Conference back40::soapbox

    Using that same logic, I should be called a female then.

   >>  that apes should be considered
    
    Should be...could be...might be....possibly...
    
    This is the lingo I always here from evolutionists.  
    
    Evolution is a faith belief like creationism.  
    
    -Jack

re .0:

But can humans and apes interbreed?  I thought one of the definitions of a
species was its members can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

(and no, I don't suggest anyone try it!)

-Madman

    You were so suggesting it!

    Well, .0 says "a human species" rather than "of the human species."  I
    believe what they mean is we should move them to a different branch of
    the taxonomical tree, one that shares an immediate parent with humans. 
    We have several species of dogs, why not several species of humans?

    
    .3
    
    
    We are a lot closer to apes than a Horse is to a Donkey and that
    mix produces a Mule.
    

    
    
    .2 What there are still creationists out there? When will humanity
       grow up?
    

    <----- When people can say "I don't know".

    
    
    <----.8 when "I don't know" doesn't mean "god"
            and means "I don't know"
    
    

re .6:

But are we?  The horse and donkey can produce a mule, but has there ever
been a half-human half-chimp?  Even as a test tube zygote produced by a mad
scientist?  I've never heard of such, other than in the headlines of
certain tabloids.

    The horse/donkey is a good example.  But, it is humans that arrange
    things into species and classify them.  Afterall, if ther famous
    visiting alien was to see a 6 foot 6 ethiopan warrior stood text to my
    baby girl it would be hard pressed to classify them together.
    
    Reclassifying chimps seems like a nice attempt to get chimps rights as
    opposed to walfare conciderations, doesn't matter to the science of the
    thing how you classify them.
    
    .last couple.  When people say, I don't know but I'm going to find out.

    People will never know for sure. They can choose to believe something
    that transcends physical evidence or the interpretation thereof. 
    
    Glenn

    
    
    I'd hope the reclassification (if done) would be done for science sake 
    and not political reasons.
    
    There is a swamp rat that used to be classified as a fish. So people
    could eat it on friday; after all it's tail was scaley. :) 
    
                                                              
    
    

RE: 64.3 by WRKSYS::MORONEY

> can humans and apes interbreed?  

Based on the amount of genetic difference,  probably.  

Only way to really know would be to try it.


Phil

    You don't think it's already been tried?

    
    
    .14 and what would it prove? Less that what we already know.
    
    

re: .12, Glenn

>    People will never know for sure.

I disagree, to the extent that if the knowledge base in this area continues
to expand at the rate that it has since Darwin, it's quite likely that it
may be proven within the next hundred years. Possibly even demonstrated
through genetic engineering research activities.

RE: 64.15 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "The Pantless Snow-Bagger"

No documented attempt.


Phil

    Why would an evolutionist document a failure? I find it hard to believe
    that such an obvious experiment would note have been attempted by now.

    Jack, how can one know what happened millions and billions of years
    ago? Development of new technology neither proves or disproves
    anything. Assumptions will still be made and evidence will continue to
    be interpreted differently.

    Glenn

    
    
    .19 Why would a religious zealot document a failure?
	

    <--- Exactly right!

    .20
    
    > Why would a religious zealot document a failure? 
    
    as an object lesson.  vide the case of ananias and sapphira in acts 5.

Is your middle name "Ptolemy", Glenn?

    This troubles me.

    
    .21 But if it happened or didn't. What would it prove?

    Binder, good point. Ananias and Saphira failed, but were they
    conducting an experiment to prove what God would do?
    
    Glenn

    re .25
    
    It wouldn't prove anything, but it would be used to justify lots of
    things.

    
    
    .27 Sorry I can't imagine what. Spell out a couple of examples.
    

    ananias and sapphira did not document their own failure; the xian
    community, through the hand of luke, documented the failure of the
    message of jesus to enter their hearts as jesus wished - and that's
    in a sense the failure of the community to be completely convincing.

    Dick, do you believe the story of ananias and sapphira?

For those of us without ready access to the book, what, in a nutshell,
is the story?

    .30
    
    glenn, i have no reason to disbelieve it.  there are many documented
    cases of a person's dying of a fright- or stress-induced heart attack,
    so it is possible that the story is true even without regard to the
    possibility of any miraculous intervention.
    
    .31
    
    quoting from the rsv, book of acts, beginning of chapter 5:
    
     1 But a man named Ananias with his wife Sapphira sold a piece of
    property,
     2 and with his wife's knowledge he kept back some of the proceeds,
    and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles' feet.
     3 But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to
    the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land?
     4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it
    was sold, was it not at your disposal? How is it that you have
    contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to
    God."
     5 When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and died. And great
    fear came upon all who heard of it.
     6 The young men rose and wrapped him up and carried him out and
    buried him.
     7 After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not
    knowing what had happened.
     8 And Peter said to her, "Tell me whether you sold the land for so
    much." And she said, "Yes, for so much."
     9 But Peter said to her, "How is it that you have agreed together to
    tempt the Spirit of the Lord? Hark, the feet of those that have buried
    your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out."
     10 Immediately she fell down at his feet and died. When the young men
    came in they found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her
    beside her husband.

    Re: .3  Can apes and humans interbreed?
    
    If my recollection of H.S. biology serves me correctly, in order
    for two species to interbreed, they must each have the same number
    of chromosomes.  I don't think apes and humans do.

    .33
    
    > same number of chromosomes
    
    tell that to the canadian scientists who successfully interbred wheat
    and rye to produce triticale, a new species that breeds true with
    itself but not with either wheat or rye.

    
   .33 Your wrong.
    
    Horses and Donkeys do not have the same number of Chromosomes.

    Dick, it doesn't sound like you believe it. I don't believe it. I've seen
    many people try to deceive god and not lose their life, why were these
    people dealt with so harshly? I don't believe it. This story is used as
    a weapon of spiritual abuse.

    Glenn

Before this gets any further out of hand, could we please have the actual
number of chromosomes for horses, donkeys, wheat, and rye?

I know that coyotes and domestic dogs will interbreed producing sterile
young (similar to mules in that sense), but I really can't say for sure
how many chromosomes.

I don't find it difficult to believe that the number of chromosomes could
be the same between wheat and rye or horses and donkeys. After all, it's
a relatively small finite number in any event.

    
    Of course there's documented proof of inter-breeding man and ape...
    
    Just look at the Washington D.C.!!!!!!!

    Why not woman and ape?

    'Cause men will sleep with anything that doesn't run away, but women
    have higher standards....

<----  :^)

    .36
    
    > Dick, it doesn't sound like you believe it.
    
    wrong.  i believe it, i just do not blithely ascribe it to a miracle. 
    the early xians believed it, and believed it was a miracle.  unlike
    similar miracle stories of the old testament, this incident is related
    by a man who may well have had it first-hand from an eyewitness - or,
    failing that, second-hand from paul, who would doubtless have had it
    from one of the eleven.

    
    
    Well, Jack didn't run away and I didn't sleep with him. :')
    
    

    <---- This is most reassuring. 

             <<< Note 64.5 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>

>    We have several species of dogs, why not several species of humans?

	Species? Breeds, yes. But all can interbreed.

Jim

    One might consider animals like wolves and jackals to be species of
    dogs.  Are we still covered on interbreeding?
    
    How 'bout several species of cats, then?  Tigers, ocelots, panthers,
    pumas, and domestic fluffballs -- probably a greater variety of species
    (not just breeds) than dogs.

            <<< Note 64.46 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>

>    One might consider animals like wolves and jackals to be species of
>    dogs.  Are we still covered on interbreeding?
 
	Wolves can most certainly interbreed with dogs. Jackals, I don't
	know. Are jackals considered "canines"?

>    How 'bout several species of cats, then?  Tigers, ocelots, panthers,
>    pumas, and domestic fluffballs -- probably a greater variety of species
>    (not just breeds) than dogs.

	All of the "big" cats can interbreed. All of the domestic breeds
	can interbreed. I don't know if they can interbreed with each
	other. It's likely that the "mechanical" difficulties would
	prevent a test (the same reason that I don't worry about a Lhasa/
	Great Dane mix at our house, genetically it's feasible, physically
	the problems are all but insurmountable).

Jim

This might be true if, in fact, there were a god.

    "A fool says in his heart that there is no God." Paraphrased
    
    Don't be offended, you probably don't believe what the bible has to say
    on the subject.  Well your entitled.
    
    peace.
    
    
    

    A fool believes that all he needs to know is contained in a book that
    can fit in a pocket.

    A fool believes that all he needs to know about God is contained in a
    book that can fit in a pocket.

    Glenn

    
    
    Yeah? So? What's your point??
    

    I thought it was quite clear. Having a comprehension problem?

    My Bible doesn't fit in my pocked...guess I'm excluded.  8^)

    Bible? Did I mention Bible?   
    
    ;-)

    RE: 53
    >I thought it was quite clear. Having a comprehension problem?
    
    Evidently, others are having that same problem....
    
    Could it be that, maybe, it wasn't quite as clear as you thought?
    
    Naaaaaaaaah!!
    

    Let's put it this way....God gave us a sufficient amount!!

    <---- This is such a narrow vision. I can no longer subscribe to the
    belief that the only the Bible contains all I need to know, if that is
    what you are implying. 

    God has given us the entire universe to gaze at, if this is what you
    mean by sufficient, then I will agree.

    Glenn

    Andy, Kimball put in "The fool has said in his heart there is no God."

    I agree with that. I also say it's an act of pure arrogance.

    Since we were discussing fools, I felt it was necessary to look at the
    other side of the coin. Those who feel that "God, life, the universe
    and everything" can be completely understood and explained by one book
    that can fit in your pocket. I have a pocket sized Bible, one of many. 
    I believe it is important, but I do not believe it contains all I need to 
    know. That is to say, if the Bible can't explain it, then I should forget 
    about it.

    Boy, if you couldn't figure my note out, then you sure must have
    trouble understanding a lot of scripture.

    Glenn

    2 Timothy 3:16,17
    
    All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking,
    correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may
    be thorouhgly equipped for every good work.
    
    I believe the Word of God has all the answers for me.
    
    Peace.
    
    
    

    
    >I believe the Word of God has all the answers for me.
    
    then why do you continue to ask brainless questions in this forum?

Could you point me to the chapter in the King James that answers questions
on code debugging?
Thank you

	one would think the code debugging pointers would come
	under Revelations.

    .60
    
    > I believe the Word of God has all the answers for me.
    
    let us imagine that you just bought a farm, and you need to paint the
    silo.  it is 30 feet tall and 12 feet in diameter.  you plan to buy
    paint that covers 270 square feet per gallon.  how many gallons will
    you need to buy?  please cite the chapter and verse that gives you this
    answer.

    |I believe the Word of God has all the answers for me.

    Kimball, down deep inside, you doubt this claim. I know you do. It's
    just a matter of time before you're faced with something, then the
    doubts will come to the surface.

    Glenn

    	re .64
    
    	Well I thought you already gave us a verse that told us the
    	value if Pi was about 3...
    
    	Are you also looking for a verse to show us how to do
    	multiplication and division?
    
    	:^)

    .66
    
    jeez, i dunno, the only two occurrences of the word paint in my bible
    are talking about the kind a harlot wears.

    .67
    
    the verse mentioned in the title of .64 says in unequivocal language
    that pi is exactly 3.

    	Close enough for painting.

    Glenn, 
    
    Believe it or not, it took me five years of christian crawling before 
    I learned to walk and 2 additional years of 3 steps forward and two back
    steps back.  You believe in your heart that I will turn away, because of 
    the doubt that is in you.  If you only knew what God did for me.  He
    never quit on me and as long as I breath I'm not going to stop
    believing or working out my salvation.  I have a long way to go, but I
    also have Jesus leading the way.  It's called faith in the promises of
    God.  
    
    Peace.
    

    Haag,
    
    Fly on Supergrump, or take it to the ring.

    Kimball, you've completely misunderstood me. Never once did I suggest
    that you would turn away. I do not believe that having doubts about the
    Bible having all the answers = not having any faith. I do not doubt
    what god did for you. That has nothing to do with believing that the
    Bible has all you need to know. If you look at your faith long enough,
    you will realise that you have made a lot of assumptions and you do
    your own picking and choosing regarding doctrine. That's how come there
    are so many hundreds of denominations. This is besides the point
    though. All I'm trying to say is, don't pigeon hole yourself and limit
    your experience with god to the understanding of scripture only. Think
    about it, can all there is to know about god be contained in a book?

    Glenn

    Ooops, I did it again.  
    
    I would agree with you that yes I have made assumption and yes I have picked
    and choosed.  It's apart of growing spiritually, and you will make mistake.
    Hopefully, along the way you will ask yourself why you believe what you
    believe.  Hopefully you will be challenged to seek out the answers to
    the why.  The reason why there are so many denominations is because of
    two things:  The pride of man and the spiritual forces that work
    against the unity of the body of Christ.  These forces have found
    it's way into many of the so called churches.  These two forces have also
    worked to created several interpretations of the bible.  
    
    At this point you may be saying how does a person get past all this 
    confusion.  They can do it by having a relationship with Christ.  Place 
    this first and the Spirit of God will guide you in all truths.  I
    haven't (In my short lived life) seen a situation that the bible is not
    capable of addressing.  I also believe that the bible is powerful, it's
    words can raise the dead, heal the sick, quicken you spirit.  How can
    this be, by living the Word it becomes active and alive in you.  By
    having faith in it and hiding it in your heart, it becomes a spiritual
    weapon that can destroy strongholds.  By studying the word of God you
    can begin understand the ways of God, to the extent that the bible
    reveals.  The Bible is more than just another book.  It's words can
    bring you life.  Glenn maybe you should pray for understanding and
    direction, If you do this with your whole heart, you find that the
    bible is alive and it's words a source of light in dark place.
    
    
    Peace.
    
    
    
    
    
    When it comes to interpreting the Bible I'm not a expert.    
    
