Original Message Follows:
=========================
evolution-digest Friday, March 26 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1362
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 17:00:32 -0700
From: "Kevin O'Brien" <Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Evolution's Imperative
>
>>I think if the 10-cubit measurement was an inside diameter and the
>>circumference was measured around the outside, and if the wall was ~ an
>>inch thick, then the value of pi would work out.
>
>The value of pi *does* work out, to one significant digit. It's no
>more wrong to say pi=3 than to say pi=3.14.
>
Tell that to anyone who needs to know the exact value of either the
circumference or the diameter of a circle. For a circle of 10 meters, a 30
meter circumference represents a standard error of 4.5% compared to the true
value of 31.4 meters. For most architectural and engineering projects, that
high an error is intolerable; the architect or engineer who made your claim
to justify his error would be fired for incompetence.
>
>Even the alt.atheism FAQs
>admit that this is *not* an example of a mistake in the Bible.
>
Please Lord grant me patience.
I **agree**. My point, as ever and always, was that using Vernon's
super-literal, face-value approach to Scripture in fact forces us to doubt
the veracity of God's word which states that a circle 10 cubits in diameter
must produce a circumference of 30 cubits and vice versa even though we know
this is wrong. They only way we can reconcile what the Bible says with what
we know to be true is if we use one or another of the justifications that
have been offered by members of this list.
But Vernon would call such justifications evil.
Kevin L. O'Brien
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 17:05:49 -0700
From: "Kevin O'Brien" <Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Evolution's Imperative
>
>3 is also the closest whole number to PI. I think you will have difficulty
>demonstrating the use of decimal fractions in ancient Hebrew culture.
>
The cubit system of measurement was ubiquitous throughout the Middle East
for several millennia; it's still used even today in some places. As I'm
sure everyone knows the cubit was the length of the forearm from elbow to
fingertips. There were, however, two other lengths used as well, the names
of which I have forgotten. One was based on the length of the foot and was
half the length of a cubit. The other was based on the width of the hand
and was one-quarter the length of a cubit. The Hebrews may not have known
about decimal fractions, but they would have used the "foot" and "hand"
measurements in addition to the cubit.
So let's imagine that a group of Hebrew priests inscribe a circle on the
floor of the temple that is exactly 10 cubits in diameter, then they proceed
to measure the circumference. They would not get exactly 30 cubits, no
matter what value they gave to pi; they would get 31.4 cubits. Of course,
the way they would say it was 31 cubits and one "foot" (roughly 31.5), but
they still would have measured a circumference between 31 and 32 cubits. Do
you deny that?
Now, imagine instead that they drew a circle exactly 30 cubits in
circumference, then proceeded to measure the diameter. Again, they would
not get exactly 10 cubits, but 9.6 cubits. Of course, the way they would
say it was 9 cubits and one "foot" (roughly 9.5), but they still would have
measured a circumference between 9 and 10 cubits. Do you deny that?
Now, I will admit that if the Hebrews had a concept of and a value for pi
(the priests almost certainly did, in their duties as mystics), they would
have said it was 3. The Egyptians certainly used that value, but they also
knew that it was inaccurate. Most of the time this inaccuracy was of no
consequence, but in those cases where it was vital to have exact
measurements they measured their circumferences and diameters by hand,
rather than relying on their value of pi. I'm sure that the priests did
much the same.
My point, however, as always is that if Vernon is right that his
super-literal, face-value approach to Scripture is the only correct way,
then we have no choice but to conclude that a circle of 30 cubits
circumference must have a diameter of 10 cubits, and vice versa. Regardless
of whatever value we choose to give pi, we KNOW that cannot be true, because
we can draw our own circles and see for ourselves that it is not true. Yet
Vernon should tell us that it must be true, otherwise God's word is wrong.
