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

Re: Chance Evolution

Expand Messages
  • Don DeLong III
    Mr. Greene, I couldn t care less how many people have said it or what college education those speaking may or may not have. Speciation (forming of new
    Message 1 of 22 , Apr 24, 2007
      Mr. Greene,

      I couldn't care less how many people have said it or what college
      education those speaking may or may not have. "Speciation" (forming of
      new species) is not a fact (outside of the creation event chronicalled
      in Genesis chapters 1 & 2), whether scientific or real. In fact, it
      can not be proven and by virtue of the lack of being provable, can not
      be "fact". The "scientific model" REQUIRES repeatability to test.

      All science can do is discover and categorize that which was already
      there. That is all that it will ever be able to do. Science can not
      and will never be able to, prove beginnings.

      Thank you for your comments,

      Don DeLong

      --- In christianevidences@yahoogroups.com, "Todd S. Greene"
      <greeneto@...> wrote:
      >
      > In August 1997 (i.e., almost 10 years ago), the young earth
      > creationist Carl Wieland of the Answers in Genesis group (a YEC
      > organization) wrote the following:
      >
      > | "Poorly-informed anti-creationist scoffers occasionally
      > | think they will 'floor' creation apologists with examples
      > | of 'new species forming' in nature. They are often
      > | surprised at the reaction they get from the
      > | better-informed creationists, namely that the creation
      > | model depends heavily on speciation."
      >
      > [ http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i2/speciation.asp ]
      >
      > Biologists know, paleontologists know, those who take science
      > seriously and are aware of these areas of science know, theistic
      > evolutionists know, many old earth creationists know, and even many
      > young earth creationists know (as proved with the quotation example),
      > that evolution (new species forming, or "speciation") is not only
      > possible, but it is a scientific fact.
      >
      > Another point, while "chance" is involved in evolution (genetic
      > mutations and genetic drift), there is also "necessity" that is
      > involved in evolution, more commonly referred to as "natural
      > selection" processes. This aspect must be taken into account in order
      > to understand evolution correctly.
      >
      > - Todd Greene
    • Don DeLong III
      Mr. Greene, In responding to a post by Keith Sisman, you stated, Speciation also occurs. (See my previous post.) The comment that you were responding to
      Message 2 of 22 , Apr 24, 2007
        Mr. Greene,

        In responding to a post by Keith Sisman, you stated, "Speciation" also
        occurs. (See my previous post.)" The comment that you were responding
        to was, "Whilst evolution is impossible, mutation within specie does
        occur."

        Don here - See my previous post. I reading my previous post, you will
        see that the main body of your comments were addressed.

        You stated, "People who condemn other people to Hell (1) demonstrate
        an attitude error since people are not God, and (2) any ideological
        system that would condemn people for accepting the empirical facts
        merely demonstrates that the ideological system itself is seriously
        flawed."

        Don here - You opening statement of this paragraph is false and by
        virtue the whole line of reasoning is false and thereby your
        conclusions are also false. You stated, "People who condemn other
        people to Hell..." No person can issue final and ultimate judgment on
        any person (including their self). A person can gather evidence of a
        person's life (including their self) and weigh that against the truth
        of God's Word and when the weight of that person's life is woefully
        inadequate, know what the ultimate outcome of that person's judgment
        and thereby eternal home will be.

        Thanks again for your comments,

        Don DeLong

        --- In christianevidences@yahoogroups.com, "Todd S. Greene"
        <greeneto@...> wrote:
        >
        > --- In christianevidences, Keith Sisman wrote (post #5):
        > > Whilst evolution is impossible, mutation within specie does occur.
        >
        > "Speciation" also occurs. (See my previous post.)
        >
        > > Darwin claimed the fossils would be found to prove his
        > > hypothesis
        >
        > Thousands of transitional fossils are known about in paleontology.
        >
        > Here are a few examples:
        > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
        >
        > > as did Lyell
        > > regarding the geological column, to prove the geology
        > > Darwin needed gradual and slow evolution.
        >
        > Geological science was developed BEFORE Darwin. So Keith's statement
        > here is factually wrong.
        >
        > Geology
        > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology
        >
        > Geologic time scale
        > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale
        >
        > > The geology that
        > > Darwin needed has been proved non-existent.
        >
        > This is another factually wrong statement. Geological science was
        > developed substantially before 1859. All one has to do is ready ANY
        > geology textbook published today to know that the geological
        > principles used by Darwin (hint: Darwin could not have used the
        > geological principles in 1859 if they had not already been developed)
        > not only exist but the fundamental principles have been corroborated
        > over the dozens of decades since then.
        >
        > > Both were wrong,
        >
        > Mere assertion. And a quite false assertion, according to what we know
        > about the real world from scientific investigation of it.
        >
        > > neither repented and both are bound for Hell.
        > [snip]
        >
        > People who condemn other people to Hell (1) demonstrate an attitude
        > error since people are not God, and (2) any ideological system that
        > would condemn people for accepting the empirical facts merely
        > demonstrates that the ideological system itself is seriously flawed.
        >
        > - Todd Greene
        >
      • lschrei
        Hello All, Ok first of all I really do not understand what is ment by chance evolution. However, when we are dealing with the Theory of evolution I think that
        Message 3 of 22 , Apr 24, 2007
          Hello All,

          Ok first of all I really do not understand what is ment by chance evolution. However, when
          we are dealing with the Theory of evolution I think that the first step to combate this is to
          start with (as David says "defining our terms") the actual definition of the word theory. My
          trusty college science text Biology by Solomon, Berg, and Martin defines a theory as:

          "A widely accepted explination supported by a large body of observations and
          experiments. A good theory relates facts that appear to be unrelated; it predicts
          new facts and suggests new relationships."

          So from this definition we can already see many errors in the theory of evolution.

          1) the thoery of evolution is only "a wiedly accepted explaination" for creation. Ok i will
          agree with this, many people actually DO accept this as a valid explination for our
          creation. However, that does not mean it is the ONLY "widly accepted explination". Many
          people also believe that God created us.

          2) "supported by observations and experimentation"... Show me a scientific journal that
          has actually witnessed evolution of a species, or created an experiment that can do this.
          Right here is where the whole theory falls appart! We actually have experimentation that
          do the exact opposite and reject this theory (ie: spontanious generation). The theory of
          evolution is NOT ACTUALLY A THEORY AT ALL!!! It would better be described as a
          hypothesis. However, we have actual accounts (observations) of the Theory of Creation and
          while these accounts cannot be shown through experimentation we CAN however through
          experimentation show the complexities of the human body and other creatures in order to
          accept or establish the credibility of the Thoery of Creation.