    
    
    
    

    Kimball, I hope you never have to go what I've been through. You're at
    peace and I hope you remain that way. I wish I could let the questions
    go, but I can't. For me, so many things just don't fit and I can no
    longer spend my life banging a square peg into a round hole.

    Glenn

    <.74>
    
    sounds remarkably similar to a book of magical spells, what?

>    	Are you also looking for a verse to show us how to do
>    	multiplication and division?

Multiplication is Genesis 1:22.
Division is Genesis 32:8.

    I have a copy of the bible, along with other religion's text. I keep
    them in the same section of my library as my copy of Mother Goose. The
    bible fits very well there. 
    
    It has been interesting how I have always been able to satisfactorily
    find the answers to my questions without having to look at the bible.
    The bible is a great book for learning what christians presume to be
    true, but that is all.
    
    ...Tom

    <---- A narrow vision.

| <<< Note 64.60 by NEMAIL::SCOTTK "My multiple extremities: O:) >:> :P +:)" >>>

| 2 Timothy 3:16,17
| All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking,
| correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may
| be thorouhgly equipped for every good work.

	Kimball, without using the book itself to prove it's the inerrant Word
of God, how can you PROVE it is? You see, it seems kind of foolish to use what
is in question as proof it is correct, doesn't it? 


Glen

    RE: .79
    
    >A narrow vision.
    
    Right! People think that the bible has all the answers, and I have a
    narrow vision!? Sounds to me like you need a couple of extra hands so that 
    you can cover your eyes as well as your ears.
    
    ...Tom 

    Glenn, 
    
    I serve a God that goes beyond the experiences of man.  Please, don't
    misinterpret what I'm saying, I'm not trying to make light of your
    experiences.  I just want you to know that there is nothing that God
    can't delivery you from.  In my personal experience I found that he is
    a healer; Spiritual, Emotional, and Physical.  Have you ever been
    hurt to the point that it broke your trust, faith, and your heart?
    God can heal it.  I don't know if this is your case, but it is mine. 
    I'm still recovering from the hurts of the past, some so deep that it
    has taken years for it to come to the surface.  Some things that I'm
    afraid to face, but through it all, I'm beginning to see major
    deliverance.  
    
    We are all square pegs.  It's funny how we hold on to the hurts or 
    dissappointments as if we need them.  Our hurts help to us define our 
    borders, defense, and offense and it is difficult to release some of them.
    I find that as God is shaping me into a round peg, that my character is
    being redefined.  As for peace, this is something that must sought after and
    it at times can be difficult to maintain.  Don't let your peace go and must
    of all don't stop asking your questions, if they are wholeheartly directed
    to God you'll get the answer.  Please, above all have faith and approach 
    him with expectancy.  Read Phillipians 4:6-7.  I hope you don't stop
    the process, it may be painful as times but the rewards are beyond measure.
    
    Don't give up Glenn:
    
    Life is short, but eternity is forever.
      
    
    Kimball
    
    

| <<< Note 64.74 by NEMAIL::SCOTTK "My multiple extremities: O:) >:> :P +:)" >>>

| The reason why there are so many denominations is because of two things: The 
| pride of man and the spiritual forces that work against the unity of the body 
| of Christ. 

	Kimball, just curious. Do you believe there is only one "real"
denomination? If so, which one? If not, how do you tell the good ones from the
bad ones?

| These forces have found it's way into many of the so called churches.  

	Do you know any of the names of the "so called" churches?

| These two forces have also worked to created several interpretations of the 
| bible.

	Which church has "the" correct interpretation of the Bible?

	I am asking these questions because of many factors. One which you have
hit upon. To have a relationship with Christ is important. But then you have
certain denominations telling you to have only a certain type of relationship
with Him, and if you don't, then you have no relationship. If someone decides
to have a personal relationship with Christ, then it is between that person and
Christ, not that person and the various churches that try to mold your
relationship into their own. We are individuals, and will have different types
of relationships with Him. He knows what's in our hearts, right? Do the humans
who may say your relationship with Him is not a real one? To be honest, I don't
think they could. Yet these same people will believe that on someone's death
bed, they could yell out for Christ, regardless of what their lives were like,
and be saved. Does this make sense to you?

| I haven't (In my short lived life) seen a situation that the bible is not
| capable of addressing.  

	Do you believe the Bible will address every single thing in your life?
Do you go to the Bible to get your answers? I ask this because I'm wondering if
you think God could use other means besides the Bible to solve any problem you
could have. And I'm also wondering if you go to the Bible first, and then pray
for His help, or if you pray first. To *me* it seems to make sense to pray
first, as I truly believe He could use anyone, anything to show you the answer
to your problem(s). 

| I also believe that the bible is powerful, it's words can raise the dead, heal
| the sick, quicken you spirit.  

	This is where *I* see a problem. The Bible can do all this? Wouldn't it
have to be on the same plane as God Himself? No book, no human, should ever be
put on the same plane as Him. He is better than any book, anybody. The Bible
really is useless without Him guiding you, isn't it? So do you really think the
Bible itself can heal, raise the dead? You have stated that faith can destroy
strongholds, so it does make me think that it isn't the Bible itself that does
it for you.



Glen

    .70
    
    not quite.  using the info in 1 kings 7:23, you will buy four gallons
    of paint, and you will come up almost a quart short.
    
    close enough doesn't count for all the answers, just for the ones you
    don't really care about getting right.

    
    >>.. but eternity is forever.

	how fortunate they called it that then.

    silva,
    
    The Bible is it's own proof.  I'm not here to prove it as the inerrant Word
    of God, because it does a fine Job all by itself.  Somethings require
    faith, and I will continue to trust it's Words, because God has proven
    his Word to me time and time and time again.  
    
    You agrue your points from what you know, and I'll do the same...:-)
    
    Kimball
    
    
    

    To simply dismiss the Bible as another Mother Goose story is a narrow
    vision. 

    God is bigger than the Bible is what I'm trying to say. The universe is 
    bigger than the theories that are postulated is what I'm trying to say.

    Glenn

    <.82>
    >We are all square pegs.  It's funny how we hold on to the hurts or
    >dissappointments as if we need them.  Our hurts help to us define
    >our borders, defense, and offense and it is difficult to release some
    >of them.
    
    Do please stop generalising. The above may describe you; it does not
    necessarily describe me or anyone else.
    
    martin

| <<< Note 64.86 by NEMAIL::SCOTTK "My multiple extremities: O:) >:> :P +:)" >>>




| The Bible is it's own proof.  

	Actually, the Bible doesn't prove this, as it's filled with errors,
contradictions and stuff. 

| I'm not here to prove it as the inerrant Word of God, because it does a fine 
| Job all by itself.  

	It does make a claim, but that's where it ends.

| Somethings require faith, 

	Now THIS is what I believe is the key element. But is it faith in Him,
or faith in a book written by humans?

| and I will continue to trust it's Words, because God has proven his Word to me
| time and time and time again.

	That is your perogative. But the big question is..... if someone does
not believe the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God, but believes in Jesus
Himself, is that person a Christian in your eyes?



Glen

 >>           That is your perogative. But the big question is..... if
 >>   someone does
 >>   not believe the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God, but believes in
 >>   Jesus
 >>   Himself, is that person a Christian in your eyes?
    
    A nit.  What gives you the authority to determine what passages are
    divinely inspired and which ones aren't?  Just curious.
    
    -Jack

    .90
    
    since i've used it recently, do you believe that the mathematical error
    in 1 kings 7:23 was divinely inspired?

    What gives anyone the right?

    Who decided the canon, who closed it? Why do some consider the
    Apocrypha not inspired?

    Glenn

    Dick, could you summarize this error for me?

    Thanks,

    Glenn

    Silva, 
    
    Do you love God?
    

    Glenn:
    
    I'm challenging Mr. Silva with this because there are parts of
    scripture he adheres to and parts he doesn't.  This tells me he uses
    his social conscience to determine who wrote correctly and who didn't, 
    who's a homophone/bigot and who isn't, etc.
    
    -Jack

    Jack, I think we are all aware of Glen's agenda and how he pushes it.
    Take away the Bible entirely and you're still left with the same
    problem where he is concerned. Why bother challenging him? You're
    wasting your time IMO.

    Seeing as he is in the evolution topic, I would say that evolution will
    prove that his agenda is destructive. Natural selection at work.

    Glenn

 >>   since i've used it recently, do you believe that the mathematical
 >>   error in 1 kings 7:23 was divinely inspired?
    
    Verse:
    
    "And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other. 
    It was round all about, and it's height was five cubits; and a line of
    thirty cubits did compass it round about."  1 Kings 7:23.
    
    Okay Dick, where's the error?
    
    -Jack

    .93 & .97
    
    we did this in the old box, but wotthehell, i've even done some further
    linguistic analysis on it since then, so here it is.
    
    the text of 1 kings 7:23 states:
    
    1.  the molten sea was round (hebrew `agol, meaning to revolve, hence
        circular, not oval or elliptical).
    
    2.  the molten sea was 10 cubits across from one brim to the other
        (diameter).  the fact that only a single measurement is given, not
        two as must be specified for an oval or an ellipse, provides further
        support to the point of circularity.
    
    3.  a line (hebrew qav, meaning a measuring cord) 30 cubits long would
        compass (hebrew cahab, meaning to surround or encircle) the molten
        sea.
    
    a circle (1) of diameter 10 cubits (2) has a circumference of 31.4159...
    cubits; hence a 30-cubit cord (3) will not encircle (3) it, falling
    approximately 25.5 inches short.
    
    arguments have been advanced suggesting that the measurement of the
    circumference be made by a series of 1-cubit chords or by measuring on
    the inner surface of the brim (according to 1 kings 7:26, the bowl was
    a handbreadth, or about 3.5 inches, thick).  but point 3 above, in its
    specificity that a CORD is the measuring device and that it SURROUNDS
    the bowl, disallows both of these arguments.
    
    put bluntly, 1 kings 7:23 contains a demonstrable error of fact.  in
    the scheme of what i use the bible for, i.e., as a spiritual guide,
    this error is meaningless.  to an inerrantist, there is no possible
    escape from the fact that the bible is not inerrant.

    Thanks Dick. I don't believe that the Bible is not not right about some
    things either.

    Glenn

    
    
    Ummmmmmm..... How did they measure "gallons" in those days??
    

| <<< Note 64.90 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>


| A nit.  What gives you the authority to determine what passages are
| divinely inspired and which ones aren't?  Just curious.

	Jack, here is the answer you nit. :-)  A book claims to be the inerrant
Word of God. There is nothing to back this up. How can you use something to
prove it's own validity? You can't. From reading the Bible I have come to the
conclusion that it has errors. I am basing it on my own findings. Your mileage
may differ. Now, do I think the book was inspired by God? Yup. But inspired and
inerrant are two different things. I can be inspired to do anything, but it
does not mean it will come out right.


Glen

| <<< Note 64.90 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>




| A nit.  What gives you the authority to determine what passages are
| divinely inspired and which ones aren't?  Just curious.

	Oh yeah, one other thing. It isn't authority that makes one believe in
the Bible. It's faith. Faith does not = fact automatically. Faith can be fact.



Glen

| <<< Note 64.94 by NEMAIL::SCOTTK "My multiple extremities: O:) >:> :P +:)" >>>


| Do you love God?

	Yes Kimball, I do. 

    re: <<< Note 64.101 by BIGQ::SILVA
    
    So then, God was inspired to point out that Homosexuality is an
    abomination, but He was in error. This is silly. You're a real piece of
    work.

    .104
    
    no, i think glen's point is that the HUMAN BEING who wrote in leviticus
    20:13 that homosexuality is an abomination was inspired by god but that
    being inspired does not equal being error-free.

| <<< Note 64.95 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>


| I'm challenging Mr. Silva with this because there are parts of scripture he 
| adheres to and parts he doesn't.  

	Jack, this is kind of fun. Can you tell me what parts I adhere to and
what parts I do not? 

| This tells me he uses his social conscience to determine who wrote correctly 
| and who didn't,

	Jack, like I have said over and over, to me it is a guide. God
inspired, but we humans have free will, so it can't be the inerrant Word of
God. God would have had to be the author, not man. I don't view any of it as
being inerrant. If God should lead me to the Bible for an answer, He does. If
He should use someone or something else, then He does. That was why I asked
Kimball if he prays first and then goes to the Bible, or if he goes to the
Bible and then prays. The latter, to *me* kind of hinders God, as He may not
want to use the Bible to show him the answer. To pray and then let Him show you
where to go, what to do, makes more sense to *me* as you have just taken the
human limits (like only going to the Bible) out of it and have opened it up to
anything. 

| who's a homophone/bigot and who isn't, etc.

	Jack, again with the homophobic/bigot crap. You know me, we've had
discussions about this in CP. You know I don't use the Bible to define someone
as homophobic/bigot, and that when I do label someone that, which is rare, it
is because of their ACTIONS. When someone holds a sign up that says, "God hates
fags", and then gives a Bible quote, you know yourself this is not true. The
Bible did not make these people like this. Other people did. Their fears, their
hatred towards gays (for whatever reasons) have done this. The people who have
listened to this could be like them, or just could have gotten into the wrong 
crowd. Who knows what the reasons are unless one asks. If someone is misguided,
doesn't know the truth, is that person a homophobe/bigot? Me thinks not. More
like confused than anything else. 

	And as far as someone believing religiously that being gay is wrong
goes, if they view it in the hate the sin, not the sinner light, I can live
with that. But you know the people above were not like this. 

	But you know for a FACT that I don't call someone homophobic/bigot 
because of the Bible. You know for a FACT that I look into the reasons behind 
their actions/words. And if you do NOT know that, then you had better go read 
topic 91 in CP again, and go look at the old versions of the box. But I'll be 
damned if I will let you say that, when you have heard from **ME** otherwise. I
know you have heard because we have talked about it. If I thought that way
Jack, wouldn't I have jumped on the bandwagon of people who view you as
homophobic? But I haven't, have I Jack. Could it be that we talked, that I
understand where you are coming from? MMMMMMMmaaaybe....



