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

Re: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: hello and intro

Expand Messages
  • drvr2hrdwr
    ... From: Dana To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 1:50 AM Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: hello and intro ...
    Message 1 of 29 , Jul 31, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Dana
      Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 1:50 AM
      Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: hello and intro

      --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, "Mark L. Bakke"
      <mlbakke1@b...> wrote:
      > > Dana
      > > new here and curious...have definite views on the subject...I have
      > > read a few of the old messagesto get an idea of what's going on. 
      I
      > > stand on the side of creation and take the bible pretty literally.
      > I
      > > think one of the main problems we have today is that when Darwin
      and
      > > others began writing on evolution,the church began to shy away
      from
      > > the bible as a scientific and historical text, thereby allowing it
      > to
      > > become a collection of stories useful only as a moral guide.
      >
      > BAKKE
      > Which is exactly how the Bible should be used.  To try to find
      > scientific accuracy in the Bible is a fruitless and hopeless task. 
      To
      > try to find any genuine history is a difficult task and the stuff
      that
      > *is* genuine is of little importance -- and none at all if one is
      > going to use it to try to buttress arguments in a creation vs.
      > evolution debate.
      >
      > you are yet to disprove what is stated...your view of historical
      importance has more to do with what you think is important.  The
      Bible is a history of a people and a testament of God's love for his
      creation.  It is not all-encompassing, but that to which it refers
      both historically and scientifically has not been disproven. 
      Neil: Your Bible is just one of thousands of speculations.  Your Bible (and by your support of it, you) are making the extraordinary claims, so the burden is on you to provide the extraordinary evidence.  Oh, yes, all the wonderful order of the universe.  Sorry, there are about a zillion alternative explanations for that, so just pointing to the wonder of it all is no evidence for your preferred speculation, The Bible.
       
       
       
       
       
      > > Dana
      > > I used to believe in progressive creation, but the more I
      > > read and research and get to know on the subject, the
      > > more I lean toward a literal six day creation.
      >
      > BAKKE
      > How do you "research" such a view?  There is no extra-Biblical
      > evidence to support it and a formidable amount of evidence to refute
      > it.

      > Dana
      > formidable?  Share with me please.  Extra-biblical evidence?  All
      of creation.  All around us, our world is decaying.
      Neil: Our world is decaying? How exactly?  And even if it is in some respects, how does that prove that the Earth is 6000 years old, or that a literal Genesis is the single correct speculation out of so many? 
       
       
       
       
      Systems are
      becoming less organized, as per scientific laws (not theories).
      Neil:  I suspect that this is an allusion to the 2nd law of TD.  No, Dana, the 2nd law is just a general principle developed for the study of heat cycle technologies well over 100 years ago.  It was never intended to be some kind of edict that no system could ever self organize.
       
      Many localized, non-isolated systems do in fact self organize.  The rest of the universe may be going to hell in a handbasket, but who cares?  Our little corner of existence self organized.
       
       
       
       
       
      More
      on that later.. Numerous scientists who do believe in creation
      provide further evidence. 
      Neil:  Which version of creation?  Perfect watch, guided evolution, hoax universe YEC, humanity came out of a cave in the Black Hills, Vishnu, or "scientific" YEC?
       
       
       
      And, I'm sorry, but when Stephen Hawkings
      and others brought in extra-terrestrial design to solve the problem
      of origins, I found it laughable.  It only moves the problem to
      another planet,anyway.
      Neil:  Save the chuckles, we all know that if abiogenesis did not occur here then it occurred elsewhere, in which case much the same pro and con arguments arise.  The point is that extraterrestrial origins may be the fact of how things got started here, nobody knows, but it needs to be considered.  Extraterrestrial origins also broaden the number of places and conditions and trials available for abiogenesis.
       
      Your snickering here is misplaced.
       
       
       
       


      > > Dana
      > > That may sound absurd, but then how much faith does it
      > > take to believe that "In the beginning, there was nothing.  And
      then
      > > it exploded."
      >
      > BAKKE
      > Who believes that?  Science doesn't.  I hope you're not accepting
      > Biblical literalism out of a mistaken interpretation or insufficient
      > understanding of science.
      >
      Dana
      science does not believe anything.  Only the scientists who study it
      and form their hypotheses.  Science is a search for truth and in and
      of itself neither proves nor disproves anything, including the
      existence of a Creator.
      Neil:  The idea of a creator is indeed an entirely unscientific speculation.  It is the continual peddling of junk by creation "scientists" that can be shown to be scientifically false.
       
       
       
       

      > ______________________
      > ~~ Mark L. Bakke
      > ~~ http://www.bakkster.com



      ****Invite your friends to join the group!****
      This group is open to all and anyone can join this group by sending a blank email to:
      creation_evolution_debate-subscribe@...
      and then respondng to the email sent to them from egroups.



      volution_debate-subscribe@...
      and then respondng to the email sent to them from egroups.






    • drvr2hrdwr
      ... From: Dana To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 2:12 AM Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: hello and intro ...
      Message 2 of 29 , Jul 31, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Dana
        Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 2:12 AM
        Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: hello and intro


        > Neil:  Good point about the notion that nothing caused itself to
        become something by no cause, by no rules, for no reason, and it
        became something out of nothing at all.  Doesn't seem too reasonable
        to me either.
        >
        > I much prefer the idea that matter/energy is conserved,
        matter/energy exists, so matter/energy is eternal.

        Dana
        I suppose that works a little better than trying to pretend like all
        scientific laws that have been proven as such were suspended for a
        brief moment in time in order for life to "happen" and then resumed
        their normal duties. 
        Neil:  I was talking about the Big Bang, now you seem to have segued to abiogenesis.  Hmmm...
        How do you suppose that the laws of physics needed to be suspended for abiogenesis to occur?
         
         
         
         
        I still think evidence points to a highly
        ordered universe becoming rapidly disorganized,not the other way
        around.
        Neil2:  You may want to google on the Hubble Deep Field then.  There we have direct observational evidence of the less ordered earlier universe.
         
        Better yet, look for WMAP, or COBE, CMB, or CBR.  If you are not to astronomically inclined I will briefly say that WMAP is a modern observational program, COBE was an early microwave background observing satellite, CMB is the Cosmic Microwave Background, and CBR is the same thing reworded as the Cosmic Background Radiation.  The point is that from these things we get direct observational evidence of the very chaotic early universe all the way back to when it first became transparent.
         
        Order has increased in galaxies, star systems, and here on Earth over the age of the universe.
         
         
         
         
         

        >
        > BTW, I am fairly new here too, and sort of went the opposite of
        you.  By age 12 I had rejected  my Sunday school, public school,
        parental teachings, became a young atheist, and have grown into an
        (ahem) older atheist.
        >
        > Nietzsche, too, was once a believer, but from my understanding
        looked at the horrors around him in war and thought God was weak,
        sickly and unable to stop the evils of this world.  So God eventually
        died. 
        Neil2:  That presupposes that God once lived, but is capable of death.  Just more speculation.
         
         
         
         
        I actually have some level of respect for Nietzsche.  Of all
        the philosophers working against God, he at least takes the stance to
        its conclusion, painting a pretty bleak picture for humanity.  I,
        however, believe quite firmly that there is absolute truth and there
        is right and wrong, and how we feel about it is pretty irrelevant. 
        It is not a subjective matter.
        Curious that your public school taught against atheism...
        Neil2:  I was told in grade school that the 2nd law of TD proves that evolution is impossible.  That didn't seem to make sense to me, even as a child.  Realizing that I had been fed baloney about this contributed significantly to my conclusion that God simply does not exist.
         