>
>I thought that too, until I read an article years ago in the CNRS entitled
>"Do rabbits Chew their Cud?" In the article the authors points out that
>rabbits do indeed chew their cud, but they do so by a rather devious
>process. The lagomorphs ingest vegetative material that would yield no
>more nourishment to them than it would to us. THe rabbits then sequester
>the material in the caecum where it is mixed with chyme and protozoa that
>digest cellulose, that apparently live there. At a specific time each day,
>the rabbits void anally a special pellet from the caecum which is this
>digested material taken in fresh (grass, etc.). These pellets are then
>ingested, masticated, and swallowed, whereupon they bypass the caecum, and
>digestion is completed via the rectum in the normal manner.
>Apparently science has finally caught up with what has been known for
>centuries, not only in the Bible, but rabbit owners know that if these
>pellets are lost to the rabbit (as by a wire cage floor), the rabbits will
>not flourish.
>
I left all those details out because they were not germaine to my point: a
fecal pellet is still not a cud, no matter how much it might resemble one
(and believe me, they don't look anything like cuds; they look more like
regular rabbit stools and the only way to tell the difference is to examine
them microscopically). Once again, a cud is food regurgitated from the
first stomach of a ruminant directly back to the mouth while a fecal pellet
is anally excreted, then reingested. There are also important differences
in structure, in composition and in microflora content between a cud and a
fecal pellet. I don't care how much rhetorical torture some creationists
use, they cannot make a fecal pellet into a cud.
Now, I will agree that this is no significant critique of Biblical accuracy.
The ancient Hebrews who developed these dietary laws did so on the basis
that they believed that animals that split the hoof and chew the cud were
part of God's created order; such animals were deemed clean to eat. As
such, pigs were unclean because they split the hoof but did not chew the
cud, whereas rabbits were unclean because they appeared to chew the cud but
did not split the hoof.
Now, the Hebrews almost certainly knew what a cud was, because ruminants
sometimes loose it when they regurgitate it, and most farmers find them in
stalls or pastures, or watch as the animal reingests it. They assumed that
rabbits chew the cud because they saw rabbits often just sitting and chewing
as a cow, sheep or goat would do. Had they known what the rabbits were
really chewing, I doubt they would have called it cud, because it would not
look like a cud and it would come out the wrong end. In fact, it would
probably give them one more reason to consider rabbits unclean, since no
other animal known to them routinely reingested its own stool (or so it
would
have appeared).
Once again, however, the point is not whether this is a serious challenge to
Biblical veracity, but that Vernon's super-literal, face-value approach to
Scripture would have us believe that God is telling us that rabbits chew the
cud, which we know is not correct. That would either make God mistaken, or
Vernon wrong. Which choice do you prefer?
Kevin L. O'Brien
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 17:40:32 -0700
From: "Kevin O'Brien" <Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Evolution's Imperative
>
>Creation vs. Evolution is easy. Nature has never been known to be any good
>at creating
>complexity. Evolution Belief itself is based on pleading with "just so"
>stories about circumstantial evidence, not empirical testing.
>
Since you have never defined what you mean by complexity in the context of
evolution, how can we accept that what you say is true?
>
>The age of the Earth is not so easy. Creation Scientists have no good
>answer for how
>light gets here in mere thousands of years from very distant stars.
>Evolutionists
>have no good answer for the lack of historical evidence of man's existence
>much beyond 5,000 years ago.
>
That's easy; writing was only invented 5000 years ago.
>
>But, it is inexcusable to dismiss the necessity of God
>creating a
>fully functional and mature universe if he indeed did mere thousands of
>years ago.
>
>> I happen to see a lot of correct science on both sides. And which side is
>> the pseudoscience can be highly debated as well. And I think a
>> differentiation should be made between natural selection and
>> macroevolution. They really are different arguments altogether, despite
>> what definition goes where, I see both sides talking right past the other
>> all the time. Most or all YECs would agree with nat. sel. wholeheartedly.
>> That is one issue noone really can debate, seriously anyway.
>
>There's nothing to debate about a truism. However, it's not justified to
>say
>that because some deformed animal is observed to die prematurely....