Glen

| <<< Note 64.104 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "The Pantless Snow-Bagger" >>>


| So then, God was inspired to point out that Homosexuality is an abomination, 
| but He was in error. This is silly. You're a real piece of work.

	It would be silly if he ever said that. In the last version of the box
I addressed all homosexual context in the Bible. If you take one little phrase
out of a story, it can be made to sound pretty grim. If you include the text of
the entire story, you end up with a totally different view. 


Glen

    Glen:
    
    OK..do you concur with Patricia that Paul the Apostle is a homophobe?  
    And if he is, then how can his doctrinal statements on the death and
    resurrection be taken without bias or emotion just as his opinion of
    sexual matters is taken?  
    
    Ya see, I think you use your ideology FIRST as a guide.  The bible is a
    secondary guide if it fits into your ideology.  Could that be the case?
    
    -Jack

    .108
    
    paul says in 1 corinthians 6:9-10:
    
        9  Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom
        of God?  Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor
        adulterers, not effeminates, nor abusers of themselves with
        mankind, 10  Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor
        revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
    
    the key here, in re homosexuality, is "abusers of themselves with
    mankind" - the greek is "arsenokoites" which means literally people who
    engage in buggery.  so long as the homosexual impulse is denied - as a
    straight rc priest must deny his carnal urges - i see no problem in
    paul's writing with being a homosexual.  the problem is in the DOING. 
    so no, paul isn't a homophobe.

>    so long as the homosexual impulse is denied - as a
>    straight rc priest must deny his carnal urges - i see no problem in
>    paul's writing with being a homosexual.  the problem is in the DOING. 
>    so no, paul isn't a homophobe.
    
    	This is exactly right.  It is the behavior, the action, not
    	the genetic predisposition (if that even exists...)
    
    	Why are we discussing this in the Evolution topic?

    Owe, Shirley knot!!
                       

    >This is exactly right.  It is the behavior, the action, not
    >the genetic predisposition (if that even exists...)
    
    This was exactly what I was getting at over in the Gay Issues
    topic... I think a lot of people, not just some Christians, are
    obsessed with the idea that men are having sex with men and women
    are having sex with women and, by gosh, they're gonna make a lot
    of noise about it... until... until... until what? Until God
    stops making homosexuals? How about just getting used to it?
    
    -b

    
    
    
    Someone made a mistake and created an evolution topic and not creating
    a creationism topic.                         
    
    I can't wait for religion to be dead so groups of people can persecute
    each other for completely new and interesting reasons. Hopefully for
    reasons that have real substance; Instead of, you don't live your life
    like I live mine. 
    
    
    

    One could argue that religion is part of the evolutionary process. 

    What. can't handle what natural selection has done to your species? 

    Poor fellah.

RE: .83, Glen
    
	>Kimball, just curious. Do you believe there is only one "real"
	>denomination? If so, which one? If not, how do you tell the good ones from the
	>bad ones?
    
    This is an interesting question. I think that some none-christian
    religions claim to be the true church. But only two denominations, that
    I know of actually claim to be the "True church of Jesus Christ" on
    earth today. That would be the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of
    Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons). None of the protestant
    sects seem to make this claim.

	>Which church has "the" correct interpretation of the Bible?
    
    Same two churches as above. The catholics have had the mantle for the
    entire 2000 years and I believe they claim to still have it. The
    mormons say that Joseph Smith restored the true church and took the
    mantle from the catholics, who had fallen. The mormons claim that the
    bible is true except for some translation errors (which Joseph Smith
    corrected) and have added books that they consider scripture (Book of
    Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine and Covenents). Both churches
    claim that the protestants are just rebels and have no place. 

    I always found it interesting, as a non-believer, that the protestants
    poo-poo both the catholics and the mormons. In my studies of christianity
    I think that the so called believers do themselves a great disservice
    by not investigating both of these churches. I just looked in the
    phonebook many years ago and easily got an appointment with a monsignor
    and the mormons sent over some very nice young men (missionaries) to
    answer my questions. It was delightful and I learned much. It was a
    little more difficult with some of the protestants. They seemed to want
    me to come to their church first. I have managed over the years to
    speak to the clergy of most christian churches, including Baptists,
    Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Seventh Day Adventists and many
    non-denominationals. After all of that, if I didn't find the concepts
    of all of them so rediculas, I would definitely join either the
    catholics or the mormons.
    
    Not that anybody cares!
    
    ...Tom

    Just to keep the topic on track, in regards to my comments in .115,
    just remember that I'm evolving. :-{)>
    
    ...Tom

| <<< Note 64.115 by DASHER::RALSTON "Who says I can't?" >>>


| This is an interesting question. I think that some none-christian religions 
| claim to be the true church. But only two denominations, that I know of 
| actually claim to be the "True church of Jesus Christ" on earth today. That 
| would be the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter 
| Day Saints (Mormons). 

	So it makes me wonder if the majority of people from these same 
churches believe that those who are from other denominations are not saved.
That would be interesting to know. My guess would be they do not think this
way, but then that doesn't explain how can they belong to THE one church, and
think that the other denominations are ok. So maybe I'm wrong.

| Same two churches as above. The catholics have had the mantle for the entire 
| 2000 years and I believe they claim to still have it. The mormons say that 
| Joseph Smith restored the true church and took the mantle from the catholics, 
| who had fallen. 

	That's interesting stuff. Can I ask for the source? 

| Both churches claim that the protestants are just rebels and have no place.

	Hmmm.... if this is true, it must not be a Catholic wide thing. I know
the church I grew up in did something never done before by this church. They
did things WITH the Prodestant church up the street, and even had the minister
come down for a mass or two. I remember she was pretty funny. 

| phonebook many years ago and easily got an appointment with a monsignor and 
| the mormons sent over some very nice young men (missionaries) to answer my 
| questions. It was delightful and I learned much. It was a little more 
| difficult with some of the protestants. They seemed to want me to come to 
| their church first. 

	I wonder why? Most churches would be happy to get a call from someone
who wanted to learn about the church. Regardless of whether they had to make a
house call or not.

| I have managed over the years to speak to the clergy of most christian 
| churches, including Baptists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Seventh Day 
| Adventists and many non-denominationals. 

	Sounds like you've been doing some homework. BTW, what is a
non-denominational church?

| After all of that, if I didn't find the concepts of all of them so rediculas, 
| I would definitely join either the catholics or the mormons.

	If/when you become a believer, right? :-)



Glen

    
    
    
    .114 always some throw-backs.
    
    

    re .115
    
    non-Christian
    
    rIdIculOUs
    
    

    
RE: .117, Glen
    
>	So it makes me wonder if the majority of people from these same 
>churches believe that those who are from other denominations are not saved.
>That would be interesting to know. My guess would be they do not think this
>way, but then that doesn't explain how can they belong to THE one church, and
>think that the other denominations are ok. So maybe I'm wrong.
    
    My impression is that catholics think that everyone will eventually be
    saved through the love of christ. Someone like Joe O. can probably
    explain it better. Mormons divide the eternities into three parts.
    First those who obey the gospel of Jesus Christ by being baptised by
    one having authority (mormon men hold "the priesthood"), and have the
    ordinances of the gospel, which is entering a mormon temple,
    go to the highest level of glory (Celestial Kingdom). Next are
    believers who do not have the above. They go to the second level of
    glory (Terrestial kingdom) the third are fairly evil people like
    criminals and the like. They go to the third level, which is the
    telestial kingdom. The last is for the devil and his angels called
    outer darkness (probably the same as hell). I liked this because it
    made some sense about not everyone having the same faithfulness, so why
    would everyone have the same glory?

	>That's interesting stuff. Can I ask for the source? 

    I was given some pamphlets. But I think that if you call a number in
    the phone book for the mormon church, they will tell you the location
    of an LDS bookstore. The missionaries give out "Books of Mormon for
    free" I remember liking these guys.
    
    >Hmmm.... if this is true, it must not be a Catholic wide thing. I know
    >the church I grew up in did something never done before by this church. They
    >did things WITH the Prodestant church up the street, and even had the minister
    >come down for a mass or two. I remember she was pretty funny. 

    I think that most churches, at least those who promote missionary work,
    do this.
    
>I wonder why? Most churches would be happy to get a call from someone
>who wanted to learn about the church. Regardless of whether they had to make a
>house call or not.
    
    They are all happy, but not all as enthusiatic as I had expected. The
    catholic monsignor was an old gentleman and enjoyable to speak to. I
    did get somewhat of an impression that it was just his job, which of
    course it is. The mormons don't have full time clergy on the local
    level and consider missionary work a prime concern.

>Sounds like you've been doing some homework. BTW, what is a
>non-denominational church?
    
    yes, I enjoyed it too. But, remain unconvinced. I just used
    non-denominational to reflect what in the past was not considered
    traditional. Colorado Springs has many churches that aren't associated
    with any national organization.


	>If/when you become a believer, right? :-)
    
    Yes, but I don't see it happening.

    ...Tom

    re Glen/.83
    
    >Kimball, just curious. Do you believe there is only one "Real
     Denomination"?
    
     I believe that there is only one body with many members and each member
     of body is important. 
    
    >If not how will you tell the good ones from the bad ones?
    
     Seek first the kingdom of God and all it's righteousness, and all
     other things will be added onto onto you.(paraphrased)
     I've found personally that I had to learn to listen first and not for
     an answer that I wanted to hear.
    
    >Do you know the names of any of these churches?
    
     Where there is confusion and chaos, you won't find God being the
     author of it.  
    
    >Do you believe that the bible will address everything in your life?
     
     Yes,
    
     As the saying goes "there is nothing new under sun."  It hasn't failed
     me thus far, and I believe that it won't.  God also speaks in other
     ways.  If those other ways are in contradiction to biblical
     principles, your not listening to the voice of God.  
    
     Before reading I usually pray for insight first and if led to, I'll pray
     against spiritual obstacles.
    
    >This is where I see the problem. The bible can do all this?
     Wouldn't it have to be on the same plane as God himself?
    
     God himself, holds himself to his Word that he inspired man to write.
     Why would he do this?  Why would he hold himself accountable to his
     Word?   
    
    >Do you really think that the bible itself can heal, raise the dead?
    
     The written word becomes the living Word, when applied to your life.
     The Living Word brings life and healing.
     The Living Word destroys yokes, and brings revelation.
     The Living Word Brings wisdom and understanding.
    
    
    Re Glen/.86
    
    >That is your perogative, but the big question is....if someone does not
    >believe the bible to be the in errant Word fo God, but believe in Jesus
    >himself, is that person a christian in yours eyes.
    
    It doesn't matter what I believe when it concerns your salvation.  I only 
    know of two requirements of salvation:
    
    One if you confess with your mouth that Jesus Christ Lord, and that God has
    raised him from the dead, you shall be saved.  
    
    I will also add that it matters very much what you base your beliefs
    on.  If you believe in Jesus than you should at least believe what he
    said.  "If you love my Father you will obey his Word." (paraphrased).
    
    How can you love God without obeying his Word?
    How can you obey his word if you don't believe it?
    
    
    I'm still searching for answers,
    
    Kimball
    

    Glen, 
    
    I forgot one thing.  As far as the interpretation thing goes.  I'm not
    the authority on the subject.  However, I do believe that thier is a right 
    and wrong way of interpreting the bible.  Somethings will just remain a
    mystery until the Lord reveals it, or he comes.  I also believe that people
    who dissagree with the bible, tend to search the bible for thier own answers
    (Selective Reading).  I know that it's true because I'm guilty of it myself.
    
    I depend on prayer, the bible, spiritual revelation, my concordance, and 
    last but not least sound teaching.  I prayfully search the scriptures and 
    I test it according other parts of the bible, the text of the words used, 
    historical and cultural times, to best of my ability.  Yet and still,
    some things will only come with spiritual revelation and growth.
    
    I have also found that their are biblical laws that run the universe.  They
    are interrelated, and you can not violate one without violating another. 
    
    Somethings you can take literally like the Birth of Jesus, and somethings 
    you need to understand the bigger picture.  For example the dispensation 
    of the Law versus the dispensation of Grace.  This requires a full 
    picture, in terms of atonement, and redemption.  In short the difference 
    between living under the Law and living by the Spirit.  The interpretation 
    wars will go on as long as man breaths, just make sure that your 
    intepreting what's there and not what you want to see based on some
    preconceived notions. 
    
    
    Kimball. 
    
    
    

    <--- Lots of loopholes there. I wouldn't feel too comfortable with them.

    HoopHoles! Daggnabbit.
    
    I need to be edja...ma...kated.
    
    So edja...ma....kate me :-) :-)
    
    Kimball
    

    you refuse to take your head out of the bible, so how can anyone hope
    top educate you?

    Top education makes sense, he goes around in circles.

    It's could be said that you refuse to not look to God, so how can you
    receive spiritual revelation with a carnal mind? :-) :-)
    
    
    It's not as bad as it looks, take it with a smiley.
    
    Kimball.
    
    

    <.127>
    >It's could be said that you refuse to not look to God, so how can you
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >    receive spiritual revelation with a carnal mind? :-) :-)
    
    
    Sorry I don't even understand what you mean here. 

    Grammer aside, I know got the point.

    Now that I read it myself, oh boy.

RE: Note 64.17

>>I disagree, to the extent that if the knowledge base in this area continues
>>to expand at the rate that it has since Darwin, it's quite likely that it
>>may be proven within the next hundred years. Possibly even demonstrated
>>through genetic engineering research activities.

        Imagine about 100 years from now, someone holding up a test tube
        and announcing, "After more than 100 years of diligent research by
        tens of thousands of dedicated scientists with hundresds of
        billions of dollars of materials and equipment, we have succeeded
        in creating this primitive life form, thereby proving that life
        evolved from base materials without the assistance of any
        intelligence."
    