          Thank you,

          Lamar Schrei



          --- In christianevidences@yahoogroups.com, "Don DeLong III" <ddelongiii@...> wrote:
          >
          > List,
          >
          > Is chance evolution possible, practical, probable, problematic or pure
          > fantasy?
          >
          > Don DeLong
          >
        • Rebecca
          Lamar, I wish all science teachers would use the things that they know about theories to put this together like you have. It really disturbs me that even
          Message 4 of 22 , Apr 24, 2007
            Lamar, I wish all science teachers would use the things that they know
            about theories to put this together like you have. It really disturbs
            me that even though most biology professors (speaking from my own
            experience, the two that I've had in college) will admit that this
            sort of evolution ("macro evolution") is merely a theory, they spend
            time advocating it as if it were true. Text books do not even present
            it as a theory any more-- it's just stated as fact. "Creationism" and
            more recently "intelligent design" are also given mention as theories,
            but for some reason they really dwell on the theory of evolution.

            If pressed about it they will admit that it cannot be proven, but they
            don't freely proclaim that... they first try to teach it as fact.
            Because of this people are unquestionably adapting these ideas and the
            implications that go along with them are being ingrained in our
            society. It's truly sickening.


            Rebecca Stephens


            --- In christianevidences@yahoogroups.com, "lschrei" <lschrei@...> wrote:
            >
            > Hello All,
            >
            > Ok first of all I really do not understand what is ment by chance
            evolution. However, when
            > we are dealing with the Theory of evolution I think that the first
            step to combate this is to
            > start with (as David says "defining our terms") the actual
            definition of the word theory. My
            > trusty college science text Biology by Solomon, Berg, and Martin
            defines a theory as:
            >
            > "A widely accepted explination supported by a large body of
            observations and
            > experiments. A good theory relates facts that appear to be
            unrelated; it predicts
            > new facts and suggests new relationships."
            >
            > So from this definition we can already see many errors in the theory
            of evolution.
            >
            > 1) the thoery of evolution is only "a wiedly accepted explaination"
            for creation. Ok i will
            > agree with this, many people actually DO accept this as a valid
            explination for our
            > creation. However, that does not mean it is the ONLY "widly accepted
            explination". Many
            > people also believe that God created us.
            >
            > 2) "supported by observations and experimentation"... Show me a
            scientific journal that
            > has actually witnessed evolution of a species, or created an
            experiment that can do this.
            > Right here is where the whole theory falls appart! We actually have
            experimentation that
            > do the exact opposite and reject this theory (ie: spontanious
            generation). The theory of
            > evolution is NOT ACTUALLY A THEORY AT ALL!!! It would better be
            described as a
            > hypothesis. However, we have actual accounts (observations) of the
            Theory of Creation and
            > while these accounts cannot be shown through experimentation we CAN
            however through
            > experimentation show the complexities of the human body and other
            creatures in order to
            > accept or establish the credibility of the Thoery of Creation.
            >
            > Thank you,
            >
            > Lamar Schrei
            >
            >
            >
            > --- In christianevidences@yahoogroups.com, "Don DeLong III"
            <ddelongiii@> wrote:
            > >
            > > List,
            > >
            > > Is chance evolution possible, practical, probable, problematic or pure
            > > fantasy?
            > >
            > > Don DeLong
            > >
            >
          • Todd S. Greene
            ... Hi Don, Neither could I. Which is why I did not mention it myself. I would also mention that I couldn t care less what people have said about it on the
            Message 5 of 22 , Apr 24, 2007
              > --- In christianevidences, Todd Greene wrote (post #13):
              >> In August 1997 (i.e., almost 10 years ago), the young earth
              >> creationist Carl Wieland of the Answers in Genesis group (a YEC
              >> organization) wrote the following:
              >>
              >>| "Poorly-informed anti-creationist scoffers occasionally
              >>| think they will 'floor' creation apologists with examples
              >>| of 'new species forming' in nature. They are often
              >>| surprised at the reaction they get from the
              >>| better-informed creationists, namely that the creation
              >>| model depends heavily on speciation."
              >>
              >> [ http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i2/speciation.asp ]
              >>
              >> Biologists know, paleontologists know, those who take science
              >> seriously and are aware of these areas of science know,
              >> theistic evolutionists know, many old earth creationists
              >> know, and even many young earth creationists know (as proved
              >> with the quotation example), that evolution (new species
              >> forming, or "speciation") is not only possible, but it is a
              >> scientific fact.
              >>
              >> Another point, while "chance" is involved in evolution
              >> (genetic mutations and genetic drift), there is also
              >> "necessity" that is involved in evolution, more commonly
              >> referred to as "natural selection" processes. This aspect
              >> must be taken into account in order to understand evolution
              >> correctly.

              --- In christianevidences, Don DeLong III wrote (post #13):
              > Mr. Greene,
              >
              > I couldn't care less how many people have said it or what
              > college education those speaking may or may not have.

              Hi Don,

              Neither could I. Which is why I did not mention it myself. I would
              also mention that I couldn't care less what people have said about it
              on the basis of religious ideology. Religious ideology is not science,
              and we all know that religious ideologies are a dime a dozen (one
              reason why there are thousands of Christians denominations). What is
              relevant is the actual empirical facts about the real world as
              discovered by scientific investigation of the real world.

              > "Speciation" (forming of
              > new species) is not a fact

              Yes, it is an empirically observed fact. This is what the scientific
              research shows. There are examples of this kind of research cited in
              the online reference that I gave you, which was cited by the young
              earth creationist Carl Wieland. I note here that you did not
              acknowledge the existence of such scientific research. You should take
              a look at the citations that Carl Wieland (a young earth creationist)
              gave you. A person cannot make the research disappear merely by
              arbitrarily declaring that it doesn't exist.

              > (outside of the
              > creation event chronicalled in Genesis chapters 1 & 2),
              > whether scientific or real. In fact, it can not be proven
              > and by virtue of the lack of being provable, can not
              > be "fact".

              But since the scientific research has been conducted that proves it,
              the arbitrary assertion "it can not be proven" is simply wrong.

              > The "scientific model"
              > REQUIRES repeatability to test.

              That's right. That's how we know that speciation is a scientific fact.

              Here is the link, again, that I provided previously:

              http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i2/speciation.asp

              I'm surprised that the assertion made completely ignores what was
              pointed out in that article (relevant exerpts from the article are
              copied below, at the bottom of this post, since what was pointed out
              in it has apparently been ignored).

