Re: Evolution: A few questions

Thanks Vernon,

Sorry, but I'd rather take Genesis 1:1 at its face value and the physical
evidence of an ancient Earth and Cosmos at its face value over and above
your mystical numerological interpretation, which clever as it may be, is
in direct conflict with what our senses and logic systems do ascertain.

God's Peace,

R

> Hi, Roger,
>
>
> Genesis 1:1 is not only a strategically-placed, powerful and fundamental
> assertion but is, in the original Hebrew, a numerical goldmine - its 7
> words
> and 28 letters revealing significant features of coordinated numerical
> geometries and strong links with the Creator's name, with the intriguing
> number 666 (Rev.13:18), with 2 of the primary fundamental constants (pi
> and
> alpha), with the metric dimensions of the A4 size of cut paper, and much
> else. Without doubt, this concise verse is a miracle 'set in stone', and
> intended to convey a serious message - particularly to those of us
> involved
> in this debate on origins.
>
>
>
> These facts convince me that what follows must be _revealed truth_ - for
> why
> would a Creator, capable of such wonders, wish to mislead us!? In
> particular, therefore, the Creation and Flood narratives must be taken as
> read, along with the antediluvian genealogies. But, of course, the
> implications of Genesis 1:1 don't just end there; they must extend to the
> remainder of the Book.
>
>
>
> That, in a nutshell, Roger, is why I could never be anything but a YEC and
> a
> Christian.
>
>
>
> Vernon
>
> www.otherbiblecode.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Roger G. Olson" <rogero@saintjoe.edu>
> To: "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 1:21 AM
> Subject: Re: Evolution: A few questions
>
>
>> "Actually, I'm still waiting for some courageous 'Goliath'
>> in this forum to explain why I should regard as completely insignificant
> the
>> fact that the opening verse of the Hebrew Scriptures (i.e. Genesis 1:1)
> is,
>> without doubt, the most remarkable combination of words ever written"
>>
>> Vernon,
>>
>> AFAIK everyone on this listserve believes the words of Genesis 1:1.
>> What
>> is your point?
>>
>>
>> > Dave,
>> >
>> > Thanks for your informative posting. Just two points:
>> >
>> > 1) Clearly, you know far more about the structure and behaviour of
> aquatic
>> > creatures than I. However, one hardly needs to be an expert to
> appreciate
>> > that a fish developing lumps and protrusions - where previously there
> were
>> > none - must experience greater drag and a corresponding reduced
> mobility.
>> > That was the basis of the argument put to Glenn. Now you come along
>> with
>> > an
>> > illustration of the life cycle of a typical amphibian. But what is
> surely
>> > most relevant - and missing - is a comparison of predation rates for
>> the
>> > different stages of the cycle.
>> >
>> > 2) You begin your opening paragraph with the words, "You are again
>> > illustrating that you can find excuses for believing the dogma to
>> which
>> > you
>> > are committed, but not at all good at recognizing the assumptions on
> which
>> > your claims rest." Actually, I'm still waiting for some courageous
>> > 'Goliath'
>> > in this forum to explain why I should regard as completely
>> insignificant
>> > the
>> > fact that the opening verse of the Hebrew Scriptures (i.e. Genesis
>> 1:1)
>> > is,
>> > without doubt, the most remarkable combination of words ever written.
>> >
>> > Could it be that you are that man, Dave?
>> >
>> > Vernon
>> > www.otherbiblecode.com
>> >
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
>> > To: <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
>> > Cc: <glennmorton@entouch.net>; <jason_r@www.wushuathletic.com>;
>> > <asa@calvin.edu>
>> > Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 4:49 AM
>> > Subject: Re: Evolution: A few questions
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 23:18:55 +0100 "Vernon Jenkins"
>> >> <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net> writes:
>> >> > Hi, Dave,
>> >> >
>> >> > Thank you for this interesting illustration. However, just a few
>> >> > points:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > 1) Your reference to 'down time' is hardly relevant to the
>> >> > matter under
>> >> > discussion, for I am not claiming that fins cease to function while
>> >> > legs
>> >> > develop, but simply that they must lose their effectiveness because
>> >> > of the
>> >> > hydro-dynamic impediments (eg swellings and protrusions) that must
>> >> > herald
>> >> > the presumed changes.
>> >> >
>> >> Vernon,
>> >> You are again illustrating that you can find excuses for believing
>> the
>> >> dogma to which you are committed, but not at all good at recognizing
> the
>> >> assumptions on which your claims rest. Here you assume that fins are
>> >> ideally structured for their purpose, which purpose remains constant
>> >> through change. However, fins function within constraints, for none
>> are
>> >> ideal for all finny functions. Indeed, pectoral and pelvic appendages
>> >> are
>> >> not what primarily drive fish through the water. Greatly expanded
>> >> pectoral fins are essential for the flying fish, of course, but for