>
That's not natural selection.
>
>...that man did
>indeed evolve from apes -- as Evolutionists do (see any college biology
>text that uses NS as solid and direct evidence that Evolution is true).
>
That also is not true. Evolution is a readily observable phenomenon;
natural selection is one mechanism that explains how the phenomenon of
evolution works.
>
>> >In contrast there is virtually no evidence in support of creationism.
>
>> At which point creationists can say exactly the same thing about
>> evolutionists, leading to yet another strawman argument. And don't
>> respond
>> with "but they're wrong, I'm not" because that's a bit arrogant first of
>> all, and second of all doesn't convince anyone.
>
>What does the Evolutionist want evidence for? That their parents are
>homosapiens too? Maybe we lack that evidence. But Creationists, for
>the most part, assert essentially that Evolution didn't happen. The
>burden of proof is on the Evolutionists, not just because they are the
>ones making a positive assertion, but because they claim their assertion
>is wholly based on science. It is pure icing on the cake for Creationists
>to point to such things as the stability of species in the fossil record.
>
Evolution is an accepted scientific phenomenon. You creationists disagree?
Fine; prove it wrong, but don't expect scientists to waste time trying to
prove right something that is self-evident, if you would only open your eyes
and look at it.
>
>The Evolutionist digs desperately for any bone fragment that he can imagine
>is some sort of transitional form such as an ape/man....
>
So far we have thousands of these "fragments" (including whole skeletons)
that establish a very nice transitional series.
>
>...the Creationist can
>go to the very bottom of the fossil record (the Cambrian)....
>
The Cambrian is not the "bottom" of the fossil record. There is at least
100 million years of upper Precambrian fossiliferous layers, and bacterial
fossils go back at least to 3.5 billion years ago.
>
>...and point out a
>number of major marine invertebrate groups which can be found living today.
>
Groups, yes; species, no. Not one species that lived during the Cambrian is
still alive today. And why are their no modern marine species that inhabit
the same environment in the Cambrian deposits?
>
>And, if before the flood there were billions of sea bottom-dwelling humans,
>I'm certain the Cambrian would be full of human fossils.
>
Neither the Cambrian nor the Precambrian are composed exclusively of marine
deposits; there are quite a few dry land deposits sitting between marine
deposits. Why are there no modern human fossils in these dry land
sediments?
Kevin L. O'Brien
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 19:27:47 -0700
From: "Kevin O'Brien" <Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Evolution's Imperative
>
>First, regarding the early Hebrews' understanding of 'Pi':
>
>In 1Ki.7:23-26, we read of the construction of a large cylinder. A
>diameter is given (10 cubits - about 180"); a circumference (30 cubits -
>about 540"); and a wall thickness (a 'handbreadth' - about 4"). Taking
>the first as the outer diameter, and the second as the inner
>circumference, we arrive at a reasonable value for Pi (correct to
>0.07%!).
>
Of course it would, if you took the outer diameter to determine an outer
circumference or the inner circumference to determine an inner diameter.
The value for pi in the first case would be 3.14 and in the second case
would be 3.125, for standard error values of 0.050% and 0.53%, respectively.
But that takes advantage of the fact that we know what the correct value
should be so we can pick and choose how we want to visualize the problem so
that it will give us the right answer. The ancient Hebrews could not do
that, so the only way we can know how they would have calculated pi is to
read the Scripture. The Bible does not say that the diameter given is the
outer diameter and that the circumference given is the inner circumference.
In fact, from the way the verses read at face value, it sounds very much
like a circumference and diameter for the same circle. That would then make
pi 3, which is what the Egyptians assumed it was. But of course the real
issue is not the value of pi, but the fact that a circle of 10 cubits
diameter cannot have a circumference of 30 cubits, or vice versa. In that
respect, a face value reading of Scripture gives the wrong information.
