Posted by Author Unknown, et al on 12/28/2001, 9:22 pm

Posted by Author Unknown on 11/5/2001, 2:06 am I love Truth. In any discussion, Truth should be the single qualifying factor. All of the arguments should stand or fall based on nothing but Truth. But this is generally not the case when it comes to Evolution. Emotion, name-calling and gross distortion of logic are often used to establish teachings. Things like, give a million monkeys a million years punching keys on typewriters and they will pen the great works of Shakespeare. The Truth is; random processes like monkeys typing will always produce random results no matter how much time is allowed. In debates like these, Random actions and Time become the mechanism for complex design. I like to discuss the concept of the Evolution of the human eye with evolutionists. It is taught that at one time the creatures of this planet had no eyes. The first eye came about from a light sensitive spot on a primitive creature. Through random mutation and reproduction over a great deal of time this spot developed all of the components to make the eye see. Nerve pathways to the brain also developed and muscle formed to move the eye around. By pure chance another eye developed alongside the first one and they began to work together in a matter that allows the creature to focus. I have yet to find a single evolutionist that has difficulty with faith in this model of the eyes development. Often the saying “given enough time anything can happen” is used as the mechanism. But we know the Truth. Time is a factor that works against randomness forming a design. The more the monkeys type the more they will demonstrate that complex works do not come about through random actions. Our eyes show forth design. They point to the designer—God. This is the Truth. ---------- Of Monkeys and Men. Posted by Anthony W. Savini on 11/5/2001, 1:25 pm , in reply to "Speaking about Evolution" It's a coincidence that you have brought this up because I'm just beginning to read the "Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagan for about the 3rd or 4th time. Have you ever read this book? Another good writer is Richard Dawkins, I haven't read any of his books for awhile but in one of the books he wrote he discussed how he and his collegues used a computer to help them work out how many "generations" would it take for a "modern eye" for instance to evolve by programming simple parameters and have the computer work from a basic "light sensitive spot" to a fully functional eye. BTW did you know that we humans don't have the best eyes. Did you know that not only does our eyes focus upside down but our retinas are built backwards so that the optic nerve has to take up space from the retina in order for all the nerve connections to be made? Hence we have a blindspot. Definitely not a perfect design. By far it's not the best design available. It works though and we survive. The analogy of the monkeys and typewriters is a bit dated by now. Maybe you should actually read some of these books by scientists instead of out of context quotes used by "creation science." (AKA quote mining). When it comes to distortions, lies, exaggerations, misquoting, solipsisms and just simply bad science creation science has it by the truck load. As I have said before if you have to lie to uphold "THE TRUTH" then you are in the wrong corner! --------- Talk About Bad Science Posted by Author Unknown on 11/5/2001, 3:52 pm , in reply to "Of Monkeys and Men." Dear Anthony: Thank you for your response and admonition. Since we are on the subject of Truth, it could be twenty years since I have read a book about Creationism. However I have read some books about Evolution in the last five years. A friend will point out areas in a man’s life that could be changed for the better; you did this for me when you suggested that I, “should actually read some of these books by scientists instead of out of context quotes used by “creation science.” Thanks for being friendly. I’m going to take you up on your suggestion so that I can round out my arguments. I must admit they were a bit shallow. I leave you with some quotes I copied from, THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF EVOLUTION by Richard Milner copyright 1990 By “evolution” biologists mean that the change in gene frequencies of populations over the generations in time produces new species. Darwin called it “descent with modification”: a slow process, usually operating over hundreds of thousands, and even millions, of years. Page 157 Evolution is as well established a fact as gravitation. Page 157 If one insists evolution is merely one interpretation of nature, what is the alternative? That the thousands of dinosaurs and the species that came before and after them were not related to each other, appeared full-blown and had no common connections? Such a model, whether called religion or “creation science,” cannot lead to inquiry. It is an answer that stops all further questions. Page 157-158 7. How Much Can Natural Selection Explain? Darwin never claimed natural selection is the only mechanism of evolution. Although he considered it a major explanation, he continued to search for others, and the search continues. Page 160 One key feature of Darwin’s original theory was that evolutionary change must have proceeded by “slow, insensible degrees” —a progression of tiny changes adding up to produce a new species over immence periods of time....By the 1970s, the concept of Darwinian gradualism came under increasing scrutiny and attack by biologists. Recent researchers have reopened the question of macromutation, or evoulation by fairly rapid jumps. Such apparent discontinuities, or “jumpiness,” in the fossil record led to theories of “punctuated equilibrium.” Critiques of gradualism have not overturned Darwinian biology, or disproved evoulation. They are part of a continuing attempt to build on its foundation and gain a clearer picture of how evolution works. Page 199 That livings things evolve is as certain as a scientific fact can be. The evidence is overwhelming and continues to accumulate. Just how evolution occurs—entirely through natural selection, or in other ways as well—is an open question. Page 319 Ever since Darwin’s day, biologists have debated the mechanisms, but not the fact, of evolution. Page 320 Yet despite more than 100 years of attempts to dislodge it, natural selection remains a central idea in biology, still generating new theories, observations and fruitful research designs. Page 320 Fossil layers (strata) everywhere show a pattern of succession that is completely incompatible with sorting by water action. Throughout the world, sea creatures and trilobites are in the lower rock strata, fish in the next higher, then amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. Nowhere does one find reptiles on bottom and trilobites on top, birds before reptiles, or primates mixed with dinosaurs. Page 330 In 1984, paleoanthropologist Richard Leaky of the Nairobi Museum and Dr. Alan Walker, anatomist at John Hopkins Univeresity, attended a White House luncheon with the president. They assured him that while the mechanisms of evolution were certainly still in question, the evolution of our species from other primates was considered a scientifically established fact. Page 385 “Creation science” rejects the scientific content of evoltionary biology—if triumphant, it would discard the entire fabric of natural science. Since creationists deny the validity of science’s premises and methods, and reject its tested and unified theoretical structure, it would effectively end science altogether. Page 399 ---------- Of mis used words. Its sophistry not solipisms. Posted by Anthony W. Savini on 11/6/2001, 6:30 am , in reply to "Of Monkeys and Men." Sorry AU. I noticed you responded to me but before I read your I must apologize for blasting away. Evolution (literally unfolding) vs Creation is a subject that I've spent many years studying. The cost of ignorance and superstition has been very high in history, we should not go ---------- Bad = imperfect? Posted by Anthony W. Savini on 11/6/2001, 8:36 am , in reply to "Talk About Bad Science" I don't have that book. But to say that science is bad (I think you are saying) because it is imperfect is a very very weak arguement.