Re: The Bible and Evolution

[Christopher A. Lee]

On 29 Jun 2005 18:09:27 -0000, Stingray > wrote:


> Moreover, Hitching shows that living creatures are programmed to
>reproduce themselves exactly rather than evolve into something else.
>He says: “Living cells duplicate themselves with near-total fidelity.
>The degree of error is so tiny that no man-made machine can approach
>it. There are also built-in constraints. Plants reach a certain size
>and refuse to grow any larger. Fruit flies refuse to become anything
>but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised.” Mutations
>induced by scientists in fruit flies over many decades failed to
>force these to evolve into something else.

And like you, Hitching is wrong. But unlike you he doesn't parade his
ignorance to the world. Are you identical to your parents: hint: no.

[Jeff Thomas]

"Stingray" > wrote in message
...
> Evolution and Creation
>
> There is, however, an area where many would say that modern
> science and the Bible are hopelessly at odds. Most scientists believe
> the theory of evolution, which teaches that all living things evolved
> from a simple form of life that came into existence millions of years
> ago. The Bible, on the other hand, teaches that each major group of
> living things was specially created and reproduces only “according to
> its kind.” Man, it says, was created “out of dust from the ground.”
> (Genesis 1:21; 2:7) Is this a glaring scientific error in the Bible?
> Before deciding, let us look more closely at what science knows, as
> opposed to what it theorizes.
>
> The theory of evolution was popularized during the last century
> by Charles Darwin. When he was on the Galápagos Islands in the
> Pacific, Darwin was strongly impressed by the different species of
> finches on the different islands, which, he deduced, must all have
> descended from just one ancestral species. Partly because of this
> observation, he promoted the theory that all living things come from
> one original, simple form. The driving force behind the evolution of
> higher creatures from lower, he asserted, was natural selection, the
> survival of the fittest. Thanks to evolution, he claimed, land
> animals developed from fish, birds from reptiles, and so forth.
>
> As a matter of fact, what Darwin observed in those isolated
> islands was not out of harmony with the Bible, which allows for
> variation within a major living kind. All the races of mankind, for
> example, came from just one original human pair. (Genesis 2:7, 22-24)
> So it is nothing strange that those different species of finches
> would spring from a common ancestral species. But they did remain
> finches. They did not evolve into hawks or eagles.
>
> Neither the various species of finches nor anything else Darwin
> saw proved that all living things, whether they be sharks or sea
> gulls, elephants or earthworms, have a common ancestor. Nevertheless,
> many scientists assert that evolution is no longer just a theory but
> that it is a fact. Others, while recognizing the theory’s problems,
> say that they believe it anyway. It is popular to do so. We, however,
> need to know whether evolution has been proved to such an extent that
> the Bible must be wrong.
>
>
> How can the theory of evolution be tested? The most obvious way
> is to examine the fossil record to see if a gradual change from one
> kind to another really happened. Did it? No, as a number of
> scientists honestly admit. One, Francis Hitching, writes: “When you
> look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren’t
> there.” So obvious is this lack of evidence in the fossil record
> that evolutionists have come up with alternatives to Darwin’s theory
> of gradual change. The truth is, though, that the sudden appearance
> of animal kinds in the fossil record supports special creation much
> more than it does evolution.
>
> Moreover, Hitching shows that living creatures are programmed to
> reproduce themselves exactly rather than evolve into something else.
> He says: “Living cells duplicate themselves with near-total fidelity.
> The degree of error is so tiny that no man-made machine can approach
> it. There are also built-in constraints. Plants reach a certain size
> and refuse to grow any larger. Fruit flies refuse to become anything
> but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised.” Mutations
> induced by scientists in fruit flies over many decades failed to
> force these to evolve into something else.
>
>
>