Another problem with your scenario: a cylinder with an outer diameter of 10
cubits and an inner circumference of 30 cubits cannot have a thickness of
only a single handbreadth (one-quarter of a cubit). It must have a
thickness of half a cubit -- two handbreadths -- to be a proper Euclidian
cylinder (10 cubit outer diameter minus a 9.5 cubit inner diameter leaves
0.5 cubit thickness). So either the cylinder was not Euclidian, or the
Scriptural passage is wrong for yet another reason. Or the passage is
simply not to be taken literally, in which case even though God said it, we
don't have to accept it as literally true.
Wich in turn means that there can be other passages that need not be taken
literally, even though God said them.
>
>Why should we ever have supposed that - as neighbours of the
>pyramid builders - they would be as ignorant as Kevin and others
>suggest?
>
Don't try to weasel out of this, Vernon. My point, as ever and always, is
that if we use your super-literal, face-value approach to Scripture, we
cannot assume that the 10 cubits corresponds to the outer diameter and that
the 30 cubits corresponds to the inner circumference. All we can say is
that we have a bowl that is 30 cubits around and 10 cubits across. Using
these two values only, without trying to read into or interpret the
Scriptures as you demand, we would get a value for pi of 3. And since this
is God Himself talking in these Scriptures, the value for pi must be 3;
otherwise God would have said that the 30 cubit around bowl would have been
9.5 cubits across, or that the 10 cubit across bowl would have been 31.5
cubits around.
The only way to reconcile this problem is to disregard your approach to
Scripture and **interpret** the Scripture as referring to dimensions of two
different parts of the bowl. Which is exactly what you do above. In other
words, you will lay down the law to TEs about how they must approach
Scripture, but you will disregard that law for your own convenience. What
do you think that says about your intellectual integrity?
>
>Then,concerning 'Adam'. In view of his great significance in the
>Gospel's scheme of things, could I know how you regard him? Was he a
>real person - the first man, and special creation of God - from whom the
>first woman was made (as described in Gn.2)? Or was he one of many
>hominids (females already being part of the general scenario) chosen
>from the 'herd' to receive God's special blessing? Or, again, perhaps he
>was just a mythological figure. Or, perhaps some don't think it really
>matters.
>
Th Garden of Eden story is clearly a Semetic creation myth, like many others
in that area of the world. It in fact has a number levels built into it as
it
has changed over the centuries from a simple tale told by simple folk to
being a fundamental part of two major religions.
For example, if you take the meaning of the original Hebrew words that are
now translated into "till" and "keep", you discover that Adam was originally
meant to be a slave, a beast-of-burden and watch-dog. This casts a whole
new light on the rest of the story: the animals God created (after Adam)
were suppose to help Adam do his work; Eve was created to be a sex-toy to
keep Adam distracted and to be a brood-mare to produce more slaves; the
serpent becomes a sympathetic character, trying to help Adam and Even escape
their bondage; the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil gives
Adam and Eve godlike intelligence, setting them above the animals mentally
as well as physically; the fruit also gives them a soul, so that they can
regognize good from evil; they hide from God walking in the Garden out of
fear that He would destroy them; instead God curses them and drives them out
of the Garden, in fear that they might find and eat of the fruit of the tree
of life and become gods themselves; yet despite the curse Adam and Even
flourish rather than die or capitulate to their fate, so God grudgingly
begins a new different relationship with mankind. This alternative view is
actually in better keeping with other Semetic creation myths, as well as
many other creation myths around the world. It also has a profound
influence on other events in Genesis, such as the flood (in which God
finally decides He can no longer put up with "rebellious" man and so tries
to destroy all of creation so He can start over, but when Noah not only
manages to survive but to save creation as well, God so marvels at his
ingenuity that He repents of His hatred toward mankind and enters into a
peace covenant with Noah), as well as God's relationship with Abraham and
the children of Israel.
Much of this original layer got re-edited when the Hebrews started to
rethink their concept of God, but it still exists within the Hebrew words
themselves.