              > All science can do is discover and categorize that which
              > was already there. That is all that it will ever be able to
              > do. Science can not and will never be able to, prove
              > beginnings.

              Science has discovered and categorized speciation. Arbitrary
              declarations about what science can't do based on personal ideology
              are meaningless and irrelevant. Ignoring what scientific research has
              already discovered and catalogued has no credibility to serious
              consideration of the actual science.

              - Todd Greene

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

              Review of *Speciation* (authors: Dr. Jerry A. Coyne, Dr. H. Allen Orr)
              by Dr. Toby Bradshaw
              (University of Washington, Dept. of Biology)
              http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/44/5/400

              Excerpt:

              | Readers will appreciate the breadth and depth of this
              | book. Chapter by chapter, every mode of
              | speciation-allopatric, parapatric, sympatric, and
              | variations upon them—is covered in incisive, rather
              | than encyclopedic, style. Rich, nuanced discourses on
              | the theory of, and experimental evidence for, various
              | reproductive isolating mechanisms (e.g., ecological,
              | behavioral, chromosomal, prezygotic, postzygotic) follow
              | from the authors' use of the Biological Species
              | Concept.... Unlike its 20th Century antecedents, and in
              | spite of the Drosophila-centric background of the
              | authors, Speciation is not taxon-limited. Brilliant
              | examples of speciation, and meaningful comparisons, are
              | drawn from animals, plants, bacteria, and various other
              | branches on the Tree of Life.

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

              Case Histories of Speciation
              http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/23.Cases.HTML

              Excerpt:

              | African cichlid fishes are another remarkable case of
              | "explosive speciation" (the Hawaiian Drosophila of the
              | fish world). Geology and geography again plays an
              | important role. African rift lakes: great fresh-water
              | lakes in east Africa. Formed recently: < 1 million years
              | old. Lake Victoria colonized by one (??) founder 200,000
              | years ago(??) now has ~ 200 species of fish!. Recent
              | study (Meyer et al. 1990, Nature vol. 347, pg. 550 and
              | see pg. 512) used mitochondrial DNA to show that the
              | species in the lake are indeed monophyletic and that
              | there is very little sequence divergence between species:
              | confirms short time span. But there has been remarkable
              | evolution of morphological, ecological and behavioral
              | variation in these fish: algae grazers, snail crushers,
              | plankton feeders, paedophages (clamp onto the mouth of a
              | fish brooding her young in her mouth and force her to
              | spit out here young into the mouth of the attacker), one
              | fish (in Lake Malawi) plucks the eyes out of other fish
              | as food. All this diversity in 200,000 years with very
              | little genetic differentiation.

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

              Darwin's finches
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_finches

              Excerpt:

              | Following his return from the voyage, Darwin presented
              | the finches to the Geological Society of London at their
              | meeting on 4 January 1837, along with other mammal and
              | bird specimens he had collected. The bird specimens,
              | including the finches, were given to John Gould, the
              | famous English ornithologist, for identification. Gould
              | set aside his paying work and at the next meeting on 10
              | January reported that birds from the Galápagos Islands
              | which Darwin had thought were blackbirds, "gross-beaks"
              | and finches were in fact "a series of ground Finches
              | which are so peculiar" as to form "an entirely new group,
              | containing 12 species." This story made the newspapers.
              |
              | In March Darwin met Gould again, learning that his
              | Galápagos "wren" was another species of finch and the
              | mockingbirds he had labelled by island were separate
              | species rather than just varieties, with relatives on the
              | South American mainland. Darwin had not bothered to label
              | his finches by island, but others on the expedition had
              | taken more care. He now sought specimens collected by
              | Captain Robert FitzRoy and crewmen. From them he was able
              | to establish that the species were uniquely related to
              | individual islands, giving him the idea that somehow in
              | this geographical isolation these different species could
              | have been formed from a small number of common ancestors
              | so that each was modified to suit "different ends."
              |
              | The term Darwin's Finches was first applied in 1936, and
              | popularized in 1947 by David Lack. Later, Peter and
              | Rosemary Grant conducted extensive research in
              | documenting evolutionary change among the finches.
              | Beginning in 1973, the pair spent many years tracking
              | thousands of individual finches across several
              | generations, showing how individual species changed in
              | response to environmental changes. The Beak of the Finch
              | by Jonathan Weiner is a book about the finches,
              | highlighting the Grants' research.

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

              Speciation conference brings good news for creationists
              by Carl Wieland (August 1997)
              http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1554/

              Exerpts:

              | Poorly-informed anti-creationist scoffers occasionally
              | think they will 'floor' creation apologists with examples
              | of 'new species forming' in nature. They are often
              | surprised at the reaction they get from the
              | better-informed creationists, namely that the creation
              | model depends heavily on speciation.
              |
              | It seems clear that some of the groupings above species
              | (for example, genera, and sometimes higher up the
              | hierarchy) are almost certainly linked by common
              | ancestry, that is, are the descendants of one created
              | ancestral population (the created kind, or baramin).
              | Virtually all creation theorists assume that Noah did not
              | have with him pairs of dingoes, wolves and coyotes, for
              | example, but a pair of creatures which were ancestral to
              | all these species, and probably to a number of other
              | present-day species representative of the 'dog kind'.
              |
              | Demonstrating that speciation can happen in nature,
              | especially where it can be shown to have happened
              | rapidly, is thus a positive for creation theorists.

              | ...the reality is that, in the case of postulated
              | post-Flood variation in the creation model, the subgroups
              | have the status of separate species. That is, even though
              | they may in some instances interbreed in captivity, they
              | generally do not do so in the wild. Thus mechanisms of
              | speciation, particularly rapid speciation, far from
              | causing creationists to shudder, are actually of great
              | interest. In this light, it was fascinating to read
              | special reports on a major scientific conference on
              | speciation held in Asilomar, California in May [1996].
              | [1],[2]
              |
              | Taking the most straightforward modern understanding of a
              | species (though not the only one, and not without its own
              | problems), as a group of organisms which can interbreed
              | in nature and does not naturally and freely interbreed
              | with another, it is not hard to see how this sort of
              | variation (from selection of information subsets) could
              | easily lead to reproductive incompatibilities (as could
              | mutational defects and information losses, of course). It
              | may be, for instance, that sheer size differences would
              | allow a population of Chihuahuas and Great Danes to be
              | classified as separate species, if found in the wild.
              |
              | Since the cutting off of populations via physical
              | barriers (for example, mountain ranges) can easily be
              | seen to isolate subsets of genes, with the so-called
              | founder effect, subsequent loss of some genes through
              | drift, etc., understanding how such physical barriers
              | could give rise to rapid speciation has always been
              | fairly straightforward (allopatric speciation).
              | Nevertheless, the amount of post-Flood speciation must
              | have been staggering, particularly among the insects, and
              | it is hard to see how there could have been that many
              | physical barriers, cut-off founder or relict populations
              | and the like in this time. Therefore, it is both
              | encouraging and fascinating for creationist biology to
              | note that there is now an increasing acceptance that
              | sympatric speciation is actually quite common. That means
              | that a population may split into two species even while
              | living in the same area, with no separation or physical
              | barriers.
              |
              | At the conference in question, evidence was presented of
              | this sort of thing having happened with ease in
              | populations of certain types of fruit-eating insects
              | which used the fruits of their host plant for courtship
              | displays and mating. If one group of insects, used to
              | eating a certain type of fruit, starts to try a new host
              | plant, then food choice becomes linked with mate choice,
              | and so reproductive isolation can begin.