Same tired old stuff. The lie is the statement that there are no examples
of gradual evolution. There are many examples if you are willing to see them
rather than simply say they are different species. If they are really close
in appearance all you need to say is that creationism allows for small
changes. It's hard to argue against that kind of logic
Those of us who are not emotionally attached to that ridiculous Adam and Eve
story, can see the various similarities between species which would be
unnecessary if they were separately created. See
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Miller.html for some examples of what I am
talking about. Reptile jaws changing into mammal ear bones, early amphibians
structurally similar to certain fish, horses evolving from small creatures
with similarities to carnivores, archaeopteryx half bird and half reptile
are a few of many examples. Either you or the people you are listening to
are obviously distorting the truth.
The advantage creationist argument is that you don't have to understand any
real science for it to make sense. "God did it"
There are gaps and if there is a gap where two species are diverging and
evolving rapidly then it will appear as if these animals came suddenly.
Zebra mussels were not found in the Great Lakes until recently. Is this
creation. I think not. Species may evolve in a small region of the earth and
then suddenly spread far and wide. Fossils of their origin may never be
found. The fossil record for whales was very lacking until recently. Now it
appears whales evolved in the Pakistan region and quite a few intermediates
have been found. They seem not to have spread to other regions until they
became ocean migrating species. This could be the explanation for the
apparent punctuated equilibrium one sees in the fossil record.
By the way, if Adam and Eve doesn't make sense then the salvation of Jesus
stuff doesn't make sense. That is why creationists fight so hard with so few
scruples.

Jeff

[Greywolf]

"Stingray" > wrote in message
...
> Evolution and Creation
>
> There is, however, an area where many would say that modern
> science and the Bible are hopelessly at odds. Most scientists believe
> the theory of evolution, which teaches that all living things evolved
> from a simple form of life that came into existence millions of years
> ago. The Bible, on the other hand, teaches that each major group of
> living things was specially created and reproduces only "according to
> its kind." Man, it says, was created "out of dust from the ground."
> (Genesis 1:21; 2:7) Is this a glaring scientific error in the Bible?
> Before deciding, let us look more closely at what science knows, as
> opposed to what it theorizes.
>
> The theory of evolution was popularized during the last century
> by Charles Darwin. When he was on the Galápagos Islands in the
> Pacific, Darwin was strongly impressed by the different species of
> finches on the different islands, which, he deduced, must all have
> descended from just one ancestral species. Partly because of this
> observation, he promoted the theory that all living things come from
> one original, simple form. The driving force behind the evolution of
> higher creatures from lower, he asserted, was natural selection, the
> survival of the fittest. Thanks to evolution, he claimed, land
> animals developed from fish, birds from reptiles, and so forth.
>
> As a matter of fact, what Darwin observed in those isolated
> islands was not out of harmony with the Bible, which allows for
> variation within a major living kind. All the races of mankind, for
> example, came from just one original human pair. (Genesis 2:7, 22-24)
> So it is nothing strange that those different species of finches
> would spring from a common ancestral species. But they did remain
> finches. They did not evolve into hawks or eagles.
>
> Neither the various species of finches nor anything else Darwin
> saw proved that all living things, whether they be sharks or sea
> gulls, elephants or earthworms, have a common ancestor. Nevertheless,
> many scientists assert that evolution is no longer just a theory but
> that it is a fact. Others, while recognizing the theory's problems,
> say that they believe it anyway. It is popular to do so. We, however,
> need to know whether evolution has been proved to such an extent that
> the Bible must be wrong.
>
>
> How can the theory of evolution be tested? The most obvious way
> is to examine the fossil record to see if a gradual change from one
> kind to another really happened. Did it? No, as a number of
> scientists honestly admit. One, Francis Hitching, writes: "When you
> look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't
> there." So obvious is this lack of evidence in the fossil record
> that evolutionists have come up with alternatives to Darwin's theory
> of gradual change. The truth is, though, that the sudden appearance
> of animal kinds in the fossil record supports special creation much
> more than it does evolution.
>
> Moreover, Hitching shows that living creatures are programmed to
> reproduce themselves exactly rather than evolve into something else.
> He says: "Living cells duplicate themselves with near-total fidelity.
> The degree of error is so tiny that no man-made machine can approach
> it. There are also built-in constraints. Plants reach a certain size
> and refuse to grow any larger. Fruit flies refuse to become anything
> but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised." Mutations
> induced by scientists in fruit flies over many decades failed to
> force these to evolve into something else.
>
>
Not being well versed in matters of science, I cannot wallop you with an
avalanche of evidence refuting the gist of your argument. I'm clearly not
competent enough to do so. (Others in this forum, I'm sure, can and will.)
So let me try this: When a non-scientist like myself looks at what
scientists have discovered about, say, the Grand Canyon, one learns that
life appears to have evolved in a linear progression. That is to say, that
the invertebrates appear in the fossil record before vertebrates, that
mammals appear later than reptiles, etc. You also find life starting out on
a micro-cellular level and becomes increasingly complex over the course of
time. In other words, one finds a pattern of progressiveness in the
development of life.

