Re: Evolution: A few questions

I dont think Welsh is important as up in North Wales the n in yn was silent,
so we said diolch yr fawr and not diolch yn fawr. But if I am wrong I am
wrong.

However you have not answered my question on the age of the earth.
I ask you again is the age of the earth in the order of 4.6 billion years or
not?

And if you say not, please give reasons why it is wrong.

You seem to be avoiding a very simple question.

I hope you saw the article in the Sunday Times this week by the Bishop of
Oxford and Dawkins bemoaning our Prime Minister supporting schools like
Gateshead.

Michael

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
To: "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>; "Glenn Morton"
<glennmorton@entouch.net>; <jason_r@www.wushuathletic.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 7:58 AM
Subject: Re: Evolution: A few questions

> Before one can answer questions about evolution, one must ask the right
> questions. Too many from ID and YEC think it is about chance vs design.
But
> the key question is "How do we explain the appearance of different forms
of
> life over time?" E.g. why are fish before amphibian , amph before reptiles
,
> reptiles before mammals and humans the most recent mammal?
>
> There are three basic answers
> 1. Ideas of geol time are wrong and all life appeared at the same time.
> #
> 2. There was a periodic introduction of new life forms
>
> 3. Life forms can transform into another.
>
> The first is wrong as no one has given good reason why geological
timescales
> are wrong. (YEC arguments are without exception false)
>
> So it has to be 2 0r 3. Evolution suggests 3 but does not have
explanations
> of many details or transformations.
>
> The first thing one needs is to get all forms of life put in their proper
> historical order of appearance.
>
> But this wont convince you Vernon, will it?
>
> Michael
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
> To: "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net>;
> <jason_r@www.wushuathletic.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 12:42 AM
> Subject: Re: Evolution: A few questions
>
>
> > Glenn,
> >
> > I refer to your response to one of Jason's recent questions. He had
asked,
> >
> > " What happens during the intermediary stages when a feature
> > is evolving, but before it's fully functional? For example, I
> > imagine it took an EXTREMELY long time before the wings of an
> > insect or animal (which evolved from whatever they evolved
> > from) were perfected and enabled them to fly. What happens
> > during "however many generations" the organism exists with
> > wings that were not yet functional? Wouldn't this be more
> > detrimental thus causing the evolutionary process to drop the
> > wings before they're useful?"
> >
> > A most reasonable question, we would all surely agree - and along the
same
> > lines as the assumed 'fish > amphibian' transition that you and I
briefly
> > debated in 2002 (detailed at the URL
> > http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200204/0410). Here is what you had to
> say
> > to Jason:
> >
> > "Feathers appear to have evolved as a body covering. That was useful to
> > help keep the animals warm. But with some animals, the wings begain to
> > help them escape predators. I can't find the reference now but there
is
> > a bird which uses wings to help it climb steep slopes but it isn't
> > flight. In that way an animal with feathers can improve their ability
> > to use air to propel themselves."
> >
> > In my view, this hardly gets to the nub of things - indeed, it is as
> > disappointing as the answer you gave me. Precisely how does an incipient
> > wing confer selective advantage?
> >
> > Vernon
> > www.otherbiblecode.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Received on Tue Jun 22 13:34:27 2004