My own personal belief is that when God made the universe, He let it develop
on its own until intelligent life appeared on earth (and elsewhere for that
matter) that eventually evolved to a point where it began to ask moral and
religious questions: who are we; why do we exist; is there a purpose to
life; and so on. God then stepped in, adopted that lifeform (us) and gave
us the gift of souls, so that we would become like Him. The story of Adam
and Eve is thus a metaphor for that event.
But that is just my private belief.
Kevin L. O'Brien
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 21:56:36 -0500 (EST)
From: Bodester <jbode77@calvin.edu>
Subject: Re: Evolution's Imperative
>Another problem with your scenario: a cylinder with an outer diameter of
>10 cubits and an inner circumference of 30 cubits cannot have a thickness
>of only a single handbreadth (one-quarter of a cubit). It must have a
>thickness of half a cubit -- two handbreadths -- to be a proper Euclidian
>cylinder (10 cubit outer diameter minus a 9.5 cubit inner diameter leaves
>0.5 cubit thickness). So either the cylinder was not Euclidian, or the
>Scriptural passage is wrong for yet another reason. Or the passage is
>simply not to be taken literally, in which case even though God said it,
>we don't have to accept it as literally true.
Not to nitpick, but that .5 cubit (10-9.5) is in the diameter. Divide that
in half for the TWO sections of the wall you include (on each side) and
you have one handbreadth. Another way to see this is calculating the
radius difference (5 - 4.75 = .25)
Sorry, math major! :)
Jason
- -------------------------
Jason Bode
jbode77@calvin.edu
http://www.calvin.edu/~jbode77/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 21:32:10 -0600
From: "Cummins" <cummins@dialnet.net>
Subject: RE: Evolution's Imperative
> [mailto:evolution-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Rich Daniel
> This is an argument I haven't heard before. I assume by "historical"
> evidence you mean written history. Do you really think that Homo sapiens
> is so smart that we must have invented writing within the first few years
> of our existence (whether created or evolved)? This seems equivalent to
> arguing that man can't be much older than the printing press, or the steam
> engine, or the theory of quantum mechanics.
What do the modern myth-makers claim about how long homo sapiens have been
around?
What, a 100,000 years? What kind of physical head trauma did you suffer
that
caused enough damage for you to be able to think that a "few years" is
95,000
years? And, if 95,000 years is a "few years" how many years is 5,000? A
"year or two"? Were you born yesterday?
> Why do creationists disagree about whether Homo erectus was human?
How old do the modern myth-makers say homo erectus is? Approaching a
couple million years? Is it your assertion that he was smart enough to
manufacture tools, but too stupid to learn even crude writing, couldn't
draw a picture of a constellation?
BTW, as for the disagreement you refer to, who says it's human, who says
it's not? Part of the answer could be that a number of different fossils
are
identified as homo erectus.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 23:00:12 -0500 (EST)
From: Bodester <jbode77@calvin.edu>
Subject: Re: Evolution's Imperative
>>Unfortunately there is the slight limiting matter of time. This happens
>>to doom many college students to pleading ignorance for a couple years.
>>I joined this list to somewhat avoid that. Once I graduate I'll be able
>>to solve that a bit more.
>
>If you cannot make the time now, I doubt you will when you graduate, only
>in that case it will be job/family/life rather than studies. If you have
>access to the internet it really wouldn't take much time to run down a
>few basic articles using an electronic journal database. Or seek out a
>professor who teaches evolution and ask him/her for some references.
I beg to differ. My current schedule will make a full-time job seem like
nothing. Not to sound braggardly or such, but I'm taking 5 classes, 2 for
honors credit, working 15-20 hours per week, and various other commitments
which eat away at my time. The classes are all 3 or 4 per week, plus
plenty more hours of homework. I'm not kidding when I say I don't have
time. I really don't! And I will make the effort once I graduate to look
into this stuff, in fact, you are welcome to be my conscience if you wish.
Ask me about it 2 and a half years from now and tell me to get looking.