         
         
         
         

        >
        >
        > ****Invite your friends to join the group!****
        > This group is open to all and anyone can join this group by sending
        a blank email to:
        > creation_evolution_debate-subscribe@e...
        > and then respondng to the email sent to them from egroups.
        >
        >
        >
        > volution_debate-subscribe@e...
        > and then respondng to the email sent to them from egroups.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
        >               ADVERTISEMENT
        >             
        >       
        >       
        >
        >
        > --------------------------------------------------------------------
        ----------
        >   Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >     a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
        >     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creation_evolution_debate/
        >      
        >     b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        >     creation_evolution_debate-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >      
        >     c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
        Service.



        ****Invite your friends to join the group!****
        This group is open to all and anyone can join this group by sending a blank email to:
        creation_evolution_debate-subscribe@...
        and then respondng to the email sent to them from egroups.



        volution_debate-subscribe@...
        and then respondng to the email sent to them from egroups.






      • drvr2hrdwr
        ... From: Dana To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 2:37 AM Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: hello and intro
        Message 3 of 29 , Jul 31, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
           
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: Dana
          Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 2:37 AM
          Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: hello and intro


          Dana
          > It is a scientific law, regardless of the existence of God. 
          Evolution, however, requires the complex coming from the simple and
          it just is not observable in nature.
          Neil: 
          Clouds of gas and dust condense into star systems.
          Crystals form from chaotic solutions.
          Snowstorms form from chaotic water vapor.
          The universe went from chaotic matter/energy at the time of first transparency, to clump into proto-galaxies, and then galaxies, and local groups, and supergroups, while inside the galaxies star systems formed from chaotic gas and dust, until now there are weather systems on every planet with an atmosphere and jillions of intricately organized crystals form out of chaotic water molecules in the atmosphere.
           
          You look around and see only decay?  I strongly suggest you look again.
           


          ****Invite your friends to join the group!****
          This group is open to all and anyone can join this group by sending a blank email to:
          creation_evolution_debate-subscribe@...
          and then respondng to the email sent to them from egroups.



          volution_debate-subscribe@...
          and then respondng to the email sent to them from egroups.






        • Dana
          ... become something by no cause, by no rules, for no reason, and it became something out of nothing at all. Doesn t seem too reasonable to me either. ...
          Message 4 of 29 , Aug 1, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            > Neil: Good point about the notion that nothing caused itself to
            become something by no cause, by no rules, for no reason, and it
            became something out of nothing at all. Doesn't seem too reasonable
            to me either.
            >
            > I much prefer the idea that matter/energy is conserved,
            matter/energy exists, so matter/energy is eternal.

            Dana
            I suppose that works a little better than trying to pretend like all
            scientific laws that have been proven as such were suspended for a
            brief moment in time in order for life to "happen" and then resumed
            their normal duties. I still think evidence points to a highly
            ordered universe becoming rapidly disorganized,not the other way
            around.
            >
            > BTW, I am fairly new here too, and sort of went the opposite of
            you. By age 12 I had rejected my Sunday school, public school,
            parental teachings, became a young atheist, and have grown into an
            (ahem) older atheist.
            >
            > Nietsche, too, was once a believer, but from my understanding
            looked at the horrors around him in war and thought God was weak,
            sickly and unable to stop the evils of this world. So God eventually
            died. I actually have some level of respect for Nietsche. Of all
            the philosophers working against God, he at least takes the stance to
            its conclusion, painting a pretty bleak picture for humanity. I,
            however, believe quite firmly that there is absolute truth and there
            is right and wrong, and how we feel about it is pretty irrelevant.
            It is not a subjective matter.
            Curious that your public school taught against atheism...
            >
            >
            > ****Invite your friends to join the group!****
            > This group is open to all and anyone can join this group by sending
            a blank email to:
            > creation_evolution_debate-subscribe@e...
            > and then respondng to the email sent to them from egroups.
            >
            >
            >
            > volution_debate-subscribe@e...
            > and then respondng to the email sent to them from egroups.
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
            > ADVERTISEMENT
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > --------------------------------------------------------------------
            ----------
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            > a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
            > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creation_evolution_debate/
            >
            > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            > creation_evolution_debate-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >
            > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
            Service.
          • Mark L. Bakke
            ... BAKKE There is some history in the Bible, but the majority of it is a recounting of the myths and legends of the Hebrew people. Even some of the
            Message 5 of 29 , Aug 1, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              > > BAKKE
              > > Which is exactly how the Bible should be used. To try to find
              > > scientific accuracy in the Bible is a fruitless and hopeless task.
              > To
              > > try to find any genuine history is a difficult task and the stuff
              > that
              > > *is* genuine is of little importance -- and none at all if one is
              > > going to use it to try to buttress arguments in a creation vs.
              > > evolution debate.
              >
              > Dana
              > you are yet to disprove what is stated...your view of historical
              > importance has more to do with what you think is important. The
              > Bible is a history of a people and a testament of God's love for his
              > creation.

              BAKKE
              There is some history in the Bible, but the majority of it is a
              recounting of the myths and legends of the Hebrew people. Even some
              of the historical parts have been embellished into fictional status.
              Do you really believe, for example, that Solomon's temple was
              constructed exactly as recounted in the Old Testament? Finally, many
              parts of the OT that seem historical are actually myths. Do you
              believe, for example, that Samson was a real person?


              > Dana
              > It is not all-encompassing, but that to which it refers
              > both historically and scientifically has not been disproven.

              BAKKE
              HUH??!!?!?! You don't think it has been proven that, despite the
              story in Genesis 1, the Earth was *not* created before the Sun and
              stars? You don't think it has been proven that, despite Gen 6-8, a
              worldwide Flood is impossible? Do you believe that the Exodus was an
              actual historical event -- despite there not being a single shred of
              evidence that Hebrew slaves were ever in Egypt (much less held there
              for over 400 years) and despite a similar complete lack of evidence
              that millions of these Hebrews wandered about in the Sinai for 40
              years?


              > > > Dana
              > > > I used to believe in progressive creation, but the more I
              > > > read and research and get to know on the subject, the
              > > > more I lean toward a literal six day creation.
              > >
              > > BAKKE
              > > How do you "research" such a view? There is no extra-Biblical
              > > evidence to support it and a formidable amount of evidence to
              refute
              > > it.
              >
              > Dana
              > formidable? Share with me please.

              BAKKE
              Here is the definitive collection of young-earth disproofs:
              http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html


              > Dana
              > Extra-biblical evidence? All
              > of creation. All around us, our world is decaying. Systems are
              > becoming less organized, as per scientific laws (not theories).

              BAKKE
              How does that prove a literal, six-day creation interpretation of the
              Bible? Wouldn't entropy be exactly as we observe it if God did *not*
              create Life, the Universe, and Everything? If not, why not?


              > Dana
              > Numerous scientists who do believe in creation
              > provide further evidence.

              BAKKE
              Such as? This claim is often advanced, but rarely supported.


              > Dana
              > And, I'm sorry, but when Stephen Hawkings
              > and others brought in extra-terrestrial design to solve the problem
              > of origins, I found it laughable. It only moves the problem to
              > another planet,anyway.

              BAKKE
              I think you have something severely mistaken here. But, just so I
              don't unfairly put words into your mouth, please explain this further.


              > > > Dana
              > > > That may sound absurd, but then how much faith does it
              > > > take to believe that "In the beginning, there was nothing. And
              > then
              > > > it exploded."
              > >
              > > BAKKE
              > > Who believes that? Science doesn't. I hope you're not accepting
              > > Biblical literalism out of a mistaken interpretation or
              insufficient
              > > understanding of science.
              >
              > Dana
              > science does not believe anything. Only the scientists who study it
              > and form their hypotheses. Science is a search for truth and in and
              > of itself neither proves nor disproves anything, including the
              > existence of a Creator.