If the Noah's flood story were to be somehow true, how is it that we don't
find all sorts of life forms all jumbled together in some kind of mish-mash
of fossil evidence as the Flood Story suggests we would? (Again, I am no
scientist. So be kind!)

Greywolf

[Tim Jenson]

Stingray wrote:
> Evolution and Creation
>
> There is, however, an area where many would say that modern
> science and the Bible are hopelessly at odds. Most scientists believe
> the theory of evolution, which teaches that all living things evolved
> from a simple form of life that came into existence millions of years
> ago. The Bible, on the other hand, teaches that each major group of
> living things was specially created and reproduces only “according to
> its kind.” Man, it says, was created “out of dust from the ground.”
> (Genesis 1:21; 2:7) Is this a glaring scientific error in the Bible?
> Before deciding, let us look more closely at what science knows, as
> opposed to what it theorizes.
>
> The theory of evolution was popularized during the last century
> by Charles Darwin. When he was on the Galápagos Islands in the
> Pacific, Darwin was strongly impressed by the different species of
> finches on the different islands, which, he deduced, must all have
> descended from just one ancestral species. Partly because of this
> observation, he promoted the theory that all living things come from
> one original, simple form. The driving force behind the evolution of
> higher creatures from lower, he asserted, was natural selection, the
> survival of the fittest. Thanks to evolution, he claimed, land
> animals developed from fish, birds from reptiles, and so forth.
>
> As a matter of fact, what Darwin observed in those isolated
> islands was not out of harmony with the Bible, which allows for
> variation within a major living kind. All the races of mankind, for
> example, came from just one original human pair. (Genesis 2:7, 22-24)
> So it is nothing strange that those different species of finches
> would spring from a common ancestral species. But they did remain
> finches. They did not evolve into hawks or eagles.
>
> Neither the various species of finches nor anything else Darwin
> saw proved that all living things, whether they be sharks or sea
> gulls, elephants or earthworms, have a common ancestor. Nevertheless,
> many scientists assert that evolution is no longer just a theory but
> that it is a fact. Others, while recognizing the theory’s problems,
> say that they believe it anyway. It is popular to do so. We, however,
> need to know whether evolution has been proved to such an extent that
> the Bible must be wrong.
>
>
> How can the theory of evolution be tested? The most obvious way
> is to examine the fossil record to see if a gradual change from one
> kind to another really happened. Did it? No, as a number of
> scientists honestly admit. One, Francis Hitching, writes: “When you
> look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren’t
> there.” So obvious is this lack of evidence in the fossil record
> that evolutionists have come up with alternatives to Darwin’s theory
> of gradual change. The truth is, though, that the sudden appearance
> of animal kinds in the fossil record supports special creation much
> more than it does evolution.
>
> Moreover, Hitching shows that living creatures are programmed to
> reproduce themselves exactly rather than evolve into something else.
> He says: “Living cells duplicate themselves with near-total fidelity.
> The degree of error is so tiny that no man-made machine can approach
> it. There are also built-in constraints. Plants reach a certain size
> and refuse to grow any larger. Fruit flies refuse to become anything
> but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised.” Mutations
> induced by scientists in fruit flies over many decades failed to
> force these to evolve into something else.
>
>
>
GO read Richard Dawkins "The Blind Watchmaker" then come back and tell
me you still believe this ****. I not going to sit a type out a six page
article on why Hitching's is full of it.

[skyeyes]

Jeff Thomas wrote:

>By the way, if Adam and Eve doesn't make sense then the salvation of Jesus
>stuff doesn't make sense. That is why creationists fight so hard with so few
>scruples.

BINGO!!!!

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding

[Llanzlan Klazmon]

Stingray > wrote in news:DAHVMHO238533.0898958333
@reece.net.au:

> Evolution and Creation
>
> There is, however, an area where many would say that modern
> science and the Bible are hopelessly at odds. Most scientists believe
> the theory of evolution, which teaches that all living things evolved
> from a simple form of life that came into existence millions of years
> ago. The Bible, on the other hand, teaches that each major group of
> living things was specially created and reproduces only “according to
> its kind.” Man, it says, was created “out of dust from the ground.”
> (Genesis 1:21; 2:7) Is this a glaring scientific error in the Bible?