Actually, the reason I've been responding to the list as often as I have
lately is because it's spring break and I'm taking time off from the
homework I'm still stuck with.
time to go back to it now actually, (which reminds me, anyone really good
with Philippians? i'm writing a little exploratory paper on it)
Jason
- -------------------------
Jason Bode
jbode77@calvin.edu
http://www.calvin.edu/~jbode77/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 22:05:20 -0700
From: "Kevin O'Brien" <Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Evolution's Imperative
>
>Not to nitpick, but that .5 cubit (10-9.5) is in the diameter.
>
Ah so it is; oh well, just shows that no one's perfect.
Kevin L. O'Brien
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 22:05:29 -0700
From: "Kevin O'Brien" <Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Evolution's Imperative
>
>I beg to differ. My current schedule will make a full-time job seem like
>nothing. Not to sound braggardly or such, but I'm taking 5 classes, 2 for
>honors credit, working 15-20 hours per week, and various other commitments
>which eat away at my time. The classes are all 3 or 4 per week, plus
>plenty more hours of homework.
>
Is that all you're doing? Sheesh, you got it soft. In undergraduate school
I was taking ten classes, worked 30 hours a week, assisted two professors as
a research tech, and STILL found time to eat creationists alive.
Plus I walked 20 miles to campus each day, uphill both ways, in blinding
blizzards, with no shoes, in just my underwear, doing my homework as I
went....and you have the gall to complain.
You young pups don't appreciate how good you got it.
Kevin L. "Grampa" O'Brien
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 22:05:33 -0700
From: "Kevin O'Brien" <Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Evolution's Imperative
"Cummings" wrote:
"What kind of physical head trauma did you suffer that caused enough damage
for you to be able to think that a 'few years' is 95,000 years? And, if
95,000 years is a 'few years' how many years is 5,000? A 'year or two'?
Were you born yesterday?"
Now, now, "Cummings", play nice or we'll have to put you back in your cage
and you won't get any raw meat for dinner.
"Cummings" also wrote:
"How old do the modern myth-makers say [H]omo erectus is? Approaching a
couple million years? Is it your assertion that he was smart enough to
manufacture tools, but too stupid to learn even crude writing, couldn't draw
a picture of a constellation?"
Nothing is achieved suddenly, and some things take longer than others. Tool
use exists among chimpanzees, so early man would have been developing tools
before he could even speak. Speech gives rise to language, language gives
rise to imagination, imagination gives rise to creativity, and creativity
gives rise to art. Depending upon how far along Homo erectus was in
developing language, he may not have been developed enough to be creative.
>
>BTW, as for the disagreement you refer to, who says it's human, who says
>it's not? Part of the answer could be that a number of different fossils
>are identified as homo erectus.
>
Gish has stated that Java Man was an ape, Turkana Boy was human; both are
Homo erectus. But if you superimpose the Java Man skullcap onto the Turkana
Boy skull, you find that they match completely. Therefore, if both are Homo
erectus, and if both are identical in skeletal structure, how can one be an
ape and the other human?
Kevin L. O'Brien
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 21:39:50 -0800
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Auld lang syne, perhaps
Ah so you really have no evidence against evolution but consider lack of =
people addressing your example to your satisfaction to be example of =
such ? Please explain "indefinity increase of complexity" as it applies =
to evolution. Explain why there is a need for indefinite increase in =
complexity, define complexity in a way that can be measured and explain =
why evolution is a closed system.
It seems to me that you are unable to argue the vaste amounts of =
evidence supporting evolution.
- ----------
From: Cummins[SMTP:cummins@dialnet.net]
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 1999 12:29 AM
To: evolution@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: Auld lang syne, perhaps
> [mailto:evolution-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Wesley R.
> Andrew? Is that you? The completely groundless, but sweeping,
> claims made concerning the integrity of others fits my
> recollection pretty well.