              BAKKE
              You're avoiding my question. "Science" is a collective term for the
              sum total of our knowledge of the reality of the natural realm as
              discovered and explained by the sum total of individual scientists.
              Now, please answer my question. Who says "In the beginning, there was
              nothing. And then it exploded."? That is *not* the conclusion of
              modern science.

              ______________________
              ~~ Mark L. Bakke
              ~~ http://www.bakkster.com
            • Dana
              ... his ... many ... Dana I think some of what you said requires some evidence on your part. Actually, there is satellite evidence of a mass migration of
              Message 6 of 29 , Aug 1, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                > >This is not a complete answer to anything.
                > > Dana
                > > you are yet to disprove what is stated...your view of historical
                > > importance has more to do with what you think is important. The
                > > Bible is a history of a people and a testament of God's love for
                his
                > > creation.
                >
                > BAKKE
                > There is some history in the Bible, but the majority of it is a
                > recounting of the myths and legends of the Hebrew people. Even some
                > of the historical parts have been embellished into fictional status.
                > Do you really believe, for example, that Solomon's temple was
                > constructed exactly as recounted in the Old Testament? Finally,
                many
                > parts of the OT that seem historical are actually myths. Do you
                > believe, for example, that Samson was a real person?
                >
                Dana
                I think some of what you said requires some evidence on your part.
                Actually, there is satellite evidence of a mass migration of people
                through the desert, archeological finds are yet to disprove anything
                as it is described in the bible.
                >
                > > Dana
                > > It is not all-encompassing, but that to which it refers
                > > both historically and scientifically has not been disproven.
                >
                > BAKKE
                > HUH??!!?!?! You don't think it has been proven that, despite the
                > story in Genesis 1, the Earth was *not* created before the Sun and
                > stars? You don't think it has been proven that, despite Gen 6-8, a
                > worldwide Flood is impossible? Do you believe that the Exodus was
                an
                > actual historical event -- despite there not being a single shred of
                > evidence that Hebrew slaves were ever in Egypt (much less held there
                > for over 400 years) and despite a similar complete lack of evidence
                > that millions of these Hebrews wandered about in the Sinai for 40
                > years?
                >
                > No, I do not believe it has been disproven.
                > > > > Dana
                > > > > I used to believe in progressive creation, but the more I
                > > > > read and research and get to know on the subject, the
                > > > > more I lean toward a literal six day creation.
                > > >
                > > > BAKKE
                > > > How do you "research" such a view? There is no extra-Biblical
                > > > evidence to support it and a formidable amount of evidence to
                > refute
                > > > it.
                > >
                > > Dana
                > > formidable? Share with me please.
                >
                > BAKKE
                > Here is the definitive collection of young-earth disproofs:
                > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html
                >
                >
                > > Dana
                > > Extra-biblical evidence? All
                > > of creation. All around us, our world is decaying. Systems are
                > > becoming less organized, as per scientific laws (not theories).
                >
                > BAKKE
                > How does that prove a literal, six-day creation interpretation of
                the
                > Bible? Wouldn't entropy be exactly as we observe it if God did
                *not*
                > create Life, the Universe, and Everything? If not, why not?
                >
                Dana
                > It is a scientific law, regardless of the existence of God.
                Evolution, however, requires the complex coming from the simple and
                it just is not observable in nature.

                > > Dana
                > > Numerous scientists who do believe in creation
                > > provide further evidence.
                >
                > BAKKE
                > Such as? This claim is often advanced, but rarely supported.
                >
                >
                > > Dana
                > > And, I'm sorry, but when Stephen Hawkings
                > > and others brought in extra-terrestrial design to solve the
                problem
                > > of origins, I found it laughable. It only moves the problem to
                > > another planet,anyway.
                >
                > BAKKE
                > I think you have something severely mistaken here. But, just so I
                > don't unfairly put words into your mouth, please explain this
                further.
                >
                >
                > > > > Dana
                > > > > That may sound absurd, but then how much faith does it
                > > > > take to believe that "In the beginning, there was nothing.
                And
                > > then
                > > > > it exploded."
                > > >
                > > > BAKKE
                > > > Who believes that? Science doesn't. I hope you're not
                accepting
                > > > Biblical literalism out of a mistaken interpretation or
                > insufficient
                > > > understanding of science.
                > >
                > > Dana
                > > science does not believe anything. Only the scientists who study
                it
                > > and form their hypotheses. Science is a search for truth and in
                and
                > > of itself neither proves nor disproves anything, including the
                > > existence of a Creator.
                >
                > BAKKE
                > You're avoiding my question. "Science" is a collective term for the
                > sum total of our knowledge of the reality of the natural realm as
                > discovered and explained by the sum total of individual scientists.
                > Now, please answer my question. Who says "In the beginning, there
                was
                > nothing. And then it exploded."? That is *not* the conclusion of
                > modern science.
                >
                > ______________________
                > ~~ Mark L. Bakke
                > ~~ http://www.bakkster.com
              • Eoghan
                Quite a lot. Good job that isn t what science says, isn t it? Eoghan ... From: Dana To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004
                Message 7 of 29 , Aug 1, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Quite a lot. Good job that isn't what science says, isn't it?
                  Eoghan
                   
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: Dana
                  Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 7:06 AM
                  Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] hello and intro

                  That may sound absurd, but then how much faith does it
                  take to believe that "In the beginning, there was nothing.  And then
                  it exploded."
                • Eoghan
                  Oopsies, you seem to have missed two very important parts of Bakke s post. Here they are again, so you can finish your reply. Eoghan ... From: Dana To:
                  Message 8 of 29 , Aug 1, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Oopsies, you seem to have missed two very important parts of Bakke's post. Here they are again, so you can finish your reply.
                    Eoghan
                     
                     
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: Dana
                    Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 8:37 AM
                    Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: hello and intro

                    > > >
                    > > > BAKKE
                    > > > How do you "research" such a view?  There is no extra-Biblical
                    > > > evidence to support it and a formidable amount of evidence to
                    > refute
                    > > > it.
                    > >
                    > > Dana
                    > > formidable?  Share with me please.
                    >
                    > BAKKE
                    > Here is the definitive collection of young-earth disproofs:
                    > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html
                    >
                     
                     
                    > >
                    > > Dana
                    > > science does not believe anything.  Only the scientists who study
                    it
                    > > and form their hypotheses.  Science is a search for truth and in
                    and
                    > > of itself neither proves nor disproves anything, including the
                    > > existence of a Creator.
                    >
                    > BAKKE
                    > You're avoiding my question.  "Science" is a collective term for the
                    > sum total of our knowledge of the reality of the natural realm as
                    > discovered and explained by the sum total of individual scientists.
                    > Now, please answer my question.  Who says "In the beginning, there
                    was
                    > nothing.  And then it exploded."?  That is *not* the conclusion of
                    > modern science.
                    >
                  • Vigilius Haufniensis
                    ... VMANN: that is not factually the case. science disproves theories and hypotheses. vigilius haufniensis
                    Message 9 of 29 , Aug 1, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > Dana> science does not believe anything. Only the scientists who study it
                      > and form their hypotheses. Science is a search for truth and in and
                      > of itself neither proves nor disproves anything, including the
                      > existence of a Creator.


                      VMANN: that is not factually the case.
                      science disproves theories and hypotheses.
                      vigilius haufniensis
                    • tinroad66
                      Tin: Gymnut is that you ? ... Tin: Science is shorthand for the consensus conclusion of the scientific community. Science most certainly makes conclusions.
                      Message 10 of 29 , Aug 1, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Tin: Gymnut is that you ?