>> the
>> >> most part fins are used for changing direction. There is no reason to
>> >> assume that this obvious function of fins will continue to be the
>> >> function of developing limbs. There is also no need to assume that
>> fins
>> >> are necessary for efficient swimming, since sea snakes swim very
>> well,
>> >> thank you, without anything like fins. What is needed to support your
>> >> claims is totally specious.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > 2) What you have written brings back memories of Haeckel's
>> >> > infamous
>> >> > embryos and the concept of recapitulation. Clearly, all that is in
>> >> > evidence
>> >> > here is an inbuilt programme of development that takes us from a
>> >> > fish-like
>> >> > form to frog in a relatively brief span of time. The suggested
>> >> > extrapolation
>> >> > is, I believe, invalid.
>> >> >
>> >> Where did you get the idea that I wrote about recapitulation? All I
>> >> claimed to illustrate was a change from an aquatic pollywog to an
>> adult
>> >> frog without loss of function at any stage. I contrasted this process
>> >> with the need to pause activity for a general reorganization in the
>> >> insect pupa. I see no way that a creature could survive if a
> quasi-pupal
>> >> form were the adult. This is clearly anti-Haeckel. My argument is
>> >> analogical. Let me restate it simply. If an aquatic pollywog can
>> >> transform into a terrestrial frog (a toad makes the point more
> strongly)
>> >> without hiccups, aquatic creatures could evolve into other forms,
>> >> including terrestrial ones, without hitting road blocks. Since we
>> have
>> >> numerous fossils showing sequential development, and since such
>> >> development can proceed smoothly, your argument is silly and
>> misguided.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > 3) I am intrigued by your closing paragraph. You question: why
>> >> > would
>> >> > God have to work out a series of intermediate creatures leading up
>> >> > to the
>> >> > current forms? As a TE (please correct me if I am wrong) you
>> believe
>> >> > that
>> >> > man has appeared on the world scene by a divinely-ordained process
>> >> > of
>> >> > evolution. Presumably, with this ultimate end in view, He either
>> >> > front-loaded all the necessary information for such an outcome into
>> >> > the
>> >> > first living cell, or otherwise constantly maintains a controlling
>> >> > hand on
>> >> > all that transpires. This being so, I can surely put the same
>> >> > question to
>> >> > you: why would God have to work out a series of intermediate
>> >> > creatures
>> >> > leading up to the current forms? Why all the carnage over a vast
>> >> > period of
>> >> > time? Is our God incapable of creating all living forms, together
>> >> > with those
>> >> > represented in the fossil record, simultaneously, in one mighty
>> >> > operation?
>> >> > In the Scriptures, God has revealed what actually happened way
>> back.
>> >> > He can
>> >> > hardly be held responsible for the errors of those who have chosen
>> >> > to
>> >> >
>> >> In this paragraph you assume that all information had to be
>> >> "front-loaded." In the biological realm, this is nonsense. New
>> >> information arises, as "bivalve" noted in this string on the 18th, if
>> >> only through position effects. But there are other possibilities as
>> >> well.
>> >>
>> >> To look at matters more broadly, can natural processes produce life?
>> I
>> >> don't know. It may be that original life had to be introduced
>> >> miraculously. But I would not be surprised if we found that special
>> >> conditions give rise to entities that could absorb nutrients,
>> maintain
>> >> homeostasis and reproduce--if we are able to recognize the entities
>> as
>> >> simple life forms, for they would certainly be different from what we
>> >> find currently. Recent studies in the Sargasso Sea indicate that we
> have
>> >> grave problems recognizing some contemporary life forms.
>> >>
>> >> Then you trot out the silly claim that "nature red in tooth and claw"
>> >> cannot be the work of God. Think for a couple seconds on what the
>> world
>> >> would be like without death. Nearly a century ago we killed off all
>> the
>> >> large predators on the Kaibab Plateau north of Grand Canyon. In a few
>> >> years, all the vegetation that deer could reach was gone, eaten, and
> all
>> >> the deer were starving. Death is a necessary part of this world (but
>> >> just
>> >> try to design a world without death). Which death is better: slow
>> >> starvation with the destruction of the ecosystem, or a quick bite by
>> a
>> >> predator? It's easy to oppose death because a partly eaten carcass is
>> >> not
>> >> a pretty sight. But it is a very silly argument.
>> >>
>> >> Vernon, I wish you had given evidence in this post that you had
>> thought
>> >> something through before setting it down. Unfortunately, you have
> merely
>> >> parroted irrelevancies, items known to excite prejudices, and similar
>> >> drivel. If you are going to respond, please do better.
>> >> Dave
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Vernon
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>
>
>

--