              | ...Fish living in the same lake can also, it seems,
              | become reproductively isolated by way of genetically
              | determined variation in food choices, which leads to
              | different sizes, and thus to differing mate choices.
              |
              | In another instance, several species of wasps appear to
              | have been thrust apart from a single ancestral wasp
              | population by way of nothing more than differing species
              | of bacteria in their gut. Somehow, the bacteria in the
              | females destroy the DNA from males of the other species.
              | Other mechanisms of speciation mentioned were as simple
              | as variations in the song of a bird, or in a single
              | pigment gene.

              | Reference
              | 1. Gibbons, A., 1996. On the many origins of species.
              | Science, 273:1496–1499.
              | 2. Morell, V., 1996. Starting species with third parties
              | and sex wars. Science, 273:1499–1502.
            • Todd S. Greene
              ... Hi Don, As I ve now already pointed out in another post, you did not in fact address what I pointed out in that first post, because the specific examples
              Message 6 of 22 , Apr 24, 2007
                --- In christianevidences, Don DeLong III wrote (post #14):
                > Mr. Greene,
                >
                > In responding to a post by Keith Sisman, you stated,
                > "Speciation" also occurs. (See my previous post.)" The
                > comment that you were responding to was, "Whilst evolution
                > is impossible, mutation within specie does occur."
                >
                > Don here - See my previous post. I reading my previous post,
                > you will see that the main body of your comments were
                > addressed.

                Hi Don,

                As I've now already pointed out in another post, you did not in fact
                address what I pointed out in that first post, because the specific
                examples that I referred to (with the reference to the article by Carl
                Wieland) were ignored and not addressed at all.

                > You stated, "People who condemn other people to Hell (1)
                > demonstrate an attitude error since people are not God,
                > and (2) any ideological system that would condemn people
                > for accepting the empirical facts merely demonstrates that
                > the ideological system itself is seriously flawed."
                >
                > Don here - Your opening statement of this paragraph is false
                > and by virtue the whole line of reasoning is false

                It is not a "line of reasoning," because they are two logically
                independent statements, and thus two separate "lines" of reasoning.

                > and thereby your
                > conclusions are also false. You stated, "People who
                > condemn other people to Hell..." No person can issue final
                > and ultimate judgment on any person (including their self).
                > A person can gather evidence of a person's life (including
                > their self) and weigh that against the truth of God's Word
                > and when the weight of that person's life is woefully
                > inadequate, know what the ultimate outcome of that person's
                > judgment and thereby eternal home will be.
                >
                > Thanks again for your comments,
                >
                > Don DeLong

                Don, I think we all know that throughout history, and from examples
                we've observed in our own personal lives, far too many people
                flippantly and overzealously condemn people to Hell, and are
                arrogating to themselves the perogative of a god. We have all sorts of
                denominations, and many of these are in the habit of condemning each
                other for differing from each other. We all know that there are a
                variety of opinions about what "the truth" of God's Word is. Even
                within the Church of Christ, no, even within the 10% to 15% of the
                Church of Christ that is "non-institutional" or otherwise considered
                "ultra-conservative" there are a variety of opinions about what "the
                truth" is, and a lot of people condemning each other. It's really
                quite a spectacle.

                I agree with what you say, that surely we do make judgments *as human
                beings* about other people, but the Bible says it is God who sends
                people to Hell, not you, not me, and not Keith Sisman. I think
                everyone needs to keep in mind who is who, and remembering that we are
                not God. Flippant rhetoric is no excuse.

                Finally, you did not address the point that any ideological system
                that would condemn people for accepting the empirical facts merely
                demonstrates that the ideological system itself is seriously flawed.
                Any ideological system that would condemn people for accepting facts
                (truth) demonstrates by its doing so that it itself is not true. Truth
                cannot contradict truth. It is an empirical fact that the Universe has
                been in existence for at least millions of years (as discovered by
                astronomical observations). It is an empirical fact that the Earth has
                been in existence for at least millions of years (as discovered by
                geological research). In the context of this particular point and the
                example being discussed here, we can then say that the ideology of
                young earth creationism is a false ideology when its advocates use it
                to condemn people for accepting the empirical facts about the real
                world. (Note that this is a separate point from the point that it is a
                false ideology because it is contradicted by the empirical facts.)

                If Keith has some other basis by which to criticize a person's
                behavior, he should by all means do so when and where appropriate. But
                using flippant and prejudice-pandering rhetoric to condemn people to
                Hell for taking scientific investigation of the real world seriously
                and for taking empirical facts into account merely because those facts
                are contrary to one's personal religious ideology merely demonstrates
                that it is the ideology itself that has serious problems, for which
                the ideology itself should be duly criticized.