                        > Dana
                        > science does not believe anything.

                        Tin: "Science" is shorthand for the consensus conclusion of the
                        scientific community. Science most certainly makes conclusions.




                        Only the scientists who study it
                        > and form their hypotheses. Science is a search for truth and in
                        and
                        > of itself neither proves nor disproves anything, including the
                        > existence of a Creator.

                        Tin: Yea, pretty much.
                      • drvr2hrdwr
                        ... From: Dana To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 11:46 AM Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: hello and intro
                        Message 11 of 29 , Aug 1, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                           
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: Dana
                          Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 11:46 AM
                          Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: hello and intro

                          --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, "drvr2hrdwr"
                          <drvr2hrdwr@h...> wrote:
                          >
                          >   ----- Original Message -----
                          >   From: Dana
                          >   To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com
                          >   Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 2:37 AM
                          >   Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: hello and intro
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >   Dana
                          >   > It is a scientific law, regardless of the existence of God. 
                          >   Evolution, however, requires the complex coming from the simple
                          and
                          >   it just is not observable in nature.
                          > Neil:
                          > Clouds of gas and dust condense into star systems.
                          > Crystals form from chaotic solutions.
                          > Snowstorms form from chaotic water vapor.
                          > The universe went from chaotic matter/energy at the time of first
                          transparency, to clump into proto-galaxies, and then galaxies, and
                          local groups, and supergroups, while inside the galaxies star systems
                          formed from chaotic gas and dust, until now there are weather systems
                          on every planet with an atmosphere and jillions of intricately
                          organized crystals form out of chaotic water molecules in the
                          atmosphere.
                          >
                          > You look around and see only decay?  I strongly suggest you look
                          again.
                          > Dana
                          > Did you see it happen,
                          Neil2: Yes, I saw it happen.  Do you realize that when you look through a telescope you are looking directly at the object?  It is not some kind of animation, is it?  We are directly observing these events. 
                           
                           
                           
                           
                           
                          or is that your hypothesis. One argues that
                          the further away we look into the universe, the futher into the past
                          we go and thus the closer to the beginnings.  If matter/energy is
                          infinite, there is no "beginning." 
                          Neil2:  Not quite.  You are confusing steady state theory with eternal matter/energy.  Eternal matter/energy just means that the universe was or is closed, or there is a megaverse or omniverse or multiverse.  Eternal matter/energy still fits with the Big Bang, and the BB still marks a clear dividing event in the history of matter/energy. 
                           
                           
                           
                           
                           
                          You are only guessing what
                          happened next.
                          Neil2:  You are mixing up the terms guess and scientific fact.  A scientific fact is not an absolute fact, it is the confirmation of a hypothesis (which is closer to a guess) by observation and mathematical modeling.
                           
                          I am guessing that you were produced by a mother and a father, but hey, it's just a guess. 
                           
                           
                           
                           
                           
                          You are looking at one finite point in history...even
                          if you are looking 1 million years into the past, it is a finite
                          point and you do not know what happened to that particular
                          star/system/whatever over the next million years.  Did it organize
                          itself into a more complex system?  Or did it use to be more complex
                          and is now totally gone?  When I ask for evidence of something
                          observable, I mean from beginning to end...or at least some
                          significant portion of the process.  Not one point in a star's
                          history and a guess of what might have happened based on looking at
                          finite points of other stars' histories.
                          Neil2:  The observation of the history of the universe is more like the frames in a film strip.  Each observation exposes another frame.  We have frames from close to the beginning all the way up to the present and millions of places in between.  We also have a great deal of math and physics to fill in the gaps.
                           
                          Consider a series of pictures.  The first shows a man in the air 1 foot below a high diving board.  The next is at 3 feet below, then others at 7, 10, 15 and 19 feet below.  We have a picture of his hands touching the water, then another with him half way in the water, and another is just a big splash.  I just met him and he is all wet.  My "guess" is that he dove off the diving board.  Of course, I don't have a picture of that, but using physics I can trace his path backwards to the board using the data points (pictures) I have.  With such an analysis we have really moved well beyond mere guesswork.
                           
                           
                           


                          Intricately organized ice crystals? Big leap from that to life.  I do
                          not care how rich the primordial soup was in organic matter or its
                          chemical composition or the introduction of lightning, it is all a
                          huge leap to bring forth life.  It is not self-sustaining or self-
                          repairing.
                          Neil2: Your statement was "complex coming from the simple and it just is not observable in nature."  You are wrong in that statement, as I have proved with counter examples.
                           
                          Now you want to move the bar to the difficulty of abiogenesis.  Well OK, I agree, it is highly unlikely at any particular place and time.  The odds against it at any particular place and time are not calculable, but they are intuitively astronomical.  Fortunately for us, the cosmos provides an astronomical number of trials, and we are the result.
                           
                           
                           
                           
                           
                           
                           
                           
                           
                           
                           

                          >
                          >   ****Invite your friends to join the group!****
                          >   This group is open to all and anyone can join this group by
                          sending a blank email to:
                          >   creation_evolution_debate-subscribe@e...
                          >   and then respondng to the email sent to them from egroups.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >   volution_debate-subscribe@e...
                          >   and then respondng to the email sent to them from egroups.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                          >               ADVERTISEMENT
                          >             
                          >       
                          >       
                          >
                          >
                          > --------------------------------------------------------------------
                          ----------
                          >   Yahoo! Groups Links
                          >
                          >     a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
                          >     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creation_evolution_debate/
                          >      
                          >     b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                          >     creation_evolution_debate-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          >      
                          >     c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                          Service.



                          ****Invite your friends to join the group!****
                          This group is open to all and anyone can join this group by sending a blank email to:
                          creation_evolution_debate-subscribe@...
                          and then respondng to the email sent to them from egroups.



                          volution_debate-subscribe@...
                          and then respondng to the email sent to them from egroups.






                        • Dana
                          ... and ... transparency, to clump into proto-galaxies, and then galaxies, and local groups, and supergroups, while inside the galaxies star systems formed
                          Message 12 of 29 , Aug 1, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, "drvr2hrdwr"
                            <drvr2hrdwr@h...> wrote:
                            >
                            > ----- Original Message -----
                            > From: Dana
                            > To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com
                            > Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 2:37 AM
                            > Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: hello and intro
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Dana
                            > > It is a scientific law, regardless of the existence of God.
                            > Evolution, however, requires the complex coming from the simple
                            and
                            > it just is not observable in nature.
                            > Neil:
                            > Clouds of gas and dust condense into star systems.
                            > Crystals form from chaotic solutions.
                            > Snowstorms form from chaotic water vapor.
                            > The universe went from chaotic matter/energy at the time of first
                            transparency, to clump into proto-galaxies, and then galaxies, and
                            local groups, and supergroups, while inside the galaxies star systems
                            formed from chaotic gas and dust, until now there are weather systems
                            on every planet with an atmosphere and jillions of intricately
                            organized crystals form out of chaotic water molecules in the
                            atmosphere.
                            >
                            > You look around and see only decay? I strongly suggest you look
                            again.
                            > Dana
                            > Did you see it happen, or is that your hypothesis. One argues that
                            the further away we look into the universe, the futher into the past
                            we go and thus the closer to the beginnings. If matter/energy is
                            infinite, there is no "beginning." You are only guessing what
                            happened next. You are looking at one finite point in history...even
                            if you are looking 1 million years into the past, it is a finite
                            point and you do not know what happend to that particular
                            star/system/whatever over the next million years. Did it organize
                            itself into a more complex system? Or did it use to be more complex
                            and is now totally gone? When I ask for evidence of something
                            observable, I mean from beginning to end...or at least some
                            significant portion of the process. Not one point in a star's
                            history and a guess of what might have happened based on looking at
                            finite points of other stars' histories.

