite clearly that; "No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never happen." (p.95)
                                                        > > >
                                                        > >
                                                        > > David Williams: It seems it never happens does not mean it never happens.
                                                        > >
                                                        > >
                                                        > > LA> Nor does it mean that it does happen and therefore evolutionism is "barely a postulate". Little wonder then, as the respected scientist who was asked to write the introduction to the 1956 publication of Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" wrote in his concluding remarks;
                                                        > >
                                                        >
                                                        > David Williams: If you can drink milk, then you are descended from people who had a mutation that kept the gene for lactase activated in adulthood. That is one example of evolution. Many of the world's adults feel ill if they try to drink milk. All of your so called evidence against evolution is pathetic.
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        > LA> Are you seriously trying to say that this "mutation" is evidence that convinces you that "people came from monkeys"? Sounds like you are really really "struggling" with the subject! Perhaps you have something else that convinces you that everything came from nothing and for no reason?
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        > Laurie.
                                                        >
                                                        > Evidence from the fossil record now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school; (Newsweek, November, 1980)
                                                        > ..
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        >

                                                        David Williams: I do not of any adult monkeys that can drink milk without discomfort. Nothing and something are different sides of the same coin. Neither can exist without the other.

                                                        As for people, they not only are people descended from apes, they are apes.
                                                        For proof, you can look at the apes in the New York stock exchange, or the apes in the USA congress. After our last election, many of the USA apes started hooting and hollering because their ape will not be president. We will keep the ape we have as president.


                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                        >
                                                      • VictorM
                                                        ... Of course not. The Bible plainly states that God commanded the animals to reproduce after their kinds. That does not mean that (1) that gradual changes
                                                        Message 27 of 27 , Nov 14, 2012
                                                        • 0 Attachment
                                                          > > LA> Dr. Henry M. Morris -- noted Creation scientist, points out the following;
                                                          > > -------------------------------
                                                          > >
                                                          > > If evolution is true, then there must be
                                                          > > some innovational and integrative principle
                                                          > > operating in the natural world which
                                                          > > develops order out of randomness and
                                                          > > higher order from lower order. Since, by
                                                          > > uniformitarianism, this principle is still in
                                                          > > effect, scientists should be able to observe
                                                          > > and quantify it.
                                                          > >
                                                          > > The creation model, on the other hand,
                                                          > > suggests that there should be a conservational
                                                          > > and disintegrative principle operating in nature.
                                                          > >
                                                          > > Since the total quantity
                                                          > > of matter and energy, as well as the perfect
                                                          > > degree of order, were created super-
                                                          > > naturally in the beginning, we could not expect
                                                          > > to see naturalistic processes of innovation
                                                          > > and integration, as required by evolution,
                                                          > > working today.
                                                          > >
                                                          >
                                                          > Victor: Unfortunately Morris did not read his Bible carefully. God commanded the ground and the animals to change and the verb is passive in Hebrew. In other words change is absolutely natural in matter, in animals and in plants. The changes in matter are the easiest to prove since we can see the past. Every atomic clock in hundreds of billions of galaxies clocks a different frequency than modern atoms. What we see is relational changes, where everything changes in an orderly manner, together, just like the verbs the Apostle Paul used to describe how the universe is enslaved to change.
                                                          >
                                                          >
                                                          > LA> Are you claiming then that "monkeys changed into people"?
                                                          >

                                                          Of course not. The Bible plainly states that God commanded the animals to reproduce after their kinds. That does not mean that (1) that gradual changes have not resulted from nature or the (2) God is not Himself changing nature, which He claims to do in the book of Job.

                                                          >
                                                          >
                                                          > Victor: How totally complete will be the triumph of the words of God over science, the system that was founded on the idea the Bible predicted for the last days - the notion that all things remain the same.
                                                          >
                                                          >
                                                          > LA> Are you referring to "Evolutionary science" then? Such "scientists" claim that all living things "change" UPWARDS from simple to more and more complex forms, don't they? If that is the "science" that you predict will be refuted then you would be correct of course.
                                                          >

                                                          You can define science in two ways. (1) Simple knowledge, such as observations of bees and flowers. (2) A structured way of arranging knowledge based on a first principle. Modern science is of the latter kind. It was contrived on a single assumption, a first law, that the Bible predicted for the mockers of the last days.

                                                          Scientists, whether creationists or evolutionists, try to explain reality with symbolical, mathematical things no one has ever detected. Mass, energy and time are operationally defined with the assumption that the properties of matter are fixed - not emerging.

                                                          Victor
                                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.