>
> Wesley
Yes, it's me. And, I'm still waiting for an emperical example of an
indefinite increase of complexity in a closed system (evolution). So =
far
you've hypothesized the equivalent of an invisible pink unicorn
(evolution)and you say it's running around because you can see its =
tracks in
the ground (the circumstantial evidence). Present the unicorn -- I say
those are just horse tracks.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 21:44:24 -0800
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: The young age of Earth
I suspect that if you did it would involve some kind of
>vitalistic nonsense about how "life" is some mystical quality that sets =
a
>living cell apart from a test tube containing chemicals, or some such
>schlock.
Actually, no...I think I have a very applicable working defintion which =
can
easily be applied and even must be applied to get from "simple =
chemicals" to
a "living cell" as it is expressed on earth and has been for the last 4
billion years. It requires a dynamic information system. The genetic =
code
and it's necessary machinery.
And what is the problem with this "dynamic information system". It's =
merely an extension of the laws of science and physics. How do you =
define life ?
Now, for abiogenesis to be a fact, in my book, a "genetic code" (it =
doesn't
have to be the one in use currently (with some minor variations) in =
every
living thing on earth) must be observed to emerge without design from
whatever biochemical soup is thought up for such an experiment. It must
also have the ability to express itself.
So it would satisfy you when it was shown that a (self) replicating =
system which uses a coding system can emerge "spontaneously" ?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 21:47:41 -0800
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: where's the evolution?
CumminsL As I assert Evolution (the indefinite increase of complexity in =
a system
open only to energy -- such as ameba-to-man) is impossible, I'm =
confident that
none of Futuyma's books contain empirical examples.
I am glad to hear that your only "evidence" is your appeal to an =
assertion for which you have failed to provide supporting evidence. =
Furthermore why the presumption of indefinite increase in complexity.
Cummins: I've offered this challenge for years; no one has ever met the =
challenge.
So ?
Cummins If you Evolutionists can't even show that evolution is possible, =
why are we wasting
all this time debating weak circumstantial evidence that it accounts for =
the
complexity of modern life?
Interesting argument but then again the reality is that you cannot show =
that evolution is impossible. That failing by itself is quite damning. =
Well done.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 21:48:45 -0800
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: where's the evolution?
CumminsL Step 1) Show that it is possible by demonstrating an indefinite
increase of complexity in a closed system.
First you have to show that this is a requirement for evolution. So perhaps you
can first show us the supporting evidence ?
> If you don't even bother considering the available evidence, I certainly
> agree that this discussion is a waste of time. If evolution is wrong, as
> you say, what is right? Your opinion?
Cummins: If I knew of any instance where my opinion is wrong, I would change it.
Unlikely.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 21:49:43 -0800
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: where's the evolution?
CumminsL One of the points of my challenge includes an "indefinite" increase in
complexity.
Yes, an interesting but meaningless "criterium". All you have shown is your
inability to prove evolution wrong.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 21:52:11 -0800
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: where's the evolution?
CumminsL Let's review: I challenged evolutionists for any empirical =
example of an
indefinite increase in complexity in a closed system. You told me that =
I was ignorant
because Evolution doesn't happen in a closed system. =20
Indeed, and you have yet to show that evolution requires an "indefinite =
increase of complexity in a closed system". Your challenge first needs a =
foundation. Lacking that it collapses on its own.
Cummins: We both are well aware that a system can be called "closed" yet =
still receive external energy. =20
That depend how "closed" is defined.
Cummins: So, again, what besides energy is entering the Earth system =
that contributes to Evolution? Do you believe in aliens or God? =
Whatever the case, I have no interest in your artificial
faith.
And why do you suggest that energy is not sufficient ?=20
Cummin: End of debate, you lose.
Because you end the debate he loses ? Me thinks that your understanding =
of logic and debate are suffering from the same problem as your =
"indefinite complexity argument". They lack a foundation.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 21:58:30 -0800
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Evolution's Imperative
Cummins: There's nothing like the truth to bring protests from the =
wicked.