                            Intricately organized ice crystals? Big leap from that to life. I do
                            not care how rich the primordial soup was in organic matter or its
                            chemical composition or the introduction of lightning, it is all a
                            huge leap to bring forth life. It is not self-sustaining or self-
                            repairing.
                            >
                            > ****Invite your friends to join the group!****
                            > This group is open to all and anyone can join this group by
                            sending a blank email to:
                            > creation_evolution_debate-subscribe@e...
                            > and then respondng to the email sent to them from egroups.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > volution_debate-subscribe@e...
                            > and then respondng to the email sent to them from egroups.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                            > ADVERTISEMENT
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > --------------------------------------------------------------------
                            ----------
                            > Yahoo! Groups Links
                            >
                            > a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
                            > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creation_evolution_debate/
                            >
                            > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                            > creation_evolution_debate-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                            >
                            > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                            Service.
                          • Dave Oldridge
                            ... The CHURCH was never that attached to the text as a scientific history of the universe. Even as history it is a somewhat mixed bag because it is quite
                            Message 13 of 29 , Aug 1, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On 1 Aug 2004 at 6:06, Dana wrote:

                              > new here and curious...have definite views on the subject...I have
                              > read a few of the old messagesto get an idea of what's going on. I
                              > stand on the side of creation and take the bible pretty literally. I
                              > think one of the main problems we have today is that when Darwin and
                              > others began writing on evolution,the church began to shy away from
                              > the bible as a scientific and historical text, thereby allowing it to
                              > become a collection of stories useful only as a moral guide. I used

                              The CHURCH was never that attached to the text as a scientific history of the
                              universe. Even as history it is a somewhat mixed bag because it is quite
                              frankly difficult to separate the history from the mythology.

                              > to believe in progressive creation, but the more I read and research
                              > and get to know on the subject, the more I lean toward a literal six
                              > day creation. That may sound absurd, but then how much faith does it
                              > take to believe that "In the beginning, there was nothing. And then
                              > it exploded."

                              It's not so much a matter of faith as of observation. The universe has been
                              expanding for all of the 13.4 billion years (about) that we can observe it into
                              the past. Something you are forgetting here is that a telescope is a means of
                              viewing things not only at a huge distance, but also long ago.

                              For example, in 1987, a star in a satellite galaxy of our own (relatively near
                              as cosmic things go) was seen here to have exploded violently, sending
                              detectable bursts of neutrinos our way and a whole lot of bright light,
                              ultraviolet and x-rays included in every direction. The stars in that
                              satellite galaxy compute to be about 170,000 light years from here, based on
                              the apparent brightness of Cepheid variable stars in it. These stars,
                              whenever we can actually triangulate their distance accurately always have a
                              period of variation that exhibits a strict mathematical relationship to the
                              star's actual light output, or what astronomers call its absolute magnitude.
                              Thus by comparing apparent and absolute brightness we can estimate the distance
                              of these objects.

                              The exploding star which we saw in 1987 illuminated a ring some fairly
                              significant fraction of a year later. (The ring was given off by the star
                              long, long ago). By observing the illumination pattern of the ring, it was
                              possible to determine that the ring is centered on the star's remains and to
                              measure its size in light-days very accurately. By triangulation, it then
                              becomes possible to measure the distance from here to the explosion in light-
                              days, which, not surprisingly, turns out to be about 167,000 years.

                              This is conclusive evidence for science that the universe was in existence
                              167,000 years ago (and much more than that, actually).

                              Creationists spend a lot of futile effort trying to convince THEMSELVES that
                              this is not the case. Some of their efforts become so ludicrous as to border
                              on blasphemy. Some of them go right over the line and no longer border on it,
                              imputing appalling deviousness to God.

                              But latter-day young-earth creationism is not a CHRISTIAN doctrine. It is a
                              heretical doctrine espoused by certain sects of Christianity, none of them with
                              any real historic connection to the original apostolic faith of that name.

                              Dave Oldridge
                              ICQ 1800667
                              VA7CZ
                            • Mark L. Bakke
                              ... some ... status. ... BAKKE If such evidence didn t exist, I would not have stated what I did. Now, can you please directly answer the questions that I
                              Message 14 of 29 , Aug 1, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                > > BAKKE
                                > > There is some history in the Bible, but the majority of it is a
                                > > recounting of the myths and legends of the Hebrew people. Even
                                some
                                > > of the historical parts have been embellished into fictional
                                status.
                                > > Do you really believe, for example, that Solomon's temple was
                                > > constructed exactly as recounted in the Old Testament? Finally,
                                > > many
                                > > parts of the OT that seem historical are actually myths. Do you
                                > > believe, for example, that Samson was a real person?
                                >
                                > Dana
                                > I think some of what you said requires some evidence on your part.

                                BAKKE
                                If such evidence didn't exist, I would not have stated what I did.
                                Now, can you please directly answer the questions that I asked you?


                                > Dana
                                > Actually, there is satellite evidence of a mass migration of people
                                > through the desert,

                                BAKKE
                                Where? Need I remind you that there were no satellites at the time
                                the Exodus was supposed to have happened? So, what and where is this
                                "evidence" you speak of?


                                > Dana
                                > archeological finds are yet to disprove anything
                                > as it is described in the bible.

                                BAKKE
                                Quite incorrect. The refuting examples are many and varied. How
                                about just two for starters?

                                1) 2 Kings 15:19 tells of the arrival of a King of Assyria named
                                "Pul". But, according to Assyrian records, they never had a King
                                named Pul. Babylonian legends equate "Pul" with "Tiglath-pileser
                                III", but the actual King of Assyria at the historical time referenced
                                in this verse was Iva-bish.

                                2) 2 Kings 18:13, "Now in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah did
                                Sennacherib king of Assyria come up against all the fenced cities of
                                Judah, and took them." Unfortunately, the fourteenth year of King
                                Hezekiah was 714 BCE and Sennacherib did not become king of Assyria
                                until 705 BCE and did not launch the referenced attack until 701 BCE.


                                > > > Dana
                                > > > It is not all-encompassing, but that to which it refers
                                > > > both historically and scientifically has not been disproven.
                                > >
                                > > BAKKE
                                > > HUH??!!?!?! You don't think it has been proven that, despite the
                                > > story in Genesis 1, the Earth was *not* created before the Sun and
                                > > stars? You don't think it has been proven that, despite Gen 6-8,
                                a
                                > > worldwide Flood is impossible? Do you believe that the Exodus was
                                > an
                                > > actual historical event -- despite there not being a single shred
                                of
                                > > evidence that Hebrew slaves were ever in Egypt (much less held
                                there
                                > > for over 400 years) and despite a similar complete lack of
                                evidence
                                > > that millions of these Hebrews wandered about in the Sinai for 40
                                > > years?
                                >
                                > Dana
                                > No, I do not believe it has been disproven.

                                BAKKE
                                So, let's be sure about this. You are saying that you believe that
                                the Earth was created before the Sun? You are saying that you believe
                                that grass, trees and other plants (created the same day as the Earth)
                                could have survived without the existence of the Sun? You are saying
                                that there could have been "evening" and "morning" prior to the
                                creation of the Sun? Is this what you are saying? If so, how can you
                                possibly support such claims?
                                In reference to the Flood, are you saying that water covered the
                                Earth to a height necessary to cover all the mountains (a depth of
                                nearly six miles)? Do you realize that this would require over four
                                times as much water as the amount that the Earth actually contains?
                                In reference to the Exodus, are you saying that Hebrew slaves were
                                held in Egypt for over 400 years without a single mention of them
                                being entered into Egyptian records? Are you saying that several
                                million people can wander around in a relatively small peninsula for
                                40 years without leaving behind so much as a campfire remnant, a scrap
                                of tent fabric or clothing, a piece of pottery or jewelry, any
                                graveyards for people or animals, or any other trace of their ever
                                having been there?


