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

Re: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: Neither strict creation nor strict evolution make sense!

Expand Messages
  • drvr2hrdwr
    ... From: Doug Matulis If the strata were the result of a global flood, then the order makes sense since the sedimentation would have begun in the basins
    Message 1 of 205 , Dec 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      If the strata were the result of a global flood, then the order makes
      sense since the sedimentation would have begun in the basins anyway.
      Neil3:  The order is all wrong for a flood.  A flood produces a jumbled mess.  There might possibly be some ordering by mobility to higher ground, if there was any significantly higher ground in the region. 
       
      Unfortunately for your idea fast reptiles are found below slow mammals.  Flying reptiles are found below birds and mammals.  There is no flood mechanism to explain fossil ordering.
       
      There are also a great many other evidences that make the notion of a global flood some 4500bp frankly absurd.
       
       
       


      --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, "drvr2hrdwr"
      <drvr2hrdwr@h...> wrote:
      >
      >   ----- Original Message -----
      >   From: Doug Matulis
      >   Biodiversity from creationism?  The diversity we see in nature
      comes
      >   from the original created kinds.  There have been some variations
      >   within the kinds, but never one kind evolving into another kind. 
      >   Fish produce fish, Beavers produce beavers, etc...  etc... 
      >   Biodiversity was part of the original creation.
      > Neil:  Then all "kinds" would be represented in all strata.  Just
      the opposite is true.  In the fossil record we see this order (very
      abbreviated) for first appearances
      >
      > fish
      > amphibians
      > reptiles
      > mammals
      > us
      >
      > If your statement were true these things would be all mixed up in
      all strata, but they aren't.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >   --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, "tinroad66"
      >   <tinroad66@y...> wrote:
      >   >
      >   > Hi Simpleton,
      >   >
      >   >   Laurie please name the mechanisms of biodiversity from
      >   creationism.
      >   >
      >   >
      >   >
      >   >
      >   >
      >   >
      >   >
      >   >
      >   >
      >   >
      >   >
      >   > "Creation scientists thought of it first, but it has NOTHING
      >   whatever
      >   > to do with evolutionary "descent with modification!"
      >   > ~ Laurie Appleton lying about natural selection.
      >   >
      >   >
      >   >
      >   >
      >   >
      >   >
      >   >
      >   >
      >   >
      >   >
      >   >
      >   >
      >   > >
      >   > >   >   LA> Could it be that your "variable rates" argument
      >   falsifies
      >   > the
      >   > >   evolutionary "molecular clock" argument?
      >   > "Creation scientists thought of it first, but it has NOTHING
      >   whatever
      >   > to do with evolutionary "descent with modification!"
      >   > ~ Laurie Appleton lying about natural selection.
      >   >
      >   > >
      >   > >   Tin: No.  Variable rates appears to be due to changes in
      the
      >   > >   environment not changes in mutation rates.
      >   > >
      >   > >   LA> Thank you. Thus you fully concede that the RATES do
      change
      >   > and thus the molecular clock hypothesis is falsified!
      >   >
      >   > Tin: No Mr. Simpleton the environment changes selection.  Fast
      >   > evolution occurs because the environment especially bio-
      competition
      >   > changes.  The evolution of mammals was permitted by the
      extinction
      >   of
      >   > the most dominant reptiles at the end of the Cretaceous 65
      million
      >   > years ago.
      >   >
      >   > "Creation scientists thought of it first, but it has NOTHING
      >   whatever
      >   > to do with evolutionary "descent with modification!"
      >   > ~ Laurie Appleton lying about natural selection.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >   ****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.






    • Rick Ross
      ... Rick: You commonly state theorectical conclusions as fact, so I m assuming that s something that goes on in world. Physics examines many aspects,
      Message 205 of 205 , Dec 18, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        --- "Leon Albert, Prof. of Anthropology, ret."
        <lalbert001@...> wrote:

        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: Rick Ross
        > To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 1:02 PM
        > Subject: Re: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: Attn:
        > Tinroad...Life's the exception? I don't think so!
        >
        >
        >
        > --- "Leon Albert, Prof. of Anthropology, ret."
        > <lalbert001@...> wrote:
        >
        > >
        > > ----- Original Message -----
        > > From: "Rick Ross" <rickalanross@...>
        > > To: <creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com>
        > > Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 1:32 PM
        > > Subject: Re: [creation_evolution_debate] Re:
        > Attn:
        > > Tinroad...Life's the
        > > exception? I don't think so!
        > >
        > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >> >
        > > > Rick: Thanks for the tip about reading good
        > general
        > > > > introduction to evolutionary theory. And as
        > long as
        > > > you're being so generous to me, I'll do the
        > same for
        > > > you! Why don't you read a good general
        > introduction to
        > > > probabilities, and then if you're able to get
        > through
        > > > that, try a good general introduction to
        > physics?
        > > I'm sure you'll enjoy both!
        > >
        > > Leon: I see that you are still operating under
        > the
        > > deep delusion that the "probabilities" involved
        > in evolution are solely
        > > ramdom, Rick.
        >
        > Rick: Leon I "never" operate under a deep
        > delusion,
        > but for some reason I don't think that will ever
        > sink
        > in with you. With that being said, I did not imply
        > solely random. That's a projection on your part.
        > Probability is one "important" aspect of
        > evolution, is
        > it not? By me focusing on a particular aspect does
        > not
        > imply anything other then me focusing on a
        > particular
        > aspect, does it not?
        >
        > Leon: Probability calculations are integral to
        > virtually ALL empirical science, Rick.
        >
        > > This is precisely why you should read a good
        > general
        > > introduction to evolutionary
        > > theory.
        >
        > Rick: Such as Vital Dust? Your suggestion is a
        > little
        > late.
        >
        > Leon: What the hell is "Vital Dust?"
        >
        > > I know enough of BOTH probability theory AND
        > > evolution to recognize
        > > your basic error here. What the hell does
        > "physics"
        > > have to do with the
        > > debate?
        >
        > Rick: Unlike you, it less dogmatic, and gives a
        > larger perspective on what we consider existence.
        >
        > Leon: I'm not "dogmatic," unless you consider
        > abiding by the basic postulates of natural science
        > being "dogmatic." And, that the theory of biological
        > evolution abides by those same postulates goes
        > without saying. So why harp on "physics?"

        Rick: You commonly state theorectical conclusions
        as fact, so I'm assuming that's something that goes on
        in world. Physics examines many aspects, including
        life( What is Life: Erwim Schrondinger). When I read
        something in physics such as: What is Life by Erwim
        Schrondinger, I don't find your dogmatic posture,
        especially in areas where it is clearly the
        theorectical!
        >
        >
        > (I did have a two-semester introductory
        > > course in that subject,
        > > BTW.)
        >
        > Rick: Good! Then why are you so dogmatic.
        >
        > Leon: See above.






        __________________________________
        Do you Yahoo!?
        The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
        http://my.yahoo.com
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.