    .131
    
    any scientist who would say that isn't a scientist.  a scientist would
    say look, we've created this primitive life form, thus proving that it
    is possible and suggesting but not necessarily proving that that's how
    it may have happened 2 billion years ago.

    c'mon binder.  what you call a scientist hardly exists anymore.  and i
    take great exception to your statement that scientists are god-fearing
    believers.  
    
    jeff

    .133
    
    take exception to whatever you like.  you might change your tune if you
    were personally acquainted with a few scientists instead of limiting
    your circle to six-day thumpists.

    
    i beg your pardon.  i don't associate with scientists at all, if i can
    help it ;). 
    
    jeff

    <--  :-)

RE:              <<< Note 64.132 by SMURF::BINDER "vitam gustare" >>>

	Please read .131 again.  I said, "someone holding up a test tube,"
	not, "a scientist."

>>    any scientist who would say that isn't a scientist.

        Does this mean you believe that those who are promoting evolution
        as fact today are not scientists?  

    
               <<< PEAR::DKB100:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< Soapbox.  Just Soapbox. >-
================================================================================
    
re .121
    
>    It doesn't matter what I believe when it concerns your salvation.  I only 
>    know of two requirements of salvation:
    
>    One if you confess with your mouth that Jesus Christ Lord, and that God has
>    raised him from the dead, you shall be saved.  
    
    
	This bothers me. Jeffery Dalmer's dad, in an interview about his
    sons death said that he had been reading the bible lately and had
    "found God" and that he believed he was with him now. As I read your
    note, Dalmer can go to heaven because he excepted Jesus even after all
    he did, but  I, myself, who has never hurt anyone and generally tries to
    help others will go to Hell if I don't acknowldge Jesus. Seems kind of
    unfair. Bow down to me and it doesn't matter what you've done, I'll be
    good to you, but don't bow down to me and no matter how good you are
    I'll see that you suffer. Sounds like a third rate dictator, not a just
    and benevolent God to me.
    
    
    
    							Confused.
                             

   Who is Jeffery Dalmer?



   The Bible (which Christians acknowledge as the Word of God) tells us that
   man is born in a state of rebellion (sin) against God.  I always wondered
   about that until I had kids.  Kids naturally seem to want to disobey and
   have to be taught otherwise.  I believe that is part of the sin/rebellion
   with which we are born..

   In order for man (kind) to make peace with God, our sin has to be dealt with.
   Being rebellious/sinful humans we cannot make that peace.  God requires
   payment for our sin (Romans 6:23).  There is no one, no matter what good
   we do who can make that peace (Romans 3:10).  We all say we are "good" but
   what is the measurement?  Where is the line between good and bad?  God says
   tha we all have sinned and fall short of his glory.  In order for us to 
   have peace with Him, he came to earth in bodily form as Jesus Christ, lived
   a perfect sin free life, and paid the penalty for our sin.."the free gift of
   God" Romans 6:23.  With that gift, our penalty for sin has been paid..but 
   like any gift, we must claim it before we can use it.  Thus, we "accept"
   Jesus Christ as our saviour and his payment on our behalf..and confess (ack-
   knowledge) our sinfullness..we are forgiven and we have peace with God.

   Works (doingn good stuff) is important, for sure..but the cannot save us,
   lest any man should boast (Ephesians).  God has given the gift to all who
   will acknowledge their sin, confess it, claim Jesus payment for their sin,
   and ask Him to save them, as it appears Mr. Dahmer had done.



   Jim

    .98:
    
    Dick, it wouldn't surprise me if the author didn't actually make the
    measurements himself.  But in defense of the ancient geezers, consider
    the rudimentary (nay, risible) system of writing numbers that they were
    using.
    
    You could try your hand at representing pi (or e, or some other
    irrational) to a couple of places using that form of notation.  If you
    aren't familiar with it, check out the description of the Greek method
    (the antepenultimate chapter, more or less,  of the Liddle & Scott text
    I loaned you describes it).  I think it will turn out to be even
    fuglier than the example I saw years ago of a Roman square root
    computation (which I think didn't venture right of the
    yet-to-be-invented decimal point).
    
    Dick
    

    The folks who wrote that partickeler passage were using a Pentium!!
    
    QED
    
    |-{:-)
    

    re; "kids being born into rebellion..." does this mean that once
        you become a parent you're raised to that lofty position of
        God? Saint maybe...

RE:                    <<< Note 64.142 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>>

   > re; "kids being born into rebellion..." does this mean that once
   >     you become a parent you're raised to that lofty position of
   >     God? Saint maybe...



     Where did I say that?  And no, becoming a parent does nothing of the
     kind.  All believers, btw, are saints.




Jim

    
>    One if you confess with your mouth that Jesus Christ Lord, and that God has
>    raised him from the dead, you shall be saved.  
    
    This is the part that bothers me.  You have to confess *with your
    mouth*?  What if you're, er, mute or had your vocal cords removed or 
    something?  You can't just confess in your heart, or with whatever means 
    of communication you might happen to have?

        Let's see  if  I've  got this right - the "Christian" belief is
        that Dahmer goes to "Heaven" because he "repented" and accepted
        "Jesus Christ" as his saviour, so all his sins are wiped out?
        
        You're daft.
        

    mmmm yeah, while all those who have never heard of Christinality, or
    are born into other religions, or believe other philosophies, yet
    devote their lives to helping the poor, the sick, the needy, well they
    just get turned away from "Heaven" because they can't claim you Jesus
    as Lord.
    
    Yeah, makes me kinda wanna punch your god on the nose. Creep.

    
    
    
       I know this isn't the topic,.....but I'm also looking for 
       answers like .138,.....answers that make "sense".
    
      
       I have three kids,.....a great wife (that I've known since
       kindergarten),.....our household stresses love, education,
       values, respect etc. And I don't go to church,.....and I don't
       pray. Is "christianity" telling me that if I don't seek Jesus,
       .....or if I don't ask for salvation,.....or repent or whatever,
       ........when it's time for me to "checkout",.......I'm gonna
       find myself where it's "hot and humid" as opposed to "cool and
       dry"??
    
    
       Ed
    

>Creep.

God is not a creep.

One of the cruelties of heresy is that it presents an inauthentic God and
denies salvation to large classes of people.  (Read "The Cruelty of Heresy"
by C. FitzSimons Allison.)

The authentic teaching of the Church is that the only _revealed_ way to
salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ.  However, the Church also teaches
that God is infinitely merciful, and may provide other means of salvation
which have not been revealed to us in this life.

We cannot say with certainty that any particular individual will go to heaven
or to hell.  Yet the Church may only teach that salvation is _assured_ for
those who faithfully follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and his Apostles
and their successors until the end of time.

The authentic teaching of the Church is that a sinner like Dahmer is given
the opportunity to repent, just as anyone else, and that if he unites himself
to the suffering of Christ on the Cross, his sins have been forgiven.  Yet he
may still receive some just and merciful "special attention" (the exact nature
of which we cannot know) to make him pure and ready to stand before God and
worship him with the angels and saints for all eternity.

	"Asperges me, Domine, hysopo, et mundabor.
	 Lavabis me, et super nivem dealbabor.
	 Misere me, Deus, secundum magnam misericordiam Tuam."

/john

    .140
    
    rudimentary system of writing numbers, pfui.  i would credit a passage
    that said "and a line of thirty-one cubits and a half did compass it
    round about."  such a linguistic construct is valid in hebrew, as shown
    by its appearance many times in the book of exodus.
    
    sorry, but "thirty cubits" isn't within the tolerance range, especially
    for a book purported to be free of ALL error of ANY kind.

Well, regardless of  whether or not Jeffrey found Jesus, I'll be willing
to bet that while he was getting the snot beat out of him he musta done
something less than righteous and got his dance card invalidated yet again
before he croaked.

| <<< Note 64.121 by NEMAIL::SCOTTK "My multiple extremities: O:) >:> :P +:)" >>>


| >Kimball, just curious. Do you believe there is only one "Real Denomination"?

| I believe that there is only one body with many members and each member of 
| body is important.

	Ok, so I THINK what you are trying to say is that many denominations
make up the body of people who follow Christ? Is this a true statement?

| >Do you know the names of any of these churches?

| Where there is confusion and chaos, you won't find God being the author of it.

	Ok, so it's an interpretation thing. A human one at that. Doesn't make
sense to me.

| God also speaks in other ways. If those other ways are in contradiction to 
| biblical principles, your not listening to the voice of God.

	Ok, again with the human interpretation thing. Funny how that works.

| >This is where I see the problem. The bible can do all this?
| Wouldn't it have to be on the same plane as God himself?

| God himself, holds himself to his Word that he inspired man to write.

	Inspired, yes, but a book that has a human opinion in it can not be the
Word of God.

| >Do you really think that the bible itself can heal, raise the dead?

| The written word becomes the living Word, when applied to your life. The 
| Living Word brings life and healing. The Living Word destroys yokes, and 
| brings revelation. The Living Word Brings wisdom and understanding.

	But it's God that makes all things happen, isn't it? Do you believe
that at any time a street sign could answer your questions if God chose to use
it? If so, then you can see that God can give us the messages we need to hear
using anything. Of course that says nothing on how we will interprete the
message, or if we will even follow it.

| It doesn't matter what I believe when it concerns your salvation.  

	Thank you. This is probably the most important thing anyone could ever
say. God knows what's in our hearts. He knows if we truly love Him and follow
Him.

| I will also add that it matters very much what you base your beliefs on. If 
| you believe in Jesus than you should at least believe what he said. "If you 
| love my Father you will obey his Word." (paraphrased).

	Kimball, is this a belief of yours or one of the requirements? If it is
one of the requirements, then what of those people who on their death bed cry
out to Him? Do they all of a sudden NOT get into Heaven? It's what is in the
heart that is MOST important. 

| How can you love God without obeying his Word? How can you obey his word if 
| you don't believe it?

	You answered the first question with the second. I personally do not
hold the Bible as the inerrant Word of God. I believe God inspired the authors
to write it, but that does not make the book inerrant. And inerrancy is the
only thing that can make it the Word of God.



Glen

    > One of the cruelties of heresy is that it presents an inauthentic God
    > and denies salvation to large classes of people.
    
    One of the cruelties of organized religion is that it presents an
    inauthentic God and denies truth to large classes of people.
    
    DougO

| <<< Note 64.122 by NEMAIL::SCOTTK "My multiple extremities: O:) >:> :P +:)" >>>

| I forgot one thing. As far as the interpretation thing goes, I'm not the 
| authority on the subject.  

	I agree with that! :-)  Actually, the only real authority at anything
would be God Himself. 

| However, I do believe that there is a right and wrong way of interpreting the 
| bible. I depend on prayer, the bible, spiritual revelation, my concordance, 
| and last but not least sound teaching. I prayfully search the scriptures and
| I test it according other parts of the bible, the text of the words used, 
| historical and cultural times, to best of my ability.  

	Kimball, maybe you can explain something to me. With what you wrote
above, it does sound very similar to other methods used by other Christians.
The one that has me puzzled is "historical and cultural times" part. What does
that have to do with anything?

| Somethings will just remain a mystery until the Lord reveals it, or he comes. 

	I agree with this. But I also believe that sometimes the answers we
were seeking were revealed to us, but we were expecting it to be done a certain
way, instead of being open to how He wanted to show us.

| I also believe that people who dissagree with the bible, tend to search the 
| bible for their own answers (Selective Reading).  

	Ahhhh.... I do believe this happens. But I also believe that people,
whether they believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God or not, can be led
to it by Him for answers. But it is not the Bible that makes the answer
correct, it is Him.

| The interpretation wars will go on as long as man breaths, just make sure that
| your intepreting what's there and not what you want to see based on some
| preconceived notions.

	Preconceived notions? You mean like when someone goes into the Bible to
look for an answer with the preconeived notion that it is the inerrant Word of
God?


Glen

| <<< Note 64.144 by POWDML::LAUER "Little Chamber of Perdition" >>>



| This is the part that bothers me.  You have to confess *with your mouth*?  
| What if you're, er, mute or had your vocal cords removed or something?  You 
| can't just confess in your heart, or with whatever means of communication you 
| might happen to have?

	It's what is in your heart that truly matters. People's mouth's lie,
what's in their hearts do not.


Glen

re: .131
    
>        Imagine about 100 years from now, someone holding up a test tube
>        and announcing, "After more than 100 years of diligent research by
>        tens of thousands of dedicated scientists with hundresds of
>        billions of dollars of materials and equipment, we have succeeded
                                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>        in creating this primitive life form, thereby proving that life
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>        evolved from base materials without the assistance of any
>        intelligence."              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    Anyone spot the discrepancy?  Only if the scientists had no
    intelligence, could this statement hold true.
    
    
    -steve

    Jim H. my remark was tongue in cheek...  No offense meant.
    
     Chip

RE:                    <<< Note 64.156 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>>

   > Jim H. my remark was tongue in cheek...  No offense meant.
    
    


    No problem...none taken.





Jim

RE:   <<< Note 64.155 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>

        Touche'.  This little anecdote demonstrates the inconsistency of
        applying intelligence to modify or create life in order to "prove"
        no such intelligence is necessary. 

        Precursive intelligence, purpose, design, and effort are implied by
        the vast complexity of the universe in general and the very
        existence of life in particular.

re:-1

>Precursive intelligence, purpose, design, and effort are implied by
>the vast complexity of the universe in general and the very
>existence of life in particular.

But I still get requests to code and implement before defining and designing.

    As a Christian, I too have questions and concerns about the "justice"
    of God.  However, not being God can I truly be just?  Why do we have
    jurors instead of just a juror?
    
    Dahmer said it right, period, regardless of what his father says.  God
    will judge him.  I prefer to not even try to play God at this point. 
    When I read the Bible, I see "justice" being Hell for all of us.  It is
    through the righteousness of Christ that the law is abolished and we
    become "children of God".  [Romans 8]
    
    This is where the rubber meets the road in Christianity.  Our humanity
    is full of pride and judgement comparisons to others which are natural. 
    I did the same thing when Ed was dying, questioning God as to why this
    man who was "good" in my eyes, was taken from a life he wanted to live. 
    When others that rape, molest and abuse their families are left to live
    til a ripe old age.
    