                - Todd Greene

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

                > --- In christianevidences, Todd Greene wrote:
                >> --- In christianevidences, Keith Sisman wrote (post #5):
                >>> Whilst evolution is impossible, mutation within specie
                >>> does occur.
                >>
                >> "Speciation" also occurs. (See my previous post.)
                >>
                >>> Darwin claimed the fossils would be found to prove his
                >>> hypothesis
                >>
                >> Thousands of transitional fossils are known about in paleontology.
                >>
                >> Here are a few examples:
                >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
                >>
                >>> as did Lyell
                >>> regarding the geological column, to prove the geology
                >>> Darwin needed gradual and slow evolution.
                >>
                >> Geological science was developed BEFORE Darwin. So Keith's
                >> statement here is factually wrong.
                >>
                >> Geology
                >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology
                >>
                >> Geologic time scale
                >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale
                >>
                >>> The geology that
                >>> Darwin needed has been proved non-existent.
                >>
                >> This is another factually wrong statement. Geological science
                >> was developed substantially before 1859. All one has to do is
                >> ready ANY geology textbook published today to know that the
                >> geological principles used by Darwin (hint: Darwin could not
                >> have used the geological principles in 1859 if they had not
                >> already been developed) not only exist but the fundamental
                >> principles have been corroborated over the dozens of decades
                >> since then.
                >>
                >>> Both were wrong,
                >>
                >> Mere assertion. And a quite false assertion, according to what
                >> we know about the real world from scientific investigation of
                >> it.
                >>
                >>> neither repented and both are bound for Hell.
                >> [snip]
                >>
                >> People who condemn other people to Hell (1) demonstrate an attitude
                >> error since people are not God, and (2) any ideological system that
                >> would condemn people for accepting the empirical facts merely
                >> demonstrates that the ideological system itself is seriously flawed.
                >>
                >> - Todd Greene
              • Keith Sisman
                Hey Todd, Greetings... I see you are still all wrong, at least we have a chance of correcting your error and maybe you can be redeemed. Todd, is it fair to
                Message 7 of 22 , Apr 24, 2007
                  Hey Todd,

                  Greetings...

                  I see you are still all wrong, at least we have a chance of correcting
                  your error and maybe you can be redeemed.

                  Todd, is it fair to call you an atheist?

                  You wrote in reply to myself - "Speciation" also occurs. (See my previous
                  post.)

                  This I deny limiting mutation as a retardation of the genetic information
                  during time which some is lost resulting in change.

                  Todd wrote - Thousands of transitional fossils are known about in
                  paleontology.

                  You can include my children in this.

                  Todd wrote " Geological science was developed BEFORE Darwin. So Keith's
                  statement here is factually wrong."

                  No, Todd misread what I said.

                  Todd wrote "Geological science was developed substantially before 1859.
                  All one has to do is ready ANY geology textbook published today to know
                  that the geological principles used by Darwin (hint: Darwin could not have
                  used the
                  > geological principles in 1859 if they had not already been developed)
                  > not only exist but the fundamental principles have been corroborated
                  > over the dozens of decades since then.

                  I agree with the proviso that the mechanism and time scales are wrong and
                  areas of geology which disagree are ignored.

                  List, when I said Darwin and Lyell are bound for Hell (which they are) it
                  is based on the fact they are waiting in Tartarus for judgement.

                  Let us not forget three facts:

                  1/ Lotsa scientists make lotsa money out of evolution. It's what society
                  wants (demands?) and they are providing a service for money.

                  2/ To make the lie of evolution possible history and science have been
                  revised. As previously noted, evolution is a lie in the name of science.

                  3/ God is supreme and judgement awaits.

                  Keith Sisman
                • Keith Sisman
                  Brethren and Todd, This post is about dating dinosaurs. By dating I mean establishing the age of the beast, I am not suggesting with enter courtship with them!
                  Message 8 of 22 , Apr 25, 2007
                    Brethren and Todd,

                    This post is about dating dinosaurs. By dating I mean establishing the age
                    of the beast, I am not suggesting with enter courtship with them!

                    Dinosaurs are of course the dragons of history and myth. It has often been
                    asked, where is the evidence of dragons as historical creatures? They are
                    the dinosaurs of the atheist!

                    Some time ago I was visiting the British Natural History Museum, London,
                    when I stumbled upon a rather magnificent T-Rex, I asked the curator how
                    old this wonderful man eating beast is, he replied "65 million, 3 years, 6
                    minutes and thirty five seconds old"! I replied, "that is wonderful, how
                    as an atheist can you be so certain, even down to the second?", said
                    curator replied, "tis very easy, I started work here spreading the lie of
                    evolution 3 years, 6 minutes and thirty five seconds ago, and the rascal
                    was 65 million years old then!!"

                    Have a great day brethren (and Todd),
                    Keith Sisman
                  • Keith Sisman
                    Dear brethren and Todd, Much is made of transitional fossils, the fact is they do not exist. Fossil beds are graveyards of death, catastrophism and extinction.
                    Message 9 of 22 , Apr 25, 2007
                      Dear brethren and Todd,

                      Much is made of transitional fossils, the fact is they do not exist.
                      Fossil beds are graveyards of death, catastrophism and extinction.

                      The existence of fossils is evidence against evolution and slow
                      sedimentation. Fossils are though evidence of catastrophic events in mans
                      past, including the biblical worldwide flood and events at the time of
                      Peleg after the building and destruction of the Tower of Babel.

                      Whenever paleontologists find some horribly quashed distorted fossil that
                      looks like it may be transitional, just one such fossil, invites media
                      attention worldwide as proof of evolution. List, paleontologists are
                      desperate for just one example, and do not have thousands...

                      Keith Sisman
                    • Dennis Francis
                      Todd s problem is that SPECIATION DOES NOT PROVE EVOLUTION. All speciation proves is that complex DNA, in combination with other complex DNA, can result in
                      Message 10 of 22 , Apr 25, 2007
                        Todd's problem is that SPECIATION DOES NOT PROVE EVOLUTION. All
                        speciation proves is that complex DNA, in combination with other
                        complex DNA, can result in variations WITHIN A SPECIES.

                        Look at Darwin's finches and other such examples. Consider it this
                        way: If a brown rabbit has the ability, in combination with another
                        brown rabbit, of producing brown, white, black, and spotted
                        offspring, and the two original rabbits were suddenly displaced to
                        Alaska, in a few generations you would find only white rabbits.
                        This is NOT a product of EVOLUTION but rather of DNA. They already
                        HAD the ability to do this.

                        Darwin's science was fine, it was his conclusions that were wrong.
                        The general theory of evolution: that new species continually form,
                        is wrong. The law of Biogenesis, among others, disproves this
                        theory. Evolution is false AS SCIENCE. IT IS BAD SCIENCE. IT IS
                        JUNK SCIENCE.

                        It is of note that any time a person of faith says anything about
                        evolution, it is disregarded merely because they are dismissed as
                        religious zealots. The fact that a person can have religious faith
                        and a scientific mind seems to be impossible to these people. At
                        the Institute for Creation Research, for instance, these folks are
                        often dismissed as mere religionists. The fact that this
                        organization is headed by 8 Phds within scientific fields is often
                        not reported.

                        Evolution is false.


