Re: Darwin's Demise: Why Evolution Can't Take The Heat
- From: "Andy" <andrew.whitelaw@ NoJunkMail.baesystems.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 09:41:02 +0100
<wordsoftruth114@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1124147247.163415.316500@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>This is a vast question. But is it really important today? Absolutely.
>Knowing the truth about our origins is essential because it affects our
>attitudes toward ourselves and the way we treat other people. For
>example, if we are indeed the end result of billions of years worth of
>chance biochemical reactions, as evolutionary theory tries to explain,
>then human nature, and even the value of human life, is quite different
>than if we are actually the result of an intelligent Creator who
>designed us.
No it's not.
Human life has no intrinsic vale. It is whatever we decide to put on it.
That value can be influenced by religion, social pressure, secular morality
or politics.
The value of the life of a human in some societies changes depending upon
the actions of that person. The value of the life of a serial child rapist
is held to have dropped so low in some countries that the life can be taken
by execution.
>Prior to the mid-1800s, most people on earth believed that all living
things
>- each type of animal, plant, and microorganism - were directly
>created by God, and had changed very little, if any, since that time.
No, most of the western world did. The majority of the rest of the
population of the world: the hindus, buddhists, taoist, conficinists,
animists, shintoist, asgardian, gaian, wiccan and other diverse 'pagan'
groups had their own creation stories. These 'other' people amount to 'most
people'.
>Evolution, as it is commonly understood today, depends upon four
>factors. Evolutionists (people who have confidence in the theory of
>evolution) explain them in this way:
> 1. Spontaneous generation.
No. Evolution does not necessairly require spontaneous generation. The
source of life for evolution is irrelevant, evolution describes how that
life changes with time.
>The accumulation of many small but favorable mutations over time is
>evolution's explanation for converting a microscopic bacterial cell
>into a human being. Yet even over many millions of years, as explained
>later, such a process would never have enough time to occur.
Again no. This implies that a mutation of a single gene or base pair has an
equally small effect on the creature. Experiments have shown repeatedly that
a single mutation can have very large effects. The traditional and outdated
view is that DNA is a long and careful listing of how to make a creature.
This is not 100% correct. The closest analogy I can find is that DNA is like
a computer program. It has a simple _Main routine that describes the basic
creature (eg a fruit fly described as head, thorax with 8 appendages and
abdomen) there are a number of 'subroutines' that describe a leg or an eye
or a wing. A single mutation can redirect these subroutines to another so
that a fruit fly can have a leg for an eye or two legs on its back. While
the fitness of a fruit fly with two legs instead of eyes is in doubt, it
does illustrate that great strides can be made with a single mutation.
A single mutation in humans can create giantism or dwarfism that could be
made to breed true.
Ditto for increasing or decreasing metabolic rate which could prove
advantageous for extremes of environmental temperature.
>The Christian view is that God both intentionally planned and produced
>the universe and all forms of life. Many scientists, non-Christian
>thinkers, and those of other philosophies also agree. Christian views
>about creation, and many other subjects, are found in the book called
>the Bible. Creation is primarily explained in Genesis, at the very
>beginning of the Bible.
And what independent evidence is there that this creation myth is more valid
that all the other creation myth for other societies throughout the world?
>Genesis describes God having a close friendship with Adam and Eve, the
>very first created people. Adam and Eve had three children, and their
>community grew rapidly.
So they committed incest?
>As we will see later, considerable scientific and historical evidence
>supports the events described in Genesis.
>Trouble was growing on earth, for people were ignoring God and treating
>one another cruelly. God decided to obliterate life and start over
>again. He chose Noah to build an ark (a giant boat) and fill it with a
>male and female of every type of air-breathing, land-dwelling animal.
OK Re the Noah story.
How big was this boat?
How long did it take to build?
How long did he have to collect the animals?
How many of each animal went into the ark?
How did Noah manage to keep fresh food for them for a year? Did he have a
garden?
What did the scavengers eat?
How many prey animals did he take for the carnivores?
How did they all fit?
If his sons and their families go off in different direction to make the
different nations of the earth who did they breed with? Incest?
Where did all the water go?
Where did it come from?
What did the tree dwelling and eating creatures live on while the forests
where regrowing?
What did Noah feed the animals on for the months or even years between the
waters receding and the plants regrowing?
Bearing in mind that many animals eat trees did Noah have an arboretum on
board?
Assuming that Noah grew the food for some of the animals how did they
survive with only a single window for light?
BTW you got it wrong, he took 7 male and 7 female from each animal. If he
did not then sacrificing one of each animals in an offering to god after the
flood would have been a bit of a stupid move
>· Probability. Since life is so unique and complex, we should find
>that the mathematical probability of it occurring spontaneously is
>very, very low.
But in a large enough universe that probability of it occurring reduces
dramatically.
The odds of winning the lottery are miniscule but people win it all the time
due to the large population taking part.
>· Earth Age. The age of the earth described in the Bible is
>essentially very young; on the order of 6,000-10,000 years. Since all
>life was created simultaneously, a longer time frame is unnecessary to
>explain its existence. Our scientific findings regarding earth's age
>should show a young planet.
Evidence?
>Either creation is true or evolution is true.
Again, no.
False dichotomy. Either literal biblical creation or evolution is true.
The bible does contain inconsistencies that require external aid,
interpretation etc to explain. A lot of literalists are happy to use
interpretation, different translations etc to explain lots of the bible but
remain hard-line on this one subject.
Many christians are happy to accept that biblical creation is allegorical,
after all Jesus used allegory to explain ideas in a simple way.
Andy
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Atheists and God haters are the biggest fools on Earth
- Next by Date: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A ATHEIST
- Previous by thread: The tree of life
- Next by thread: Re: WISTAR DESTROYS EVOLUTION
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