So why do you protest so much then ?=20
Cummins: I have a number of fundamental challenges to Evolutionists. If =
Evolution is
to be considered scientific, these challenges must be met. So far, they =
haven't
come close.
Illogical. You have yet to show that this challenge is fundamental to =
evolution.=20
Cummins: One of those challenges is for them to describe a viable animal =
that cannot
be explained by Evolution.
The appearance of a dinosaurus among the early protocells would do it.
Cummins: Maybe Kevin O'Brian will again show us his measure of =
intelligence by again totally twisting plain and simple challenge as if =
he needs a remedial course in the English language.
Well at least you are showing your level of intelligence here through =
your abuse of ad hominem.
Cummins: Even outside of that challenge, Evolutionists come up with a =
fat nothing
when it comes to explaining how Evolution could be falsified.
Wrong again.=20
CumminsL Darwin came up with some ways, and holding to Darwin's word, =
Evolution has been shown false (e.g. there aren't "innumerable" =
transitional forms in the fossil record.) =20
Only by misrepresenting both his statement and the evidence.
Cummins: But, because Evolution is a nonscience, any time a prediction =
(no matter how fundamental
to the theory of Evolution) is found to be false, they just create a new =
theory to
get around the problem (the lack of transitionals is because of =
Punctuated
Equilibrium -- a solution that is as blatantly false as the false theory =
it
seeks to save Evolution from).
How lovely is the lack of supporting evidence. Cummins arguments are =
based on a foundation which does not exists. He makes claims that =
evolution is a non-science but refuses to address evidence that it is =
such. He does not understand punctuated equilibrium and has provided no =
evidence that it is blatantly false.
What more evidence is needed?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 22:00:37 -0800
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Evolution's Imperative
Cummins: Creation vs. Evolution is easy. Nature has never been known to be any
good
at creating complexity.
Another unfounded assertion. I would say that nature is very good at creating
complexity.
Cummins: Evolution Belief itself is based on pleading with "just so" stories
about
circumstantial evidence, not empirical testing.
Your ignorance of evolution is no excuse for this statement.
Cummins: The age of the Earth is not so easy. Creation Scientists have no good
answer for how light gets here in mere thousands of years from very distant
stars.
The age of the earth is easy.
Cummins: Evolutionists have no good answer for the lack of historical evidence
of man's existence
much beyond 5,000 years ago.
But they do have good answers for this.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 22:01:54 -0800
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Evolution's Imperative
> ...Evolutionists have no good answer for the lack of historical evidence of
> man's existence much beyond 5,000 years ago...
This is an argument I haven't heard before. I assume by "historical"
evidence you mean written history. Do you really think that Homo sapiens
But as you must have realized, Cummins "argument" is easily explained when
realizing the "written" requirement.
is so smart that we must have invented writing within the first few years
of our existence (whether created or evolved)? This seems equivalent to
arguing that man can't be much older than the printing press, or the steam
engine, or the theory of quantum mechanics.
Indeed.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 22:05:27 -0800
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Evolution's Imperative
Cummins: What kind of physical head trauma did you suffer that caused =
enough damage for you to be able to think that a "few years" is 95,000 =
years? And, if 95,000 years is a "few years" how many years is 5,000? =
A "year or two"? Were you born yesterday?
Thanks CUmmins for showing once again that you cannot deal with =
arguments and have to resort to ad hominems. Is the foundation of your =
arguments so weak that this is all you can come up with ?
> Why do creationists disagree about whether Homo erectus was human?
Cummins: How old do the modern myth-makers say homo erectus is? =
Approaching a
couple million years? Is it your assertion that he was smart enough to
manufacture tools, but too stupid to learn even crude writing, couldn't
draw a picture of a constellation?
Assuming he could write, how long do you think his writings would =
survive ? But your argument that if he can manufacture tools he can =
write is based upon an illogical presumption that writing is a simple =
process.=20
------------------------------
End of evolution-digest V1 #1362
********************************