                        Dennis (Skip) Francis

                        --- In christianevidences@yahoogroups.com, "Todd S. Greene"
                        <greeneto@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > > --- In christianevidences, Todd Greene wrote (post #13):
                        > >> In August 1997 (i.e., almost 10 years ago), the young earth
                        > >> creationist Carl Wieland of the Answers in Genesis group (a YEC
                        > >> organization) wrote the following:
                        > >>
                        > >>| "Poorly-informed anti-creationist scoffers occasionally
                        > >>| think they will 'floor' creation apologists with examples
                        > >>| of 'new species forming' in nature. They are often
                        > >>| surprised at the reaction they get from the
                        > >>| better-informed creationists, namely that the creation
                        > >>| model depends heavily on speciation."
                        > >>
                        > >> [ http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i2/speciation.asp ]
                        > >>
                        > >> Biologists know, paleontologists know, those who take science
                        > >> seriously and are aware of these areas of science know,
                        > >> theistic evolutionists know, many old earth creationists
                        > >> know, and even many young earth creationists know (as proved
                        > >> with the quotation example), that evolution (new species
                        > >> forming, or "speciation") is not only possible, but it is a
                        > >> scientific fact.
                        > >>
                        > >> Another point, while "chance" is involved in evolution
                        > >> (genetic mutations and genetic drift), there is also
                        > >> "necessity" that is involved in evolution, more commonly
                        > >> referred to as "natural selection" processes. This aspect
                        > >> must be taken into account in order to understand evolution
                        > >> correctly.
                        >
                        > --- In christianevidences, Don DeLong III wrote (post #13):
                        > > Mr. Greene,
                        > >
                        > > I couldn't care less how many people have said it or what
                        > > college education those speaking may or may not have.
                        >
                        > Hi Don,
                        >
                        > Neither could I. Which is why I did not mention it myself. I would
                        > also mention that I couldn't care less what people have said about
                        it
                        > on the basis of religious ideology. Religious ideology is not
                        science,
                        > and we all know that religious ideologies are a dime a dozen (one
                        > reason why there are thousands of Christians denominations). What
                        is
                        > relevant is the actual empirical facts about the real world as
                        > discovered by scientific investigation of the real world.
                        >
                        > > "Speciation" (forming of
                        > > new species) is not a fact
                        >
                        > Yes, it is an empirically observed fact. This is what the
                        scientific
                        > research shows. There are examples of this kind of research cited
                        in
                        > the online reference that I gave you, which was cited by the young
                        > earth creationist Carl Wieland. I note here that you did not
                        > acknowledge the existence of such scientific research. You should
                        take
                        > a look at the citations that Carl Wieland (a young earth
                        creationist)
                        > gave you. A person cannot make the research disappear merely by
                        > arbitrarily declaring that it doesn't exist.
                        >
                        > > (outside of the
                        > > creation event chronicalled in Genesis chapters 1 & 2),
                        > > whether scientific or real. In fact, it can not be proven
                        > > and by virtue of the lack of being provable, can not
                        > > be "fact".
                        >
                        > But since the scientific research has been conducted that proves
                        it,
                        > the arbitrary assertion "it can not be proven" is simply wrong.
                        >
                        > > The "scientific model"
                        > > REQUIRES repeatability to test.
                        >
                        > That's right. That's how we know that speciation is a scientific
                        fact.
                        >
                        > Here is the link, again, that I provided previously:
                        >
                        > http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i2/speciation.asp
                        >
                        > I'm surprised that the assertion made completely ignores what was
                        > pointed out in that article (relevant exerpts from the article are
                        > copied below, at the bottom of this post, since what was pointed
                        out
                        > in it has apparently been ignored).
                        >
                        > > All science can do is discover and categorize that which
                        > > was already there. That is all that it will ever be able to
                        > > do. Science can not and will never be able to, prove
                        > > beginnings.
                        >
                        > Science has discovered and categorized speciation. Arbitrary
                        > declarations about what science can't do based on personal ideology
                        > are meaningless and irrelevant. Ignoring what scientific research
                        has
                        > already discovered and catalogued has no credibility to serious
                        > consideration of the actual science.
                        >
                        > - Todd Greene
                        >
                        > ================================================================
                        >
                        > Review of *Speciation* (authors: Dr. Jerry A. Coyne, Dr. H. Allen
                        Orr)
                        > by Dr. Toby Bradshaw
                        > (University of Washington, Dept. of Biology)
                        > http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/44/5/400
                        >
                        > Excerpt:
                        >
                        > | Readers will appreciate the breadth and depth of this
                        > | book. Chapter by chapter, every mode of
                        > | speciation-allopatric, parapatric, sympatric, and
                        > | variations upon them—is covered in incisive, rather
                        > | than encyclopedic, style. Rich, nuanced discourses on
                        > | the theory of, and experimental evidence for, various
                        > | reproductive isolating mechanisms (e.g., ecological,
                        > | behavioral, chromosomal, prezygotic, postzygotic) follow
                        > | from the authors' use of the Biological Species
                        > | Concept.... Unlike its 20th Century antecedents, and in
                        > | spite of the Drosophila-centric background of the
                        > | authors, Speciation is not taxon-limited. Brilliant
                        > | examples of speciation, and meaningful comparisons, are
                        > | drawn from animals, plants, bacteria, and various other
                        > | branches on the Tree of Life.
                        >
                        > ----------------------------------------------------------------
                        >
                        > Case Histories of Speciation
                        > http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/23.Cases.HTML
                        >
                        > Excerpt:
                        >
                        > | African cichlid fishes are another remarkable case of
                        > | "explosive speciation" (the Hawaiian Drosophila of the
                        > | fish world). Geology and geography again plays an
                        > | important role. African rift lakes: great fresh-water
                        > | lakes in east Africa. Formed recently: < 1 million years
                        > | old. Lake Victoria colonized by one (??) founder 200,000
                        > | years ago(??) now has ~ 200 species of fish!. Recent
                        > | study (Meyer et al. 1990, Nature vol. 347, pg. 550 and
                        > | see pg. 512) used mitochondrial DNA to show that the
                        > | species in the lake are indeed monophyletic and that
                        > | there is very little sequence divergence between species:
                        > | confirms short time span. But there has been remarkable
                        > | evolution of morphological, ecological and behavioral
                        > | variation in these fish: algae grazers, snail crushers,
                        > | plankton feeders, paedophages (clamp onto the mouth of a
                        > | fish brooding her young in her mouth and force her to
                        > | spit out here young into the mouth of the attacker), one
                        > | fish (in Lake Malawi) plucks the eyes out of other fish
                        > | as food. All this diversity in 200,000 years with very
                        > | little genetic differentiation.
                        >
                        > ----------------------------------------------------------------
                        >
                        > Darwin's finches
                        > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_finches