    These types of comparisons are diversions from looking at ourselves. 
    When we can look at ourselves and see that we are "poor in spirit",
    sinners then can we inherit the kingdom of God.
    
    In AA they say you must admit that there is a "higher power" than
    yourself before recovery begins.
    
    John Bradshaw states that humility [not humilitation] before God was
    paramount in the Adam and Eve story.  The fall Adam and Eve was
    necessary so that their pride would allow them to have a proper view of
    themselves with God.
    
    You see the only comparison to be made is between God's nature and our
    nature.  God's character and our character.  If I compare myself to
    Debra or Christine or Chelsea, [hee hee hee] than I will never have a
    proper view of myself.
    
    The only mirror worth looking into is the face of God.
    
    Nancy
    

| <<< Note 64.160 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>


| Dahmer said it right, period, regardless of what his father says.  God
| will judge him.  I prefer to not even try to play God at this point.

	Nancy, do you think I am a Christian? 

| The only mirror worth looking into is the face of God.

	But to compare anyone to that, is really an impossibility, isn't it?
Mainly from the we really can't fathom Him entirely.



Glen

RE: <<< Note 64.159 by NASAU::GUILLERMO "But the world still goes round and round" >>>

>>But I still get requests to code and implement before defining and designing.

        Do you mean that you can code and implement without intelligence,
        purpose, design, and effort?  That would indicate that you can code
        without thinking, without having a desired outcome, without having
        any idea of how to pursue the desired outcome, and without exerting
        any effort.  

RE: <<< Note 64.159 by NASAU::GUILLERMO "But the world still goes round and round" >>>

>>But I still get requests to code and implement before defining and designing.

        You must have the same boss as Dilbert.

	";^)
	

                <<< Note 64.162 by WRKSYS::CAMUSO "alphabits" >>>

>        Do you mean that you can code and implement without intelligence,
>        purpose, design, and effort?  That would indicate that you can code
>        without thinking, without having a desired outcome, without having
>        any idea of how to pursue the desired outcome, and without exerting
>        any effort.  

	You make it sound as if you think this is unusual. Just how long
	have you worked for DEC?
	
	;-)
Jim

<------------ "%^)  "%^)  "%^)

>>	You make it sound as if you think this is unusual. Just how long
>>	have you worked for DEC?
	
	Long enough to know better!  Indeed, engineers are expected to
	generate something from nothing and have it ready yesterday ...

    Glen,
    
    It is not my place to judge your heart.  I can ask the right questions
    and listen to the answers, but it really boils down to God and you.
    
    Yes we can compare ourselves to God.  I'm not asking you to do this
    right here in front of soapbox, I believe it's a time of introspection. 
    How would you go about doing this... hmm well, for me, it's done based
    on the Bible's definition of our God.  
    
    I'd make a list of what God's attributes are and what your attributes
    are.
    
    I'd also make a spiritual and emotional list.
    
    What are God's emotions?
    What is God's spirituality?
    
    What are your emotions?
    What is your spirituality?
    
    These can be broken down even further...
    
    What does God require of me?
    What does God NOT require of me?
    

| <<< Note 64.166 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>


| -< HOW DOES GOD VIEW ME? >-

	I couldn't tell you Nancy. I ain't God. :-)

| It is not my place to judge your heart. I can ask the right questions and 
| listen to the answers, but it really boils down to God and you.

	Well, the reason I ask is based on past talks we have had. I guess when
you've mentioned things like, "If I don't change, my soul will be in trouble,"
must mean that you haven't made any judgements? When you've talked about 
funerals, you've mentioned many times how the person was not saved, they weren't
going to Heaven. I guess those people weren't judged by you either, that these
people could not have called out to God. In other words, you took what you saw
on the outside, and actually did pass judgement on them. So can we deal with
some truth here Nancy? Why not say, "It's not your place to judge anyone's
heart, but you think you know it anyway, but aren't willing to share it here."
That would be much more truthful. At least when based on our past dealings.
While it is something between God and I, not me and you, or you and anyone else,
if you thought that was really true, none of the above would ever happen. 

| Yes we can compare ourselves to God.  

	Yes, there are images in the Bible that we can compare ourselves too,
but how accurate those images really are depends on the faith one has in the
human authors. 

| How would you go about doing this... hmm well, for me, it's done based on the 
| Bible's definition of our God.

	Which version? The righteous God of the NT, or the one who came out
with the, "Eye for and eye" slogan in the OT?

| What does God require of me? What does God NOT require of me?

	These two questions are very important Nancy. These two questions are
answered daily for me. He is contantly showing me what is and isn't required.
So on this one we agree.

	Nancy, your faith says the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. For you
this works. For me it does not. My beliefs are different than yours. But when
it comes down to it, our beliefs can be different, and we can still love God. I
may not agree with some of your beliefs, but you have the right to keep them.
And as long as no one gets harmed by those beliefs, then have fun. It's the
same for any person out there. 



Glen

                <<< Note 64.165 by WRKSYS::CAMUSO "alphabits" >>>

>	Long enough to know better!  Indeed, engineers are expected to
>	generate something from nothing and have it ready yesterday ...

	I know. And when they're finished with their part, they want
	me to buy it, deliver it tommorrow and get a good price. All
	without drawings, of course.

	;-)

Jim

    Many of us knew that this would turn into the thumping topic. Do you
    guys have a comment on evolution?
    
    ...Tom

    If you're going to have a discussion on this topic in a very large
    forum such as this, you've got to put up with thumping, it's
    unavoidable.

    Glenn

>>But I still get requests to code and implement before defining and designing.
       
>Do you mean that you can code and implement without intelligence,
>purpose, design, and effort? 

 I still get *requests*  to code and implement before defining and designing.

>That would indicate that you can code without thinking, without having a
>desired outcome, without having any idea of how to pursue the desired
>outcome, and without exerting any effort.  

You sure you're not one of my users? :-)

    Glen,
    
    replay replay replay replay :-)

RE: <<< Note 64.171 by NASAU::GUILLERMO "But the world still goes round and round" >>>

        If you are one of the contributors to MACRO-64,
	then I am one of your users.  "%^)  "%^)  "%^)

	Exploring the code metaphor a little more ...
	
        Contrast applications that evolve anarchically with those that are
        designed with purpose and forethought.  Contrast applications that
        are patched to make the old design meet new objectives with those
        that are rearchitected with the new objectives in mind.  
	

    Glen:
    
    Nancy wasn't judging, she was making an observation based on her faith.
    
    For example, if I stated, "Glen, you wouldn't catch me dead in
    Provincetown", then you might think, "Hmmmm, I think Jack's a bigot!" 
    You are making a judgement based on the paradigms you set in your life 
    created by your outlook and scope of reality.
    
    Paul in Romans 9 states that the Jews were not saved...a man who was
    raised in the trible of Benjamin making a statement like this was quite 
    condemning.  Was he judging?  No...he was stating what he believed a
    fact based on his faith or belief system.  
    
    Not to speak for Nancy because I've been accused of the same.  It is
    certainly not up to me to judge anybody; however, based on what another
    tells me about themself, it is perfectly alright to make an observation
    based on my belief system.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 64.172 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>


| replay replay replay replay :-)


	Nice diversion Nancy. It says tons.

| <<< Note 64.174 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>


| Nancy wasn't judging, she was making an observation based on her faith.

	Jack, I couldn't stop laughing over that one! I even had to show the
person I share my office with. He was rolling too! Jack, how is that any
different than judging? Both come to a conclusion. Both state that conclusion.
How is it different?

| For example, if I stated, "Glen, you wouldn't catch me dead in Provincetown", 
| then you might think, "Hmmmm, I think Jack's a bigot!" 

	Not for that reason I wouldn't Jack...... :-)  

| You are making a judgement based on the paradigms you set in your life
| created by your outlook and scope of reality.

	Jack, that's what YOU might have been doing. You see if you said you
wouldn't be caught dead in P-town, I'd ask you why? I'd talk to you to find the
reasons. I would base any thoughts I had on the reality of the situation. But
if we use your example, it really helps state what I was saying. You see, your
analogy is based on what someone says, and then inserts some type of response.
A response based on beliefs, which could be realistic, but may not be. Now if
we throw in my true reaction, it would be more like what God would know (and
no, I don't think I'm anywhere near the same plane as Him) except He wouldn't
have to ask anything, He would just know, and with Him, there would be no room
for error.



Glen

    
    Given time, there is some probability, however vanishingly small,
    that a reply in this topic will contain some argument or data in
    support of, or in opposition to, Darwin's Theory of Evolution.
    
      bb
    

    
    RE: Darwin's Theory of Evolution
    
    Is that before or after his deathbed??
    

>	Jack, I couldn't stop laughing over that one! 
    
    	I've noticed that you've been doing a lot of laughing lately.
    
    	Many people laugh as a defense mechanism to hide embarrassment...

RE: <<< Note 64.177 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>
    
	The following replies address the topic, at least obliquely.

	.0, .1, .2, .3, .5, .6, .10, .11, .12, .13, .14, .17, .19, .20,
	.33, .34, .35, .37, .45, .46, .47, .48, .49, .98, .131, .132, .137,
	.140, .149, .155, .158, .173

	

    Well, in that case Glen, I guess it isn't necessary to pray for
    somebody's salvation...or the salvation of members of a country since
    that would mean I had a preconceived notion that they needed to be
    prayed for.
    
    -Jack

    Right on Nancy!!!
    

Re: Note 64.96 by POLAR::RICHARDSON

    I bumped into this statement the day it was written and expected someone to
    question it. Soapbox usually just overwhelms me with the number of its
    notes, so I thought I had probably missed the subsequent discussion. Now
    that it's a saturday and I have time look back through the replies, it
    seems to me it was never questioned. I'm refering to the following
    statement:

>    Seeing as he is in the evolution topic, I would say that evolution will
>    prove that his agenda is destructive. Natural selection at work.

    Perhaps the author wouldn't mind elaborating. What exactly is the "agenda"?
    How will evolution prove it to be destructive? To whom or what will it be
    destructive? Do you mean the "agenda" itself will be evolved out of
    existence? Do you mean some segment of the population will perish or fail
    to reproduce as a result of the "agenda"? What natural pressures exist or
    what ones are you predicting will come into existence that will demonstrate
    natural selection in regards to this "agenda"?

    John

    PS: Excuse me if trying to grasp how other people actually perceive the
    processes of evolution to work is inappropriate to the evolution topic.
    ;-) ;-) ;-)
    

    Alright, let me put it this way. Would human kind last very long if say
    for some reason all of the men were to become sterile? Evolution has a
    lot to do with survival of the fittest (natural selection). The
    "agenda", as it were, is to say that homosexual behaviour is normal and
    is simply a question of orientation. I am inclined to realize that it
    exists but to state that it is normal to the point in aiding the
    survival of the fittest, were I an evolutionist, I would say it was
    destructive behaviour.

    Glenn

    >Would human kind last very long if say for some reason all of the men were
    >to become sterile? 

    No, but I don't see the connection. Were the entire human population to
    become homosexual overnight, the fact is that we as a species are no
    longer dependent on sexual desire to produce offspring. We're intelligent
    enough to choose reproduction for reproduction's sake alone. Actual sexual
    intercourse isn't even necessary any longer for us to accomplish it.

    >Evolution has a lot to do with survival of the fittest (natural selection)

    Yes, therefore it's logical to conclude that the current human species
    is fairly fit. Whatever natural pressures were operating, those
    pressures selected us.  The current human species is evidently a
    species that does not always produce heterosexual offspring. Possibly
    there is a benefit to that trait, and we just don't know what it is.
    Possibly there is no longer a benefit, but there once was. Possibly the
    trait was simply insufficiently harmful and moreover, was closely
    connected to some other trait that had definite survival value and so
    became widespread. Who knows? One thing's for sure. We aren't the only
    species of animal that produces offspring which are not programmed to
    reproduce. Some species depend on non-reproductive members to insure
    the survival of the reproductive ones.

    Consider this possibility. You happen to be the first human who contains
    the genetic mutation that causes you to produce mostly heterosexual
    children, but one or two homosexuals as well. All of the sudden, when your
    heterosexual children reproduce, your grandchildren have fewer other
    children to compete with, since some of your children didn't reproduce.
    Moreover, they also now essentially have extra "parents", their
    non-reproducing aunts and uncles, to help them survive. Conceivably these
    children, who are now a genetic line that produces some homosexuals, have a
    slight survival advantage over lines which produce none. I'm not saying
    that that's the way it was. I'm just saying that the game of survival is
    complicated and you never know for sure what's an advantage and what isn't.

    >I am inclined to realize that it exists but to state that it is normal to
    >the point in aiding the survival of the fittest, were I an evolutionist, I
    >would say it was destructive behaviour.

    I'm inclined to think that an evolutionist would conclude the trait of the
    human species that causes the breeding members to produce homosexual
    offspring (fairly regularly it appears) is evidently non-destructive.
    Otherwise the human species which possesses that trait would not now exist.

    John
    

| <<< Note 64.179 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "I'm an orca." >>>


| I've noticed that you've been doing a lot of laughing lately.
| Many people laugh as a defense mechanism to hide embarrassment...

	Joe, this is one that could work for a SNL Jack Handly spot. 

    <--- 8^)

    Take away the technology and everything changes. And it wouldn't take
    much for technology to grind to a halt.

    Well, thanks for opening my eyes fellas. I guess homosexual behaviour
    is natures way of keeping us on our to(e)s.

    Glenn

    I'm not trying to prove any points. 
    
    Glenn

	Then why use the analogies you did? All for possibilities?

    Glen:
    
    I don't fully agree with you but I do in part.  I firmly believe in the
    addage that an apple doesn't fall far from the tree.  I believe there
    are still alot of homosexual men and women who are this way by choice. 
    Not necessarily many but some nonetheless.
    
