>analogue. Airplanes are designed by intelligent creatures (at least, we all
>hope so). Simulated conditions regarding these vehicles are ripe for
>computer analysis, contemplation and correction.
Wait a minute. You stated that you failed to see " how the numerous
assumptions inherent in any simulation program make them useful for
determining what actually happens in the real world, "
I hate to be the one to inform you but the simulations of how air flows over
the wings and fuselage of an airplane are full of numerous ssumptions and
approximations. And yet, in spite of the numerous assumptions and
approximations, that simulation tells the engineer how the plane will
respond.
Today you seem to be saying implying that modeling an airplane is somehow a
different sort of activity than modeling other areas of nature. It is not.
You wrote:
>This is a function of simulate and record, relating to an existing
mechanism.
>But with evolution, we are looking for mechanism itself.
Wrong. We know that morphological change occurs by means of mutations, which
are alterations in the order of nucleotides in DNA. This is most obvious to
those poor melanogaster flies whose DNA was re-arranged with the help of
radioactivity. They produced strange morphological forms. We also know
beyond a shadow of a doubt that the difference between me, a person of
European descent and an African or Asian is located in very minor genetic
differences between me and them. While we are quite similar there are very
definitely morphological differences in hair, body size, proportions etc.
Assuming, as I do, that these people all descended from Noah (or in the case
of Stephen Jones, Adam), the differences between us are due to gradually
acquired alterations in the DNA sequences. Agreed? While this change is
minor, it proves that morphological change occurs via alterations in DNA.
What researchers earlier in this century did not have was a computer
which could perform millions of mindless, iterative calculations with which
to simulate the variation in a sequence of numbers. Only with the advent of
computers was the intracasies {sic?} of iterative,genetic systems discovered.
The mathematical processes which govern such mathematical manipulation has
been well understood for centuries - even by Euclid. But he couldn't perform
enough of the stupid calculations in order to study these systems. This has
occurred only within the past 30 years.
You wrote:
"I take it as a given that your program runs as advertised. But I share
Gordon's questions, and a conviction that mathematical possibility is not the
same as biological reality. "
I would agree. A model must be able to stand up to scrutiny. But I still
haven't seen you make a substantive criticism to show where my model fails to
account for all substantive phenomena (in a mathematical sense). Merely
stating that you don't believe it is certainly within your perogative, but it
is not very useful.
Do you not believe it because you can point out an error (which I would
want to know of so I can correct my model) or because the implications of my
model violate your world view? There was a time when I felt exactly as you.
But I finally had to deal with the fact that Truth was not determined by my
world view. I firmly believe that God created this world and am ready to
defend a historical Genesis, but that does not mean that God created the
world in the fashion I dictate to Him. He is the creator; I am the created.
As such I must be willing to let Him teach me. It is not my place to tell Him
how it is permissible for Him to have done it.
You wrote:
"Did it really happen this way? Is all this plausible in nature, beyond the
theoretical construct? It seems to me the fossil record, which is available
to
corroborate all this, gives a stark answer."
Let me ask you. How many fossils have you personally examined? How many
feet of oil well core have you studied? Are you sure that what the
apologetical books tell you about the geologic column is correct? Remember,
they tell you that the geological column does not exist anywhere on earth.
I documented in excruciating detail the entire column of North Dakota and
lightly documented about 20 some odd other places on earth where the entire
column exists. If the apologetical books can be wrong on such a simple fact
which has been known since the 1930's, how can you be sure that they are
telling you the truth about the fossil record?
These apologetical books tell me that the rocks were deposited very,
very rapidly in a global flood. Last Friday, the geologist I work with
loaned me a oil well core from his personal collection so I could take a
photo of it. The core came from about 7,000 feet deep in southeastern
Colorado. It was 1.3 inches high and showed 9 layers of grass roots. The
plants grew, the rock was eroded a little bit, cutting off the tops of the
plants, then new sediment was laid down, new grass grew, leaving their roots,
for 9 layers. My co-worker told me that the entire core had 3 feet of rock
like this. This would mean an estimated 250 root layers. The rocks this
came from are believed to be an abandoned river channel called an ox-bow
lake. We find these features on the surface of the earth and they take about
200 years to fill up with sediment today depending upon the depth of the
channel. My friend thinks that the erosion represented a yearly flood which
first eroded the sediment then deposited new material on which the grass
grew. The apologetical books won't tell you about things like this!
Look, it is not your fault that you believe such things. You are a
lawyer and don't study rocks. The problem I think lies in the lack of
dealing with difficult issues in Christian Apologetics. The authors can't
give handy-dandy answers to such difficulties so they don't mention them.
Worse still, when someone like me comes along to point out these
difficulties, everyone questions immediately the commitment to Christianity.
Two famous people on this reflector have asked me privately why I wasn't an
atheist! I told them that I believed in the resurrection of my Lord Jesus
Christ. It is kinda hard to be an atheist with an attitude like that. :-)
You wrote :
>"I thought I cited a relevant article by Kurt Wise. I shall do so again,
from
>"The Creation Hypothesis", @ pgs. 227-228.
>
>Also, the very term "whale sequence" begs the question, and leaves
>untouched various problems, e.g., the vestigializing of useful limbs, the
>development of complex underwater mechanisms, etc. This whale business
>seems quite similar to the "scale to wing" myth. "
This quote misses the point. Evolution does not cause the vestigilization of
useful limbs. An aquatic habitat in which the animal is catching fish or
eating plants, is allows the occasional individual who is born without the
limbs to survive. A cow could not survive without his front legs; a seal
very possibly could.
glenn