                        >
                        > Excerpt:
                        >
                        > | Following his return from the voyage, Darwin presented
                        > | the finches to the Geological Society of London at their
                        > | meeting on 4 January 1837, along with other mammal and
                        > | bird specimens he had collected. The bird specimens,
                        > | including the finches, were given to John Gould, the
                        > | famous English ornithologist, for identification. Gould
                        > | set aside his paying work and at the next meeting on 10
                        > | January reported that birds from the Galápagos Islands
                        > | which Darwin had thought were blackbirds, "gross-beaks"
                        > | and finches were in fact "a series of ground Finches
                        > | which are so peculiar" as to form "an entirely new group,
                        > | containing 12 species." This story made the newspapers.
                        > |
                        > | In March Darwin met Gould again, learning that his
                        > | Galápagos "wren" was another species of finch and the
                        > | mockingbirds he had labelled by island were separate
                        > | species rather than just varieties, with relatives on the
                        > | South American mainland. Darwin had not bothered to label
                        > | his finches by island, but others on the expedition had
                        > | taken more care. He now sought specimens collected by
                        > | Captain Robert FitzRoy and crewmen. From them he was able
                        > | to establish that the species were uniquely related to
                        > | individual islands, giving him the idea that somehow in
                        > | this geographical isolation these different species could
                        > | have been formed from a small number of common ancestors
                        > | so that each was modified to suit "different ends."
                        > |
                        > | The term Darwin's Finches was first applied in 1936, and
                        > | popularized in 1947 by David Lack. Later, Peter and
                        > | Rosemary Grant conducted extensive research in
                        > | documenting evolutionary change among the finches.
                        > | Beginning in 1973, the pair spent many years tracking
                        > | thousands of individual finches across several
                        > | generations, showing how individual species changed in
                        > | response to environmental changes. The Beak of the Finch
                        > | by Jonathan Weiner is a book about the finches,
                        > | highlighting the Grants' research.
                        >
                        > ----------------------------------------------------------------
                        >
                        > Speciation conference brings good news for creationists
                        > by Carl Wieland (August 1997)
                        > http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1554/
                        >
                        > Exerpts:
                        >
                        > | Poorly-informed anti-creationist scoffers occasionally
                        > | think they will 'floor' creation apologists with examples
                        > | of 'new species forming' in nature. They are often
                        > | surprised at the reaction they get from the
                        > | better-informed creationists, namely that the creation
                        > | model depends heavily on speciation.
                        > |
                        > | It seems clear that some of the groupings above species
                        > | (for example, genera, and sometimes higher up the
                        > | hierarchy) are almost certainly linked by common
                        > | ancestry, that is, are the descendants of one created
                        > | ancestral population (the created kind, or baramin).
                        > | Virtually all creation theorists assume that Noah did not
                        > | have with him pairs of dingoes, wolves and coyotes, for
                        > | example, but a pair of creatures which were ancestral to
                        > | all these species, and probably to a number of other
                        > | present-day species representative of the 'dog kind'.
                        > |
                        > | Demonstrating that speciation can happen in nature,
                        > | especially where it can be shown to have happened
                        > | rapidly, is thus a positive for creation theorists.
                        >
                        > | ...the reality is that, in the case of postulated
                        > | post-Flood variation in the creation model, the subgroups
                        > | have the status of separate species. That is, even though
                        > | they may in some instances interbreed in captivity, they
                        > | generally do not do so in the wild. Thus mechanisms of
                        > | speciation, particularly rapid speciation, far from
                        > | causing creationists to shudder, are actually of great
                        > | interest. In this light, it was fascinating to read
                        > | special reports on a major scientific conference on
                        > | speciation held in Asilomar, California in May [1996].
                        > | [1],[2]
                        > |
                        > | Taking the most straightforward modern understanding of a
                        > | species (though not the only one, and not without its own
                        > | problems), as a group of organisms which can interbreed
                        > | in nature and does not naturally and freely interbreed
                        > | with another, it is not hard to see how this sort of
                        > | variation (from selection of information subsets) could
                        > | easily lead to reproductive incompatibilities (as could
                        > | mutational defects and information losses, of course). It
                        > | may be, for instance, that sheer size differences would
                        > | allow a population of Chihuahuas and Great Danes to be
                        > | classified as separate species, if found in the wild.
                        > |
                        > | Since the cutting off of populations via physical
                        > | barriers (for example, mountain ranges) can easily be
                        > | seen to isolate subsets of genes, with the so-called
                        > | founder effect, subsequent loss of some genes through
                        > | drift, etc., understanding how such physical barriers
                        > | could give rise to rapid speciation has always been
                        > | fairly straightforward (allopatric speciation).
                        > | Nevertheless, the amount of post-Flood speciation must
                        > | have been staggering, particularly among the insects, and
                        > | it is hard to see how there could have been that many
                        > | physical barriers, cut-off founder or relict populations
                        > | and the like in this time. Therefore, it is both
                        > | encouraging and fascinating for creationist biology to
                        > | note that there is now an increasing acceptance that
                        > | sympatric speciation is actually quite common. That means
                        > | that a population may split into two species even while
                        > | living in the same area, with no separation or physical
                        > | barriers.
                        > |
                        > | At the conference in question, evidence was presented of
                        > | this sort of thing having happened with ease in
                        > | populations of certain types of fruit-eating insects
                        > | which used the fruits of their host plant for courtship
                        > | displays and mating. If one group of insects, used to
                        > | eating a certain type of fruit, starts to try a new host
                        > | plant, then food choice becomes linked with mate choice,
                        > | and so reproductive isolation can begin.
                        >
                        > | ...Fish living in the same lake can also, it seems,
                        > | become reproductively isolated by way of genetically
                        > | determined variation in food choices, which leads to
                        > | different sizes, and thus to differing mate choices.
                        > |
                        > | In another instance, several species of wasps appear to
                        > | have been thrust apart from a single ancestral wasp
                        > | population by way of nothing more than differing species
                        > | of bacteria in their gut. Somehow, the bacteria in the
                        > | females destroy the DNA from males of the other species.
                        > | Other mechanisms of speciation mentioned were as simple
                        > | as variations in the song of a bird, or in a single
                        > | pigment gene.
                        >
                        > | Reference
                        > | 1. Gibbons, A., 1996. On the many origins of species.
                        > | Science, 273:1496–1499.
                        > | 2. Morell, V., 1996. Starting species with third parties
                        > | and sex wars. Science, 273:1499–1502.
                        >
                      • Dennis Francis
                        The link you gave comes back webpage cannot be found . Dennis (Skip) Francis Suffolk church of Christ ... From: Todd S. Greene To:
                        Message 11 of 22 , Apr 25, 2007
                          The link you gave comes back "webpage cannot be found".
                           