    I believe that when a child has a true role model, they are going to
    emulate that role model in alot of ways.  You speak as thought the
    entire gay population is the way they are by genetic predisposition. 
    This is simply not the case.
    
    -Jack

>    Take away the technology and everything changes. And it wouldn't take
>    much for technology to grind to a halt.

    I can't even imagine how you came to that conclusion. If the entire species
    turned homosexual overnight and the now completely lesbian females and the
    completely gay males universally found heterosexual intercourse so
    repulsive that none of them were willing to spend five minutes doing it
    even for the sake of the survival of the species, they could still
    reproduce with "technology" no more advanced than a turkey baster.

>    Well, thanks for opening my eyes fellas. 

    You're welcome. Unfortunately, though your eyes may now be opened, you
    apparently don't understand what you're looking at. Look at our species for
    what it is, not what it might have been had a human mind like yours
    designed it rather than Mother Nature. If you don't want to accept
    evolution, fine, but if you want to argue from the viewpoint of evolution,
    the first thing you have to accept is that evolution produced the human
    species.  The current homosexual population is apparently not a
    spontaneous, doomed-to-be-eradicated mutation of the present generation.
    Reproduction in the human species routinely results in mostly heterosexual
    offspring and a minority population of homosexuals. We may never know what
    the purpose of that minority population is, or indeed, that it even has
    one. Can you explain what your appendix is for?

    Nature has already passed judgment on homosexuality in the human species.
    It's now a question of human judgment and why should we judge it any
    differently than nature has? If you want to make a case that homosexuality
    represents a flaw in the human genome that our technology should soon
    enable us to correct, go ahead. Remember though that nature and evolution
    don't support the case that it's a flaw, and from human observation,
    homosexuality in and of itself, neither impairs the individual's nor the
    species' ability to survive and does not actually prevent the individual
    nor the species from reproducing. So why should we regard it as a flaw?

    John
    

>>    Nature has already passed judgment on homosexuality in the human species.
>>    It's now a question of human judgment and why should we judge it any
>>    differently than nature has? If you want to make a case that homosexuality
>>    represents a flaw in the human genome that our technology should
>>    soon enable us to correct, go ahead. Remember though that nature and
>>    evolution
    
    John:
    
    There are average citizens...all around us...clean cut, intelligent men
    who are predisposed to pedophilia.  They cannot help it, yet it is
    there activity toward their vice that makes them dangerous.  We don't
    have to succumb to the judgement of nature.  If we did, then pedophilia
    would not be illegal.
    
    -Jack

Note 64.186 by SOLANA::SKELLY_JO 
    
    >>Would human kind last very long if say for some reason all of the men were
    >>to become sterile? 
    >
    >No, but I don't see ....
    
    wrong. all men AND women could become sterile today and humankind would
    continue. within 50 years we certainly won't need men or women to
    produce babies. hell, we can do it today.

    
    "Nature" has "passed judgement" on nothing.  Nature has no judgement
    to pass.  It just is.
    
    If we see humans doing things we would not do, what should be our
    reaction ?  There are several answers, and all of them lead to
    depressing results.  We can ignore, we can preach, we can punish,
    we can avoid, we can modify ourselves.  Personally in the case of
    same-gender sex (and many other things), I avoid.  Your mileage
    may vary, but MYOB leads to the least bad outcomes in my experience.
    
    As to free-and-open multi-partner sex, this has been a naive American
    experiment of an old theory the last few decades.  Since it also leads
    to depressing results, it is falling out of fashion again.
    
      bb

    Haag, 
    
    Please reinterate and establish this fact.
    
    Thanking you in advance. :-)
    
    Kimball
    

    Interesting how you state that nature produces predominantly
    heterosexual humans. Wouldn't that lead you to the conclusion that that
    is normal and essential?

    Glenn

    .201
    
    interesting that nature produces predominently black-haired humans. 
    wouldn't that lead you to the conclusion that that is normal and
    essential?

    It leads me to the conclusion that blond homosexuals are in a world of
    hurt...
    
    -b

    Well, if you think that resorting to turkey basters for procreation 
    would be normal why not? Not that I'm saying you do.
    
    Glenn

| <<< Note 64.195 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>



| I believe that when a child has a true role model, they are going to emulate 
| that role model in alot of ways. You speak as thought the entire gay 
| population is the way they are by genetic predisposition. This is simply not 
| the case.

	Jack, many gays DO emulate their role models. And if the part they
emulate is the heterosexual part, they are usually just hiding who they really
are, not that they really changed anything. If I could count how many people
who have gotten married and later divorced because they stopped hiding who they
were, it be a sad figure. Look at how many lives, both husband, wife, and kids
(if applicable) have been in turmoil because of the hiding. Role models are
great, but to mimick someone else with no individuality of your own doesn't
make sense to me.


Glen

    Can you put linseed oil in a turkey baster?

    Well, it would be useful for hard to reach cormorants.

| <<< Note 64.203 by MPGS::MARKEY "They got flannel up 'n' down 'em" >>>


| It leads me to the conclusion that blond homosexuals are in a world of hurt...

	They have it easy.... heh heh...

    Well, if my genetic make up makes me blond, blue eyed and heterosexual,
    then it says that I have the advantage of "simple" procreation. The
    homosexual does not, that person must get outside intervention for
    procreation, so what's normal and what's not? Turkey baster aside.

    I'm just trying to understand why some think that homosexual behaviour
    is one of nature's better ideas when there is no simple means of
    procreation.

    Glenn

    
    Glenn, I don't think anyone was trying to say that homosexuality is
    one of nature's `better' ideas, I think they're just saying that it
    happens, just as left-handedness or blondness happens.  It doesn't
    need to have ANY values attached to it, either positive OR negative.
    

    .211
    
    has it ever occurred to you that homosexuality may be one of nature's
    ways of telling a species that it's overpopulating.

    Well, I know it happens and I realize there are people who don't choose
    it. What I'm wondering is, why would nature do this to itself? Will
    evolution someday kick in and allow pregnancy in males via anal
    penetration? If you're right handed, left handed, blond, brown eyed,
    heterosexual or homosexual, and if you engage in heterosexual sex you
    will be able to procreate. So what is evolution and nature telling you?
    I really want to know.

    Glenn

	Either way we are messing with evolution. We are preserving
the "weaker" that natural selection would not have done.

	With animals even the mother will abandon weak or sick
babies in favor of the strong.

	( I am not implying homosexuality is weak ).

    RE .205
    
       But what makes sense to you and to a 5-18 year old is a world of
    difference....
    
    
       Things kids do make sense at the time, but if we could live in hind
    sight we would be all set...  
    
    Rick

    	Glenn Richardson.  Don't you realize that as long as bedbugs
    	do it, and caged rats do it, and adolescent baboons do it, then
    	we humans, as fellow animals, should ignore our common sense and
    	reasoning and judgment and consciences, and succumb to our
    	animal instincts and be done with it.

    What would trigger an evolutionary process in humans that says "There's
    too many of you, please confuse your sexual drives" ? 
    
    Glenn

    Budwieser

	I think they are still working on that one Glenn. Now, it's just my
opinion, but I think it will be along the same lines as what makes someone want
the oppisite sex.


Glen

	RE .220

	Well evolution is the process of mutations, or slight deviations
that occur. The succesful ones continue on. The unsuccesful ones dissapear.
If you agree with that notion then our keeping those deviations alive
where they would otherwise dissapear mean we are causing a normally
unsusseful mutation to become succesful.

	I believe we are becoming more and more dependant on keeping less
succesful or imperfect mutations alive and thereby weakening the
"human condition".

    Why do people want the opposite sex? Because of the drive to procreate,
    is the first answer that comes to mind.

    Glenn

    
    re, .220 - probably smell, pherenomes to hormones.  In fish in the
    African rift lakes, declining water levels induce parents to eat
    their young, a common homeostatic device when resources may grow
    scarce as well.  Another device of homeostasis in cramped quarters
    is runtism.  It would not be new for nature to have built-in
    stabilizing mechanisms, and mammals are odor-oriented.
    
      bb

    Re: .197
    
>    We don't have to succumb to the judgement of nature. 

    I didn't say we did. I asked what our reason was for judging that
    homosexuality should not exist in the human species. I'm saying that the
    reasoning that supposes it's unnatural or automatically runs contrary to
    the forces of evolution is false.

    Of course, your statement, taken alone and out the context of this string
    of replies, is not something I would agree with. We do succumb to the
    judgment of nature. It either lets us live and reproduce or it doesn't. We
    have a lot more power over our environment and our own behavior than most
    critters. I can only hope that the human ability to reason allows us to
    exercise that power in such a way that nature will continue to let us live.

    John
    

    So, deodorant could reduce the rate of homosexuality. Gives new meaning
    the the term "Right Guard".

    Glenn

    
    No no no Glenn.  Pheromones, not b.o. 8^).
                                         

    So, what happens if we put to much musk in our deodorant? The world
    will be over run with hybrid gay Bullwinkles?

    Re: .198
    
    I was assuming the author was suggesting complete male sterility, that
    is, there were no longer any viable sperm. Of course, we have lots in
    storage. I'm not aware of any medical technology, though, that
    currently allows us to produce a human being without human sperm.
    However, the fact that I'm not aware of it, doesn't mean it doesn't
    exist.
    
    John

	They will do "cloning". This doesn't require sperm or eggs.


	Yuuckkkkk.

    .230
    
    > currently allows us to produce a human being without human sperm.
    
    the technology exists; the term for such production is parthenogenesis,
    and it is the natural reproductive method of at least one all-female
    species of lizards.  it has been done with simple animals, up to and
    including frogs, in the laboratory; moral questions aside, it is just a
    matter of time before it develops to the point at which it could be
    used on humans.

    Re:.201
    
    >Interesting how you state that nature produces predominantly
    >heterosexual humans. Wouldn't that lead you to the conclusion that that
    >is normal and essential?
    
    I would conclude that it's normal. I would even conclude that it was,
    once upon a time, essential. Because we are now an intelligent species
    and can probably work around its absence, I can't say with absolute
    certainty that it's still essential. 
    
    John

    I'll agree with that.

    Take off for a couple of days, and the box just booms.
    
    re. Silva
    
    >Okay, so I think what your trying to say is that many denominationas
     make up the body of people who follow Christ, Is this a true
     statement?  if your following the Jesus who quoted the Word, Yes.
    
     I also based my prior statement on  1 Corinthians 12, and Romans 12:4-5.
    
    >Where there is confusion and choas you won't find God being the author
     of it. 
    
     Your response in summation: Human Interpretation
    
     Are you sure about that?  Instead of giving you names I gave the fruit
     to look for.  Satan is the author of confusion and God is a God of order.
     Not my humble opinion but biblical interpretation.  Silly me, you
     believe the bible is just inspired, thus human interpretation.
    
    >God also speaks in otherways.  If those ways are in contradiction to
     BIBLICAL principles you are listen to God.
    
     Your response: Human interpretation.
    
     This is a unsettling trend of yours and what are basing this on.  Let
     me guess, your knowledge of the bible?  Maybe your human opinion?
    
    >Inspired, yes, but a book that has a human opinion in it can not be
     the Word of God.
    
     In so many Words human opinion, right.  I bet you probably thought
     that Jesus was just giving his opinion in John 14:15, oh well. 
     I guess Numbers 23:19 is not true in your standard.  Forget about the
     Living word Hebrew 4:12-13, why not you already blew off 
     2 Timothy 3:16   
    
     It's true what Paul wrote in 2 Timothy 4 note verse 3-5.
    
    >It's God that makes all things works.
    
     You got that right.
    
    >Do you believe that at anytime a street sign can answer your questions,
     if God chose to does so.  
    
     Yes, God is limited in his creative ways.  He saved me by through 
     introducing me to Tae Kwon Do, and my teacher was a Man of God, which
     is something that I never questioned.  I did however say that if the
     method violated biblical principle, your simply not listening to God.  You
     may be listening to a god, but not God. 
      
    >He knows if we truly love Him and follow him.
    
    This is a someone who loves God (biblical example Palms 119: 9-16)
    
    Someone who seeks him with all thier heart,
    Someone who hides the Word within his/her heart (In order to obey Him).
    Someone who meditates on his word day and night.
    
    To love God is to obey his Word, and to please Him you must have faith.
    
    How do you get your faith Glen?  The bible says from hearing the Word 
    of God.  There I go again, with that human opinion stuff. :-)
    
   >I personally don't hold the Bible as the inerrant "Word of God."
    
    Your entitled.....but
    
    I do, and I think that the real errancy is our lack of understanding
    it.
    
    Hey Glen, if your going to follow Jesus, than put on your Armour, most of
    all don't forget you shield or your sword. :-) 
    
  re: 153
    
    >but it's not the bible that makes the answer correct, it's him.
    
    Oh, Glen why, oh why, oh why,................. oh well <Shrug>
    
    Why would he have us right his word?  
    
    Oo oo oo I know, I know, Iknow: 
    
    Just so that we could give our human opinion. :-)
    
    Seriously, Let's just say that we agree to disagree.:-)
    
    Kimball
    

   re: .225
        
    >re, .220 - probably smell, pherenomes to hormones. 
        
   there was a study recently in which men were exposed to a variety
    of scents while blood flow to the penis was measured (the article
    didn't say how.)  the smell that men found most stimulating was
    that of cinnamon rolls being baked.  2nd was pumpkin pie.
    
    bill

    pherOMONes.
    
    

    re .213 and .220 and a few others.
    