                                > > BAKKE
                                > > Here is the definitive collection of young-earth disproofs:
                                > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > > Dana
                                > > > Extra-biblical evidence? All
                                > > > of creation. All around us, our world is decaying. Systems are
                                > > > becoming less organized, as per scientific laws (not theories).
                                > >
                                > > BAKKE
                                > > How does that prove a literal, six-day creation interpretation of
                                > the
                                > > Bible? Wouldn't entropy be exactly as we observe it if God did
                                > *not*
                                > > create Life, the Universe, and Everything? If not, why not?
                                >
                                > Dana
                                > It is a scientific law, regardless of the existence of God.

                                BAKKE
                                How does one tell the difference between a scientific law that exists
                                regardless of whether or not God exists and one that *is* dependent
                                upon God? Do you have any arguments supporting a Young Earth that are
                                not utterly demolished in the document linked above?


                                > Dana
                                > Evolution, however, requires the complex coming from the simple and
                                > it just is not observable in nature.

                                BAKKE
                                Wrong on both counts. Evolution does not require progression towards
                                ever-increasing complexity. There are many examples in nature
                                (especially among marine creatures) of species becoming *less*
                                complex. Also, nearly every issue of biology journals documents the
                                observation of new species emerging. Below is the definitive document
                                describing the evidence in favor of the scientific case for common
                                descent:
                                http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/


                                > > > Dana
                                > > > Numerous scientists who do believe in creation
                                > > > provide further evidence.
                                > >
                                > > BAKKE
                                > > Such as? This claim is often advanced, but rarely supported.
                                >
                                > Dana
                                > [no answer]

                                BAKKE
                                C'mon, Dana. Answers are required here. Lets have examples of these
                                "numerous scientists" and their "evidence".


                                > > > Dana
                                > > > And, I'm sorry, but when Stephen Hawkings
                                > > > and others brought in extra-terrestrial design to solve the
                                > problem
                                > > > of origins, I found it laughable. It only moves the problem to
                                > > > another planet,anyway.
                                > >
                                > > BAKKE
                                > > I think you have something severely mistaken here. But, just so I
                                > > don't unfairly put words into your mouth, please explain this
                                > > further.
                                >
                                > Dana
                                > [no answer]

                                BAKKE
                                C'mon, Dana. Don't make claims that you can't back up with details.


                                > > BAKKE
                                > > You're avoiding my question. "Science" is a collective term for
                                the
                                > > sum total of our knowledge of the reality of the natural realm as
                                > > discovered and explained by the sum total of individual
                                scientists.
                                > > Now, please answer my question. Who says "In the beginning, there
                                > was
                                > > nothing. And then it exploded."? That is *not* the conclusion of
                                > > modern science.
                                >
                                > Dana
                                > [no answer]

                                BAKKE
                                C'mon, Dana. If you're going to quote somebody, you ought to know who
                                you're quoting. I hope you're not simply copying this stuff out of a
                                Creationist tract without giving it any serious thought.

                                ______________________
                                ~~ Mark L. Bakke
                                ~~ http://www.bakkster.com
                              • tinroad66
                                ... people ... this ... referenced ... and ... Tin: Right so according to creationism human development from a fertilized egg is imposible and none of us
                                Message 15 of 29 , Aug 1, 2004
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, "Mark L. Bakke"
                                  <mlbakke1@b...> wrote:
                                  > > > BAKKE
                                  > > > There is some history in the Bible, but the majority of it is a
                                  > > > recounting of the myths and legends of the Hebrew people. Even
                                  > some
                                  > > > of the historical parts have been embellished into fictional
                                  > status.
                                  > > > Do you really believe, for example, that Solomon's temple was
                                  > > > constructed exactly as recounted in the Old Testament? Finally,
                                  > > > many
                                  > > > parts of the OT that seem historical are actually myths. Do you
                                  > > > believe, for example, that Samson was a real person?
                                  > >
                                  > > Dana
                                  > > I think some of what you said requires some evidence on your part.
                                  >
                                  > BAKKE
                                  > If such evidence didn't exist, I would not have stated what I did.
                                  > Now, can you please directly answer the questions that I asked you?
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > > Dana
                                  > > Actually, there is satellite evidence of a mass migration of
                                  people
                                  > > through the desert,
                                  >
                                  > BAKKE
                                  > Where? Need I remind you that there were no satellites at the time
                                  > the Exodus was supposed to have happened? So, what and where is
                                  this
                                  > "evidence" you speak of?
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > > Dana
                                  > > archeological finds are yet to disprove anything
                                  > > as it is described in the bible.
                                  >
                                  > BAKKE
                                  > Quite incorrect. The refuting examples are many and varied. How
                                  > about just two for starters?
                                  >
                                  > 1) 2 Kings 15:19 tells of the arrival of a King of Assyria named
                                  > "Pul". But, according to Assyrian records, they never had a King
                                  > named Pul. Babylonian legends equate "Pul" with "Tiglath-pileser
                                  > III", but the actual King of Assyria at the historical time
                                  referenced

                                  > > Dana
                                  > > Evolution, however, requires the complex coming from the simple
                                  and
                                  > > it just is not observable in nature.

                                  Tin: Right so according to creationism human development from a
                                  fertilized egg is imposible and none of us exist. Yet another lesson
                                  from creation "science".


                                  >
                                  > BAKKE
                                  > Wrong on both counts. Evolution does not require progression
                                  towards
                                  > ever-increasing complexity. There are many examples in nature
                                  > (especially among marine creatures) of species becoming *less*
                                  > complex. Also, nearly every issue of biology journals documents the
                                  > observation of new species emerging. Below is the definitive
                                  document
                                  > describing the evidence in favor of the scientific case for common
                                  > descent:
                                  > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > > > > Dana
                                  > > > > Numerous scientists who do believe in creation
                                  > > > > provide further evidence.

                                  Tin: Are those "scientists" the usual group of engineers,
                                  mathmaticians and food scientists --- telling us that all of
                                  astronomy, archeology, biology, geology paleontology are completely
                                  wrong ?







                                  > > >
                                  > > > BAKKE
                                  > > > Such as? This claim is often advanced, but rarely supported.
                                  > >
                                  > > Dana
                                  > > [no answer]
                                  >

                                  Tin: Right.
                                • Bunny Rivera
                                  Hi Dana, Welcome to the group. If you actually go back and look at the messages in the archive, you will see that all of your comments below have been
                                  Message 16 of 29 , Aug 2, 2004
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Hi Dana,
                                    Welcome to the group.
                                    If you actually go back and look at the messages in the archive,
                                    you will see that all of your comments below have been
                                    thouroughly answered.
                                    In fact, about every two weeks, there is someone who joins the
                                    group with the exact same questions (how did something come
                                    from nothing) who leaves the group within a week. About a week
                                    later, a new one comes along then also leaves.
                                    If you look in the archives for this pattern, you will see that your
                                    questions have already been answered.