                          Dennis (Skip) Francis
                          Suffolk church of Christ
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 2:07 AM
                          Subject: [christianevidences] Re: Chance Evolution

                          --- In christianevidences, Don DeLong III wrote (post #14):
                          > Mr. Greene,
                          >
                          > In responding to a post by Keith Sisman, you stated,
                          > "Speciation" also occurs. (See my previous post.)" The
                          > comment that you were responding to was, "Whilst evolution
                          > is impossible, mutation within specie does occur."
                          >
                          > Don here - See my previous post. I reading my previous post,
                          > you will see that the main body of your comments were
                          > addressed.

                          Hi Don,

                          As I've now already pointed out in another post, you did not in fact
                          address what I pointed out in that first post, because the specific
                          examples that I referred to (with the reference to the article by Carl
                          Wieland) were ignored and not addressed at all.

                          > You stated, "People who condemn other people to Hell (1)
                          > demonstrate an attitude error since people are not God,
                          > and (2) any ideological system that would condemn people
                          > for accepting the empirical facts merely demonstrates that
                          > the ideological system itself is seriously flawed."
                          >
                          > Don here - Your opening statement of this paragraph is false
                          > and by virtue the whole line of reasoning is false

                          It is not a "line of reasoning," because they are two logically
                          independent statements, and thus two separate "lines" of reasoning.

                          > and thereby your
                          > conclusions are also false. You stated, "People who
                          > condemn other people to Hell..." No person can issue final
                          > and ultimate judgment on any person (including their self).
                          > A person can gather evidence of a person's life (including
                          > their self) and weigh that against the truth of God's Word
                          > and when the weight of that person's life is woefully
                          > inadequate, know what the ultimate outcome of that person's
                          > judgment and thereby eternal home will be.
                          >
                          > Thanks again for your comments,
                          >
                          > Don DeLong

                          Don, I think we all know that throughout history, and from examples
                          we've observed in our own personal lives, far too many people
                          flippantly and overzealously condemn people to Hell, and are
                          arrogating to themselves the perogative of a god. We have all sorts of
                          denominations, and many of these are in the habit of condemning each
                          other for differing from each other. We all know that there are a
                          variety of opinions about what "the truth" of God's Word is. Even
                          within the Church of Christ, no, even within the 10% to 15% of the
                          Church of Christ that is "non-institutional" or otherwise considered
                          "ultra-conservative " there are a variety of opinions about what "the
                          truth" is, and a lot of people condemning each other. It's really
                          quite a spectacle.

                          I agree with what you say, that surely we do make judgments *as human
                          beings* about other people, but the Bible says it is God who sends
                          people to Hell, not you, not me, and not Keith Sisman. I think
                          everyone needs to keep in mind who is who, and remembering that we are
                          not God. Flippant rhetoric is no excuse.

                          Finally, you did not address the point that any ideological system
                          that would condemn people for accepting the empirical facts merely
                          demonstrates that the ideological system itself is seriously flawed.
                          Any ideological system that would condemn people for accepting facts
                          (truth) demonstrates by its doing so that it itself is not true. Truth
                          cannot contradict truth. It is an empirical fact that the Universe has
                          been in existence for at least millions of years (as discovered by
                          astronomical observations) . It is an empirical fact that the Earth has
                          been in existence for at least millions of years (as discovered by
                          geological research). In the context of this particular point and the
                          example being discussed here, we can then say that the ideology of
                          young earth creationism is a false ideology when its advocates use it
                          to condemn people for accepting the empirical facts about the real
                          world. (Note that this is a separate point from the point that it is a
                          false ideology because it is contradicted by the empirical facts.)

                          If Keith has some other basis by which to criticize a person's
                          behavior, he should by all means do so when and where appropriate. But
                          using flippant and prejudice-pandering rhetoric to condemn people to
                          Hell for taking scientific investigation of the real world seriously
                          and for taking empirical facts into account merely because those facts
                          are contrary to one's personal religious ideology merely demonstrates
                          that it is the ideology itself that has serious problems, for which
                          the ideology itself should be duly criticized.

                          - Todd Greene

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

                          > --- In christianevidences, Todd Greene wrote:
                          >> --- In christianevidences, Keith Sisman wrote (post #5):
                          >>> Whilst evolution is impossible, mutation within specie
                          >>> does occur.
                          >>
                          >> "Speciation" also occurs. (See my previous post.)
                          >>
                          >>> Darwin claimed the fossils would be found to prove his
                          >>> hypothesis
                          >>
                          >> Thousands of transitional fossils are known about in paleontology.
                          >>
                          >> Here are a few examples:
                          >> http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ List_of_transiti onal_fossils
                          >>
                          >>> as did Lyell
                          >>> regarding the geological column, to prove the geology
                          >>> Darwin needed gradual and slow evolution.
                          >>
                          >> Geological science was developed BEFORE Darwin. So Keith's
                          >> statement here is factually wrong.
                          >>
                          >> Geology
                          >> http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Geology
                          >>
                          >> Geologic time scale
                          >> http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Geologic_ time_scale
                          >>
                          >>> The geology that
                          >>> Darwin needed has been proved non-existent.
                          >>
                          >> This is another factually wrong statement. Geological science
                          >> was developed substantially before 1859. All one has to do is
                          >> ready ANY geology textbook published today to know that the
                          >> geological principles used by Darwin (hint: Darwin could not
                          >> have used the geological principles in 1859 if they had not
                          >> already been developed) not only exist but the fundamental
                          >> principles have been corroborated over the dozens of decades
                          >> since then.
                          >>
                          >>> Both were wrong,
                          >>
                          >> Mere assertion. And a quite false assertion, according to what
                          >> we know about the real world from scientific investigation of
                          >> it.
                          >>
                          >>> neither repented and both are bound for Hell.
                          >> [snip]
                          >>
                          >> People who condemn other people to Hell (1) demonstrate an attitude
                          >> error since people are not God, and (2) any ideological system that
                          >> would condemn people for accepting the empirical facts merely
                          >> demonstrates that the ideological system itself is seriously flawed.
                          >>
                          >> - Todd Greene

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