    My mother read a study (I can't produce it so you all have to either 
    believe this or don't, I can't back it up) that studied percentages of
    homosexuals born to mothers in Europe during world war II. It found
    them to be much higher than average. They also found that expectant
    mothers who are under near constant stress produce little of none of a
    hormone that is normally present durning pregnancy. (Sorry I don't know
    which one, I got this second hand as I mentioned) Some people have been
    sugesting that pehaps homosexuality is an evolutionary trait caused by
    overpopulation. Well there's your mechinism. It is well known that
    stress can cause chemical changes in the body. Overpopulation is likely
    to increase the source of stress in one's life (IMO). So perhaps that
    is the link. Other species have evolutionary die back mechinisms. This
    one would be much better then eating your young or some of the others
    that have been mentioned in earlier reply's. By increasing the number
    of homosexuals in a population you are reducing the number of
    individuals who are genetically predisposed to reproduce. I know that
    Gay couple do have children, but probably at a lower rate than straight
    couples (I don't know this for fact). 
    
    	Another interesting tidit, is recently a candian doctor announced
    that he had found a physical differnce in the brains of Gay and
    Straight men. Did any one else hear about this?
    
    
    								Steve R

    
    .236
    
    Does this mean I should toss all my perfumes and dab vanilla extract
    behind my ears?

    I won't say it. I won't say it.

    Oh whatthehell, Doctah.  Let 'er rip.
    
    (dis I gotta see)
    

    .239  That's the Idea. :-)
    
    If you want to get creative try Honey, chocolate syrup, or assorted fruit
    ear rings.  Why not just put a bowl of fruit on your head.  Honesty, I
    don't know how it could add to your attractiveness, but you will gain
    the undying attention of the insect world. 

    Elly May,
    
    Vanilla, and maybe a touch of cinnamon would robably work as well .

    Homosexuality a nature thing, ya right.  
    
    This theory probably came from the same people who believe that they
    descended from monkeys.
    
    
    Kimball
    

    Scott,
    
    care to explain seafulls, salamanders, earthworms, cats and  dogs?

| <<< Note 64.235 by NEMAIL::SCOTTK "My multiple extremities: O:) >:> :P +:)" >>>



|| >Okay, so I think what your trying to say is that many denominationas
|| make up the body of people who follow Christ, Is this a true
|| statement?  

| if your following the Jesus who quoted the Word, Yes.

	This is puzzling. How can He quote what He supposedly wrote? 

| >Where there is confusion and choas you won't find God being the author
| of it.

| Your response in summation: Human Interpretation

| Are you sure about that?  Instead of giving you names I gave the fruit to look
| for. Satan is the author of confusion and God is a God of order. Not my 
| humble opinion but biblical interpretation.  

	Human interpretation of what is in the Bible. You don't honestly
believe that you have every interpretation down to match God. And it's because
of this you can't say biblical interpretation and really have it be true. You
just can't know.

| Silly me, you believe the bible is just inspired, thus human interpretation.

	Actually, the human interpretation I was talking about is your own.

| >Inspired, yes, but a book that has a human opinion in it can not be
| the Word of God.

| In so many Words human opinion, right.  I bet you probably thought
| that Jesus was just giving his opinion in John 14:15, oh well.

	Let's see, the NT was supposed to be based on the words of Jesus,
right? What happened in His life, His death, His resurection? Jesus is one of
the big 3, right? Paul is a mere HUMAN being. Paul stated that what he was
about to say was not from God, but his own opinion. And this makes the Bible
the Word of God? I don't think so.

| >Do you believe that at anytime a street sign can answer your questions,
| if God chose to does so.

| Yes, God is limited in his creative ways.  

	Did you mean limitless? 

| To love God is to obey his Word, and to please Him you must have faith.

	Really. Explain those who many say are somehow saved on their deathbed.
Did they follow His word? Well, according to your belief system they couldn't
have, as then they wouldn't need to have been saved right before they died,
would they. But maybe your belief system doesn't believe one can be saved on
their deathbed. I really don't know. Maybe you could tell us? 

	But what I get from saving one's life on their deathbed is what is in
their hearts that is important. You could follow what you perceive to be God's
Word, and still not get into Heaven. Actions don't do it. When you say you must
have faith, I fully agree with you. But I do not agree with the rest of it.
It's your belief, so you WILL believe it. 

| How do you get your faith Glen? The bible says from hearing the Word of God.  

	Just from the things He does for me, the things He shows me, the people
He puts in my path. Each of these things have good and bad points. But each
thing is there because He loves me. My faith is based on Him, not a book.

| Why would he have us right his word?

	Gee, if you had a capitol R on right it would have been perfect! :-) I
believe He had us write down what happened so it could be recorded through
history. But like any book written by humans, it's going to have errors.
Whether the error was an interpretation, an opinion, or an untruth, the error
will be there.


Glen

    .233
    
    okay, you've answered .201, now take a shot at answering .202 using the
    same logic.

re .247
    
>    care to explain seafulls,

Well if there were empty, they would be deserts, not seas.

/john

    Do you care to explain to me the difference between a human and a Dog.
    
    
    

    Elly May,
    
    I happen to have in this very pocket a bottle of Vanilla Eau de
    Toilette, courtesy of 10F for Aids day. 
    
    Mind you, it owuld have all washed off by the time you've swum back
    from here.
    
    
    <re..1 or 2>
    
    >Homosexuality a nature thing, ya right.
    
    >This theory probably came from the same people who believe that
    >they descended from monkeys.
    
    Well all animals display homosexual behaviour, whether in the wild or in
    captivity, particularly when going through what we call puberty. Go
    look and see.
    
    martin 

    
    Note 64.238, STEVE
    
    >Another interesting tidit, is recently a candian doctor announced
    >that he had found a physical differnce in the brains of Gay and
    >Straight men. Did any one else hear about this?
    
    Yes, I posted this tidbit in the Gay Issues topic, and the doctor
    was a SHE, yvw.  :^)
    

>This theory probably came from the same people who believe that
>they descended from monkeys.

"The *theory* is that Man *evolved* from  a lower order primate".

				- Mr. Spock
    

| <<< Note 64.251 by NEMAIL::SCOTTK "My multiple extremities: O:) >:> :P +:)" >>>

| Do you care to explain to me the difference between a human and a Dog.


	One has to be on all fours and eats from a bowl, and the other one gets
taken for walks.

>    Well all animals display homosexual behaviour, whether in the wild or in
>    captivity, particularly when going through what we call puberty. Go
>    look and see.
    
    	So what you're suggesting is that gays don't grow beyond pubescent
    	behavior?

    .256
    
    >> Well all animals display homosexual behaviour, whether in the wild or in
    >> captivity, particularly when going through what we call puberty...
    
    > So what you're suggesting is that gays don't grow beyond pubescent
    > behavior?
    
    slanted comeback if i ever saw one.  i'm impressed at the subtle way
    you quietly overlook the word PARTICULARLY...

    Glen, 
    
    >This is puzzling, how can you he quote what He already wrote?
    
    Oh Glen, That remark just proved exactly how much you know about the
    Word, noda.  Tell me what did Jesus write?  If so when did he write it?
    
    >You just can't know.
    
    You just don't know, try cleaning off the dust on one of your Old
    bibles, read it even.  Silly me I assumed that you owned one. :-)
    
    Seriously, revelation comes from God and if your not studying his word,
    how can you follow his principles.  Your taking a big chance on relying
    on direct divine revelation, without seeking the understanding of his
    Word.  Your convinced/determined that this among other things is enough 
    for you.  If your content with your beliefs, stick with it.
    
    >Jesus is one of the Big 3,....Paul is a mere human being.
    
    Yep, your write about that.  What do you know about Paul, anyway?
    
    Paul was a well educated man and he structured his thoughts/life around the
    Word of God.  What do you think he based his opinion on?  
     
    Tell me Glen whats the difference between you and Paul? 
    I know, I Know, Your smarter. :-)
       
    >Yes, God is limited in his Creative ways.
    
    daggnabbit, I didn't add on that n't  to is. :-)
    
    >Really, explain those who somehow get saved on there deathbed.
     
    What's there to explain they're all going to hell, Thump :-)
    
    Fooled ya, didn't I :-)
    
    Seriously, What did I say that gave you the impression that I believed that 
    God would not bring salvation in the last Hour?
    If this where true than Jesus wouldn't have given the thief on the cross
    the promise of paradise.
    
    >Actions don't do it.
    
     Yes, actions do count if they are based on your faith.   
    
    >Just from the things he does for me......
    
     We all can be greatful for what he has done, but that's simply not
     enough. 
    
    >But like any other book written by human.........
    
     Any other book?  Let's just ingnore the fact that God had anything to
     do with the Bible.
     Yep, sounds like we pretty much made up our minds.:-)
    
     Serious,
     
     Glen, I look forward to hearing more of your comments.  I personally
     don't hold much stock in your comments towards the bible, because it
     seem like your refuting something you don't know to much about.  Yet 
     and still you confess Jesus and I'm not the judge of whether you know 
     him or not.  Find it in your heart to be patient with us bible
     believing Christians.  We may not agree but that doesn't mean that we 
     can't chat about it. :-)
    
     This one is just for you:
    
    Why did God choose man to Right his Word? :-)
    
    
    Kimball
     

>    	gays don't grow beyond pubescent behavior?

In fact, that may very well be the case.

/john

    Glen, 
    
    You forgot the I.Q. Of 12.
    
    
    

    Gayness is natural think, right.  Let's take a look at the scenerio
    below.  I know the lives and the decisions of a few close friends, who 
    struggle with thier desires concerning this issue.
    
    Scenerio:
    
    Young child is molested by a important Male/female figure who is
    supposed to represent security and Love.  They grow up and find that
    they have a attraction to the same sex.  Maybe you can tell me why?
    
    
    Kimball
    
    
    

    rep
    Scott
    
    I'll put it a different way, young child is molested by an adult in a
    positions of trust and finds he or she can not have any healthy sexual
    relations with others.  this is much more like it.
    
    meg

    
>    Well all animals display homosexual behaviour, whether in the wild or in
>    captivity, particularly when going through what we call puberty. Go
>    look and see.
    
 Source and support for such a statement?
    
    jeff

    
    "all animals"  Of course, no need to look it up.  Amoebas do not,
    of course.  Homosexuality in deep-sea anglerfishes cannot happen
    by definition - the males are parasitic on the gigantic predacious
    females, and do not exist independantly.  Etc.
    
    It is hard to make ANY true statement beginning,
    
    "All animals do <mumble>"
    
    Homosexuality of a very strange sort was observed recently in deep-sea
    octopii.  Not only were the two animals male, they were not even
    members of the same family !  Of course, no reproduction could occur.
    Scientists are still trying to figure out what purpose such behavior
    could serve.  Could it be just practice (in a situation where mates
    are sparse and difficult to detect) ?
    
    Nature is a curious thing !  bb
    

| <<< Note 64.257 by SMURF::BINDER "vitam gustare" >>>


| > So what you're suggesting is that gays don't grow beyond pubescent
| > behavior?

| slanted comeback if i ever saw one.  i'm impressed at the subtle way
| you quietly overlook the word PARTICULARLY...

	Dick, Joe only picks and chooses what he wants to attack. If he read
the whole thing and responded to the whole thing, he'd be in the position of
not being able to respond. But at least he seems to do it with everyone....


Glen

| <<< Note 64.258 by NEMAIL::SCOTTK "My multiple extremities: O:) >:> :P +:)" >>>

| >This is puzzling, how can you he quote what He already wrote?

| Oh Glen, That remark just proved exactly how much you know about the Word, 
| noda.  Tell me what did Jesus write?  If so when did he write it?

	Jesus didn't write it. Other people wrote stuff down long after He was
ressurected. So what I am saying is He, as in Jesus, can't quote what wasn't
written yet. My mistake..... I think I mixed the "h,H" above. Sorry.

| You just don't know, try cleaning off the dust on one of your Old bibles, 
| read it even.  Silly me I assumed that you owned one. :-)

	I don't own one. I own 4. 

| Seriously, revelation comes from God and if your not studying his word, how 
| can you follow his principles. Your taking a big chance on relying on direct 
| divine revelation, without seeking the understanding of his Word.  

	Your first mistake was thinking I didn't study the words in the Bible.
Your second mistake is thinking He couldn't show me right from wrong. Remember,
He can show us anything. But regardless of whether He shows you, me, anyone
something in the Bible, or anyway else, it does not mean that WE, as humans,
will follow the message He gave us. It also does not mean that WE, as humans,
will even see the message staring us in the face. So I'm not taking any chances
at all. It's the same chance as you.

| >Jesus is one of the Big 3,....Paul is a mere human being.
| Yep, your write about that.  What do you know about Paul, anyway?

	From words written in the Bible. And those words show that at best the
book could be the Word of God and Paul.

| Paul was a well educated man and he structured his thoughts/life around the
| Word of God.  What do you think he based his opinion on?

	If a book makes a claim it's the inerrant Word of God, and someone
states, "what I am about to say is not from God", doesn't that cancel out the 
Word of God claim? I seriously think it does! Now throw in someone saying, "it 
is my opinion". Hey, what is a human's opinion doing in a book that is supposed 
to be God's Word? The answer is simple, it nulifies the claim. Remember, there 
have been many religious leaders who people thought were great. But if they put
their own opinions into the Bible, would you accept them? Humans are not God.
ONLY God's thoughts and opinions can appear in the Bible if this claim of
inerrancy, along with it being God's Word is to be true. Once humans come into
the picture, things go down hill. Look at Jim Bakker. How many years did people
think he was a great religious leader? Many. But he was human. Look at how the
church viewed different groups of people along the way. Were they correct all
the time? No. Why is that? Because they were human. Humans have free will. They
had it when they wrote the Bible, they have it now. It's that free will which
will prevent a book becoming the inerrant Word of God. Paul proved that.

| >Really, explain those who somehow get saved on there deathbed.

| Seriously, What did I say that gave you the impression that I believed that
| God would not bring salvation in the last Hour?

	You didn't, and I didn't make that claim. I had asked if that was your
belief. I know many Christians who have stated that this can happen. You seem
to say below that this is not true. Have I got that right?

*** If this where true than Jesus wouldn't have given the thief on the cross ***
*** the promise of paradise. ***

| >Actions don't do it.

| Yes, actions do count if they are based on your faith.