                                    --BUnny


                                    --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, "Dana"
                                    <lehrerinhin@y...> wrote:
                                    > --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, "Mark L.
                                    Bakke"
                                    > <mlbakke1@b...> wrote:
                                    > > > Dana
                                    > > > new here and curious...have definite views on the subject...I
                                    have
                                    > > > read a few of the old messagesto get an idea of what's
                                    going on.
                                    > I
                                    > > > stand on the side of creation and take the bible pretty
                                    literally.
                                    > > I
                                    > > > think one of the main problems we have today is that when
                                    Darwin
                                    > and
                                    > > > others began writing on evolution,the church began to shy
                                    away
                                    > from
                                    > > > the bible as a scientific and historical text, thereby allowing
                                    it
                                    > > to
                                    > > > become a collection of stories useful only as a moral
                                    guide.
                                    > >
                                    > > BAKKE
                                    > > Which is exactly how the Bible should be used. To try to find
                                    > > scientific accuracy in the Bible is a fruitless and hopeless
                                    task.
                                    > To
                                    > > try to find any genuine history is a difficult task and the stuff
                                    > that
                                    > > *is* genuine is of little importance -- and none at all if one is
                                    > > going to use it to try to buttress arguments in a creation vs.
                                    > > evolution debate.
                                    > >
                                    > > you are yet to disprove what is stated...your view of historical
                                    > importance has more to do with what you think is important.
                                    The
                                    > Bible is a history of a people and a testament of God's love for
                                    his
                                    > creation. It is not all-encompassing, but that to which it refers
                                    > both historically and scientifically has not been disproven.
                                    > > > Dana
                                    > > > I used to believe in progressive creation, but the more I
                                    > > > read and research and get to know on the subject, the
                                    > > > more I lean toward a literal six day creation.
                                    > >
                                    > > BAKKE
                                    > > How do you "research" such a view? There is no
                                    extra-Biblical
                                    > > evidence to support it and a formidable amount of evidence
                                    to refute
                                    > > it.
                                    >
                                    > > Dana
                                    > > formidable? Share with me please. Extra-biblical evidence?
                                    All
                                    > of creation. All around us, our world is decaying. Systems are
                                    > becoming less organized, as per scientific laws (not theories).
                                    More
                                    > on that later.. Numerous scientists who do believe in creation
                                    > provide further evidence. And, I'm sorry, but when Stephen
                                    Hawkings
                                    > and others brought in extra-terrestrial design to solve the
                                    problem
                                    > of origins, I found it laughable. It only moves the problem to
                                    > another planet,anyway.
                                    >
                                    > > > Dana
                                    > > > That may sound absurd, but then how much faith does it
                                    > > > take to believe that "In the beginning, there was nothing.
                                    And
                                    > then
                                    > > > it exploded."
                                    > >
                                    > > BAKKE
                                    > > Who believes that? Science doesn't. I hope you're not
                                    accepting
                                    > > Biblical literalism out of a mistaken interpretation or
                                    insufficient
                                    > > understanding of science.
                                    > >
                                    > Dana
                                    > science does not believe anything. Only the scientists who
                                    study it
                                    > and form their hypotheses. Science is a search for truth and in
                                    and
                                    > of itself neither proves nor disproves anything, including the
                                    > existence of a Creator.
                                    > > ______________________
                                    > > ~~ Mark L. Bakke
                                    > > ~~ http://www.bakkster.com
                                  • Bunny Rivera
                                    ... to ... and it ... reasonable ... for a ... resumed ... way ... What evidence is this? Are you talking about entropy? If so, what does this have to do
                                    Message 17 of 29 , Aug 2, 2004
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, "Dana"
                                      <lehrerinhin@y...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > > Neil: Good point about the notion that nothing caused itself
                                      to
                                      > become something by no cause, by no rules, for no reason,
                                      and it
                                      > became something out of nothing at all. Doesn't seem too
                                      reasonable
                                      > to me either.
                                      > >
                                      > > I much prefer the idea that matter/energy is conserved,
                                      > matter/energy exists, so matter/energy is eternal.
                                      >
                                      > Dana
                                      > I suppose that works a little better than trying to pretend like all
                                      > scientific laws that have been proven as such were suspended
                                      for a
                                      > brief moment in time in order for life to "happen" and then
                                      resumed
                                      > their normal duties. I still think evidence points to a highly
                                      > ordered universe becoming rapidly disorganized,not the other
                                      way
                                      > around.



                                      What evidence is this? Are you talking about entropy? If so, what
                                      does this have to do with evolution or biology? We already know
                                      that biological processes require a global loss of organization
                                      for a local gain of organization.


                                      --BUnny
                                    • Bunny Rivera
                                      ... drvr2hrdwr ... simple ... ... its ... But it is the complex coming from the simple. You said that is not observable in nature and it is. Dana,
                                      Message 18 of 29 , Aug 2, 2004
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, "Dana"
                                        <lehrerinhin@y...> wrote:
                                        > --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com,
                                        "drvr2hrdwr"
                                        > <drvr2hrdwr@h...> wrote:
                                        > >
                                        > > ----- Original Message -----
                                        > > From: Dana
                                        > > To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com
                                        > > Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 2:37 AM
                                        > > Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: hello and intro
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > > Dana
                                        > > > It is a scientific law, regardless of the existence of God.
                                        > > Evolution, however, requires the complex coming from the
                                        simple
                                        > and
                                        > > it just is not observable in nature.
                                        <snip>
                                        > Intricately organized ice crystals? Big leap from that to life. I do
                                        > not care how rich the primordial soup was in organic matter or
                                        its
                                        > chemical composition or the introduction of lightning, it is all a
                                        > huge leap to bring forth life. It is not self-sustaining or self-
                                        > repairing.



                                        But it is the complex coming from the simple. You said that is
                                        not observable in nature and it is.

                                        Dana, can we observe something complex coming from
                                        something chaotic in nature?


                                        --BUnny
                                      • torobuedu
                                        Dana ... Evolution, however, requires the complex coming from the simple and it just is not observable in nature. One cell becomes a human being in nine
                                        Message 19 of 29 , Aug 3, 2004
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Dana
                                          > It is a scientific law, regardless of the existence of God.
                                          Evolution, however, requires the complex coming from the simple and
                                          it just is not observable in nature.

                                          One cell becomes a human being in nine months. I think that's a
                                          pretty good example of simple to complex being observed in nature.
                                        • Philip Nicholls
                                          ... Crystallization is an example of simple to complex being observed in nature.
                                          Message 20 of 29 , Aug 3, 2004
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            --- torobuedu <torobuedu@...> wrote:

                                            > Dana
                                            > > It is a scientific law, regardless of the
                                            > existence of God.
                                            > Evolution, however, requires the complex coming from
                                            > the simple and
                                            > it just is not observable in nature.
                                            >
                                            > One cell becomes a human being in nine months. I
                                            > think that's a
                                            > pretty good example of simple to complex being
                                            > observed in nature.

                                            Crystallization is an example of simple to complex
                                            being observed in nature.
                                          • Laurie Appleton
                                            Hi toro, ... From: torobuedu To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 10:49 PM Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] Re:
                                            Message 21 of 29 , Aug 3, 2004
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Hi toro,
                                              ----- Original Message -----
                                              From: torobuedu
                                              Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 10:49 PM
                                              Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: hello and intro

                                              Dana
                                              > It is a scientific law, regardless of the existence of God.
                                              Evolution, however, requires the complex coming from the simple and
                                              it just is not observable in nature.

                                              toro: One cell becomes a human being in nine months. I think that's a
                                              pretty good example of simple to complex being observed in nature.