Yes because dust/dirt is the result of erosion and decay which is
supposed not to exist in the garden of eden. The story is dead on
arrival.

> Before deciding, let us look more closely at what science knows, as
> opposed to what it theorizes.
>

Bzzzzt. Theory is the scientific explanation of what science knows.

> The theory of evolution was popularized during the last century
> by Charles Darwin. When he was on the Galápagos Islands in the
> Pacific, Darwin was strongly impressed by the different species of
> finches on the different islands, which, he deduced, must all have
> descended from just one ancestral species. Partly because of this
> observation, he promoted the theory that all living things come from
> one original, simple form. The driving force behind the evolution of
> higher creatures from lower, he asserted, was natural selection, the
> survival of the fittest. Thanks to evolution, he claimed, land
> animals developed from fish, birds from reptiles, and so forth.
>
> As a matter of fact, what Darwin observed in those isolated
> islands was not out of harmony with the Bible, which allows for
> variation within a major living kind.

Define kind. Humans are genetically more similar to chimps than are
horses to donkeys. Are you saying that humans are the same kind as chimp?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Klazmon.





<SNIP nonsense babble>

[leo]

Creation is a very fine theory.
The only trouble I got with this theory is that I do not believe in
God.
And I do not believe in God, because there is Evil in the World. And
if there are Evil Creatures, they have been made by God, and that
cannot be possible. God cannot be a criminal thug full of hate and
murderous intentions. So, God does not exist. It is that simple. If
God does not exist, He have not created a **** whatever.
And all that preachers that speak in the name of God, are not but
liers.
leo

[Peacenik]

"Stingray" > wrote in message
...
> So it is nothing strange that those different species of finches
> would spring from a common ancestral species. But they did remain
> finches. They did not evolve into hawks or eagles.

Because it would take hundreds of thousands of years for a population of
finches to evolve into a significantly different species - far longer than
recorded history, much less in one man's visit to an island.

Fortunately we have the fossil record to prove evolution happens and
genetics to provide the actual mechanism through which evolution occurs.

[Ben Kaufman]

On 29 Jun 2005 18:09:27 -0000, Stingray > wrote:

>Evolution and Creation
>
<SNIP>

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&catID=2

[Masked Avenger]

El Bleacho wrote:
> wrote:
>
>>El Bleacho wrote:
>>
>>>ReelMcKoi wrote:
>>>
>>>>what about Alien terraforming?
>>>
>>>You have smoked pot with Erik Von Danniken, haven't you?
>>
>>If he smoked Pot, and made money on those alien books, get me some
>>mexican red now!!!
>
>
>
> You have got to be at least my age, or you would not even be talking about
> Panama Red. Last week I was at work with the rest of my consulting team
> and at dinner and the subject somehow turned to Acapulco God, Panama Red,
> Maui Wowie and Sewer Silver (the weed living in NY sewers and guarded by
> alligators - has to be a "snopes" deal); and none of these kids ever heard
> of any of those things. These people think all weed comes from California
> and the good stuff is called "Kind Bud". Well, yeah; we all had Kind Bud
> at west coast Grateful Dead concerts; but nobody knows about the weeds of
> the 70's. Hey, thanks for reminding me how friggin old I am. :-(
> But hey, Erich Von Daniken smoking huge quantities of hash in some cave
> somewhere would explain a lot about his findings.....
>
>

..... it would certainly go a long way in explaining why you believe in
ID ..... or why you lie about Einstein, Hawking et al. being IDists
...... you seem to be on the same wavelength as Carlos Casteneda .....

--
Masked Avenger
aa#2224
EAC Chief Technician in charge of remotely rigging Fundie 'Spell
Checkers' so they all look like hick home schooled yokels

Does Schroedinger's cat have 18 half lives ?

[stoney]

On 29 Jun 2005 18:09:27 -0000, Stingray > wrote:

>Evolution and Creation
>
> There is, however, an area where many would say that modern
>science and the Bible are hopelessly at odds.

They are and superstition loses.

[]


--

Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)