                                              LA> Your joking aren't you. All the complexity is ALREADY
                                              there in the fertilized cell. How else could it utilize the complex
                                              chemicals that are provided for it, in its mother's womb?
                                               
                                               
                                               
                                              Laurie.
                                               
                                              "Gradualism, the idea that all changes must be smooth, slow,
                                              and steady, was never read from the rocks."
                                              (S.J. Gould, 1978)
                                            • Laurie Appleton
                                              Hi Phil, ... From: Philip Nicholls To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 11:10 PM Subject: Re:
                                              Message 22 of 29 , Aug 3, 2004
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Hi Phil,
                                                ----- Original Message -----
                                                Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 11:10 PM
                                                Subject: Re: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: hello and intro


                                                --- torobuedu <torobuedu@...> wrote:

                                                > Dana
                                                > > It is a scientific law, regardless of the
                                                > existence of God.
                                                > Evolution, however, requires the complex coming from
                                                > the simple and
                                                > it just is not observable in nature.
                                                >
                                                toro> One cell becomes a human being in nine months. I
                                                > think that's a
                                                > pretty good example of simple to complex being
                                                > observed in nature.

                                                PN> Crystallization is an example of simple to complex
                                                being observed in nature.
                                                >
                                                 
                                                LA>  Could a "Teacher" in your position really be so confused?
                                                ------------------------------

                                                       "Only recently has it been appreciated that the distinguishing
                                                       feature of living systems is complexity rather than
                                                       order. (4)  This distinction has come from the observation
                                                       that the essential ingredients for a replicating system -
                                                       enzymes and nucleic acids -- are all information -bearing
                                                       molecules."
                                                 
                                                       "In contrast consider crystals. They are very orderly,
                                                       spatially periodic arrangements of atoms (or molecules)
                                                       but they carry very little information. Nylon is another
                                                       example of an orderly, periodic polymer (a polyamide)
                                                       which carries little information."
                                                 
                                                       "Nucleic acids and protein are aperiodic polymers, and
                                                       this aperiodicity is what makes them able to carry much
                                                       more information. By definition then, a periodic
                                                       structure has order. An aperiodic structure has
                                                       complexity."
                                                 
                                                       "In terms of information, periodic polymers (like nylon)
                                                       and CRYSTALS are analogous to a book in which the same
                                                       sentence is repeated throughout. The arrangement of
                                                       "letters" in the book is highly ordered, but the book
                                                       contains little information since the information
                                                       presented -- the single word or sentence is highly
                                                       redundant."
                                                 
                                                       (4. L.E. Orgel, 1973. The Origins of Life p. 189 ff; M.
                                                       Polanyi, 1968, Science 160, 1308; Hubert P. Yockey, 1977,
                                                       J.Theoret. Biol. 67, 377; Jeffrey Wickens, 1978, J.
                                                       Theoret. Biol., p.383).
                                                 
                                                      (The Mystery of Life's Origins,  Thaxton, Bradley & Olsen, 1992, p. 129)
                                                      ============================
                                                 
                                                 
                                                Laurie.
                                                 
                                                "The available facts do not provide a basis for postulating
                                                that cells arose on this planet."
                                                (D.F. Green & R.F. Goldberger, 1967)
                                              • tinroad66
                                                ... and ... that s a ... complex ... Tin: The reality that the fertilized egg developing into an adult human demonstrates a simple to complex progresssion in
                                                Message 23 of 29 , Aug 4, 2004
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  > Dana
                                                  > > It is a scientific law, regardless of the existence of God.
                                                  > Evolution, however, requires the complex coming from the simple
                                                  and
                                                  > it just is not observable in nature.
                                                  >
                                                  > toro: One cell becomes a human being in nine months. I think
                                                  that's a
                                                  > pretty good example of simple to complex being observed in nature.
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > LA> Your joking aren't you. All the complexity is ALREADY
                                                  > there in the fertilized cell. How else could it utilize the
                                                  complex
                                                  > chemicals that are provided for it, in its mother's womb?
                                                  >

                                                  Tin: The reality that the fertilized egg developing into an adult
                                                  human demonstrates a simple to complex progresssion in nature has
                                                  gone way over Simpleton's head.

                                                  Poor Simpleton he doesn't know which way is up.
                                                • pan762@yahoo.com
                                                  In a blinding flash of insight Laurie Appleton ... No. ... I didn t claim that crystals carry information, I said that they are an example of simple to
                                                  Message 24 of 29 , Aug 4, 2004
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    In a blinding flash of insight "Laurie Appleton"
                                                    <lappleto@...> wrote:

                                                    >Hi Phil,
                                                    > ----- Original Message -----
                                                    > From: Philip Nicholls
                                                    > To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com
                                                    > Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 11:10 PM
                                                    > Subject: Re: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: hello and intro
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > --- torobuedu <torobuedu@...> wrote:
                                                    >
                                                    > > Dana
                                                    > > > It is a scientific law, regardless of the
                                                    > > existence of God.
                                                    > > Evolution, however, requires the complex coming from
                                                    > > the simple and
                                                    > > it just is not observable in nature.
                                                    > >
                                                    > toro> One cell becomes a human being in nine months. I
                                                    > > think that's a
                                                    > > pretty good example of simple to complex being
                                                    > > observed in nature.
                                                    >
                                                    > PN> Crystallization is an example of simple to complex
                                                    > being observed in nature.
                                                    > >
                                                    >
                                                    > LA> Could a "Teacher" in your position really be so confused?
                                                    > ------------------------------

                                                    No.

                                                    > "Only recently has it been appreciated that the distinguishing
                                                    > feature of living systems is complexity rather than
                                                    > order. (4) This distinction has come from the observation
                                                    > that the essential ingredients for a replicating system -
                                                    > enzymes and nucleic acids -- are all information -bearing
                                                    > molecules."
                                                    >
                                                    > "In contrast consider crystals. They are very orderly,
                                                    > spatially periodic arrangements of atoms (or molecules)
                                                    > but they carry very little information. Nylon is another
                                                    > example of an orderly, periodic polymer (a polyamide)
                                                    > which carries little information."

                                                    I didn't claim that crystals carry information, I said that they are
                                                    an example of simple to complex being observed in nature, a fact that
                                                    your own source confirms.

                                                    > (4. L.E. Orgel, 1973. The Origins of Life p. 189 ff; M.
                                                    > Polanyi, 1968, Science 160, 1308; Hubert P. Yockey, 1977,
                                                    > J.Theoret. Biol. 67, 377; Jeffrey Wickens, 1978, J.
                                                    > Theoret. Biol., p.383).
                                                    >
                                                    > (The Mystery of Life's Origins, Thaxton, Bradley & Olsen, 1992, p. 129)
                                                    > ============================

                                                    You should really stop using second-hand quotations that you haven't
                                                    bothered to read.

                                                    I'm willing to bet that you couldn't find a copy of the Journal of
                                                    Theoretic Biology if your life depended on it.
                                                  • Bunny Rivera
                                                    ... simple and ... that s a ... nature. ... Are you trying to suggest that a single cell is as complex as a human? If so, how are you measuring complexity?
                                                    Message 25 of 29 , Aug 4, 2004
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, "Laurie
                                                      Appleton" <lappleto@o...> wrote:
                                                      > Hi toro,
                                                      > ----- Original Message -----
                                                      > From: torobuedu
                                                      > To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com
                                                      > Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 10:49 PM
                                                      > Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: hello and intro
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > Dana
                                                      > > It is a scientific law, regardless of the existence of God.
                                                      > Evolution, however, requires the complex coming from the
                                                      simple and
                                                      > it just is not observable in nature.
                                                      >
                                                      > toro: One cell becomes a human being in nine months. I think
                                                      that's a
                                                      > pretty good example of simple to complex being observed in
                                                      nature.
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > LA> Your joking aren't you. All the complexity is ALREADY
                                                      > there in the fertilized cell. How else could it utilize the complex
                                                      > chemicals that are provided for it, in its mother's womb?
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > Laurie.


                                                      Are you trying to suggest that a single cell is as complex as a
                                                      human? If so, how are you measuring complexity? Is a bacterial
                                                      cell as complex as a human? How about a yeast cell?


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