	You are the first person who has called themselves a Christian that has
made a statement like that to me. Every other Christian that I have talked to
has stated otherwise, and then has listed Scripture to back their claim. So I
guess I need to ask you, why do you believe this way?

| >Just from the things he does for me......

| We all can be greatful for what he has done, but that's simply not enough.

	You're right, but you left all that off. I was wondering why?

| >But like any other book written by human.........

| Any other book?  Let's just ingnore the fact that God had anything to do with 
| the Bible. Yep, sounds like we pretty much made up our minds.:-)

	Kimball, you're a funny guy. :-)  Inspired does not mean inerrant. One
of your religious leaders could inspire you to do something. Does that mean it
will come out right? Doesn't our free will play into all this? Maybe this will
help clear things up for me about you. Can you honestly say that everytime you
have asked for help from God, that you got it right the first time? If not,
what do you think prevented you from doing it right, everytime, the first time? 

| Glen, I look forward to hearing more of your comments. I personally don't hold
| much stock in your comments towards the bible, because it seem like your 
| refuting something you don't know to much about.  

	I wouldn't expect you to hold much stock in my views. We have opposing
views on the subject. And as far as knowledge goes, I think we both will learn
more as time goes on. 

| Yet and still you confess Jesus and I'm not the judge of whether you know him 
| or not. Find it in your heart to be patient with us bible believing Christians
| We may not agree but that doesn't mean that we can't chat about it. :-)

	Kimball, I have many friends who are Bible believing Christians. I do
know that many are great to chat with. And as far as patience goes, it isn't
needed when discussing the Bible, it's only needed when the discusion ends and
anger sets in. I haven't seen that from you. IF I do, then I'll remember the
patience thing.

| Why did God choose man to Right his Word? :-)

	<grin>....

Glen

    Re: .238

    I heard about that study, or at least something similar, but I can't back
    it up either because I saw it on TV. On the show I was watching, the study
    of homosexuals was almost incidental to the actual research. They were
    basically studying the differences between the brains of males and females.
    They are different at birth. Boy babies tend to have more or less equally
    developed brain hemispheres while girls tend to be born with better
    developed left hemispheres. The gender difference in the brain, according
    to this show, begins with the testosterone that the male fetus produces.

    They had managed to devise a test that could distinquish a female brain
    from a male brain in an adult. I think they said they injected estrogen
    directly into the brain, and discovered that female brains generally
    reacted one way to it and male brains generally reacted another.
    
    They administered the test to some homosexual males and discovered that
    their brains reacted more like female brains than male brains. Apparently
    adrenalin suppresses the production of testosterone, so they reasoned that
    pregnant women subjected to unusual stress would tend to produce more
    adrenalin, inhibiting testosterone production in the male fetus which could
    result in males with female-like brains. They further reasoned that women
    who were pregnant during the WWII collapse of Berlin were likely to have
    been under a lot of stress, so they surveyed their male offspring. If I
    recall correctly, 20% of that population turned out to be gay.

    John
    

    .149:
    
    I think you're confusing me with one of the partisans of inerrancy.
    
    My take is that in this passage we may have the oldest known example of
    someone skipping the lab exercises.
    
    .254:
    
    Brandon, if the Vulcan had met some of the denizens of the 'Box, he may
    well have used a different verb.
    
    Dick

    
    the politically correct answer to that is no, it had nothing to do.

   > >    Well all animals display homosexual behaviour, whether in the wild
    or in
   > >    captivity, particularly when going through what we call puberty.
    Go
   > >    look and see.
    
    > Source and support for such a statement?
    
    Source? I invited you to go look see. You don't need to check in a book
    if it's true, just walk down to your nearest farm (or pet store) and
    watch. 
    
    martin

    "Look in the horse's mouth"
    
    or perhaps that shoulda read:
    
    "mouth horse's the in Look"
    
    |-{:-)
    

    homosexual behaviour in other species usually only occurs due to a lack
    of available partners of the opposite sex and is seldom female-female.
    
    bsaically the guys just need to blow their stack

| <<< Note 64.274 by RDGE44::ALEUC8 >>>


| bsaically the guys just need to blow their stack

	and for the females???? 

    re .275
    
    if you read .274 again you'll see it say ".. is seldom female-female"
    

	Opps... you're right. Now I need to ask you this. How is it determined
that these animals do it to blow their stack ONLY when we can't even
communicate with the critters? Are you telling me there really is a Dr.
Doolittle? 


Glen

    hmmm, well I haven't kept a record but down on the farm I have the
    impression that the heifers are just as frisky as the steers.
    
    martin

    .277
    
    of course no-one knows through talking to the things - it is an
    inference from observation
    
    .278
    
    the original observation does not include animals in captivity/farming
    situations

| <<< Note 64.279 by RDGE44::ALEUC8 >>>


| of course no-one knows through talking to the things - it is an inference 
| from observation

	Gee, that makes so much sense. Let's see, an overweight lady is sitting
down eating a meal. Most will think she should eat less so she will be thiner.
She could have a thyroid condition. Observation could be false.

	Someone meets another for the first time in a bar, and their speech is
slurred, so they assume the person is drunk. Could be that the person just has
slurred speech to begin with. Observation could be wrong.

	How do we find out for sure if these observations are true? Ask, as
observations do not = fact. Now apply this to your animal theory, and you can't
know the answer as a fact.



Glen

|	Gee, that makes so much sense. Let's see, an overweight lady is sitting
|down eating a meal. Most will think she should eat less so she will be thiner.
|She could have a thyroid condition. Observation could be false.

overweight - observation
think she should eat less - inference


|	Someone meets another for the first time in a bar, and their speech is
|slurred, so they assume the person is drunk. Could be that the person just has
|slurred speech to begin with. Observation could be wrong.

speech slurred - observation
drunk - inference

|	How do we find out for sure if these observations are true? Ask, as
|observations do not = fact. Now apply this to your animal theory, and you can't
|know the answer as a fact.

you do not need to verify observations - these are true (unless you want to get
metaphysical)

you need to verify inference (usually by controlled experiment)

hence - 

observation - homosexual behaviour is very rare in other species when there are
sufficient members of the opposite sex around and is rarely female-female

inference - thats cos the guys need to shoot their load

	Ahhhhh..... the same question is still posed. How can you know that the
animal is doing it to blow a load without asking? And remember, when I asked
this the first time YOU stated it was an observation. 


Glen

    and the same reply - it an inference (that they are doing it to shoot
    the wad) from observation (that homosexual behaviour .... )
    
    thus one cannot *know*
    
    the observation (that homosexual behaviour .... ) remains a fact -
    the inference is unproven

 ...and people complain about "thumpers"..

    
    ... so, you wanna give the opposition party your own "nom de guerre?"
    
    ... like howzabout "squirters?"
    
    Oh Dear(tm)
    
    This Troubles Me.
    

| <<< Note 64.283 by RDGE44::ALEUC8 >>>



| thus one cannot *know*

	You see, on this we agree. But your origional statement seemed to state
otherwise. (needed to get rocks off)

    I remember reading an article on bonobos ("Pigmy Chimps") some time
    ago.  It seems these guys, who may be our closest relatives, spend an
    awful lot of time engaged in sexual activity, both hetero- and
    homo-sexual.  Female-female homosexual contact was as common as
    male-male if memory serves.
    
    \dave

    Good for you...your descendents act like great barn animals.
    
    I was fearfully and wonderfully made.  I have reason and free volition.
    I am able to discern right from wrong.
    
    My God's great...sorry bout yours!  TM
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 64.289 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>

| Good for you...your descendents act like great barn animals.

	They didn't have barns over there Jack!

| I was fearfully and wonderfully made.  I have reason and free volition.
| I am able to discern right from wrong.

	Explain to me how you know animals can not do this?



Glen

    Animals live on instinct.  They are territorial.  
    
    Do they have a concept of God the creator?  I doubt it.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 64.291 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>



| Animals live on instinct.  They are territorial.

	We live on instinct too Jack. It is not until we are told right from
wrong that we know about it. Even then we may still do it. Look at all the
different tribes in the world. They learn what is right from wrong FOR THEM.
But they hunt, protect themselves on instinct. 

	Animals also have common laws amongst themselves. We can observe some
of the ones, speculate the reasons, but without knowing animal language, can't
know for sure what even some of it is, never mind all of it. 

| Do they have a concept of God the creator?  I doubt it.

	I'm glad you said you doubt it, and didn't make it a fact. BTW, what
leads you to this theory?


Glen

    BASED on the replies about 10 back this topic has really evolved into
    something slimey!

	Nancy, is that Green Day????? 

    .291
    
    > Animals live on instinct.
    
    gorillas?  bonobos?  unlikely, certainly unproven.
    
    > They are territorial.
    
    and humans aren't?  why, then, do we fight most of our wars over land?
    
    > Do [animals] have a concept of God the creator?  I doubt it.
    
    would you, if you were raised in a godless community?  i doubt it.
    perhaps a better criterion might be "are animals ABLE TO HAVE a concept
    of god the creator?"  gorillas probably are.  are they human?  maybe
    they should be.

    <--- cute.  honest, jeff, i'd NEVER heard that one before.
    
    fwiw, it's pronounced binn-der, not bind-er.

    
    i wish it was bind-er.  with this new knowledge i can never use those
    other names again.
    
    jeff

    
    Yeah, and now every time I look in cosmos for office supplies, I read
    it as "3-ring binnnder".

    It's going to drive me around the binnnnd!

    .298
    
    > with this new knowledge...
    
    huh huh huh huh...

    Glen,
    
   >So what I am saying is He, as in Jesus, can't quote what was written
   >yet.  My mistake..... I think I'm mixed up (oops my mistake), I think I 
   >mixed up the h,H above, Sorry.
    :-)
    
    He did quote scripture that was written at that time.
    A few examples: Matthew 4:4/Deuteronomy 8:3,  Matthew 4:7/Deuteronomy
    6:16
    
    >I don't own one.  I own 4.
    
     Okay, then dust off all four of your bibles. :-)
    
     What kind of bibles do you own, and do you have one of a big fancy dancy 
     concordance, just curious?
    
    >Your first mistake was thinking that I didn't study the words of the
     Bible.
    
     Did I do that. Na, I'm sorry you but just gave me that impression. :-) 
     (Oh, smile)
     
    >Your second mistake was thinking that He didn't tell me right from
     wrong?
    
     You assumed that I made an assumption that He didn't tell you Write <Grin>
     from wrong. :-)  We all are born with a conscience.
      
    >But regardless of whether He shows, you, me, anyone something in the
     Bible, it does not mean that we, as humans, will even see the message 
     staring us in the face.........
    
     Are you saying that man can be disobedient, and blinded by thier
     desires?  That's no big secret, Proverbs 14:12.
    
    >If a book makes a claim it's the inerrant word of God, and someone
     states that "What I'm about to say is not from God", Doesn't that
     cancel the Word of claim?
    
     I guess the Bible is Lying when it says "The Law of the Lord is
     perfect, reviving the soul.  The staues of the Lord are trustworthy,
     making the simple wise." Psalm 19:7
    
    You believe the bible was inspired by God, right
    
    So your saying God who is perfect, inspired man to write an imperfect
    Word?  I think your giving more credit to imperfect man, than to a
    perfect God.  Are you saying that God who, divinely inspired His appointed 
    and annointed men, whom He chose, to write a lie?  Are you calling The God 
    a liar?  That's exactly what your theory implies, that God is a liar. 
    Isn't God a God of truth?  Let God be true and everyman a liar.
    
    Yes, there is a difference between inspiration and Divine Inspiration.
    
    >Remember, that there have been many religious leaders who people
     thought were great. example Jim Baker
    
     Whose to say that Jim Baker wasn't anointed at one time, not that I agree
     with his actions.  Is Jim Baker the only one?
    
     What about Saul?
    
     What about King David?
    
     They all had wrestle with their carnal natures, just like you and
     I.  The problem is that many trust in Leadership without taking full
     view of thier integrity, or making them accountable, and when the
     Learders fall, their followers fall with them.  The followers that fall 
     are the ones who put thier complete trust in Man and not in God. 
     Keep your eyes on Jesus, The Living Word, and you won't be swayed
     by false prophets like Jim Jones or David Keresh(sp?). 
     These may be extreme cases, but it's still an example on how the enemy 
     comes as a messenger of Light.
    
    >Your the first person who has called themselves a christians that has
     made a statement like this to me.  Why do you believe this?
    
     Maybe the statment was vague,  I believe that actions count, because
     your actions produce fruits, and your fruits indicate your faith.  
     
    >Your right but you left all that off.  I was wondering why?
    
    I'm not a "Notes Manipulation, 75 perfect words a minute, Genius"
    I still have to manually type everything in versus using the cutt/paste
    method and typing 5 words per minute is a factor as well :-)
    
    >Maybe this will help clear things up for me about you.  Can you
     honestly say that everytime you have asked for help from God, that you
     got it right the first time?  No, 
    
     If I don't get an answer it's because I'm not in a place to receive
     an answer or help.  Usually means that I stepped outside of the center
     of his will and that it's time to examine myself or it may mean that I 
     simply have to wait on God.
    
     If not, what do you think prevents you from doing it right, everytime
     the first time?  Romans Ch7:v7 - ch8:v17
    
     Romans 7:15 
    
     I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not, but
     what I hate to do I do.
    
     Yes, it's that human thing again.  With Growth and maturity some things 
     will pass, and I know we can agree on that.
    
     I think your a funny guy too. :-)
    
     Kimball 

| <<< Note 64.302 by NEMAIL::SCOTTK "My multiple extremities: O:) >:> :P +:)" >>>



| What kind of bibles do you own, and do you have one of a big fancy dancy
| concordance, just curious?

	One from the 1800's that I had restored, a KJV, American Standard, and
a Good News.

| Are you saying that man can be disobedient, and blinded by thier desires? 
| That's no big secret, Proverbs 14:12.

	Hey, and I didn't even need any of my 4 Bibles to show me that! 

| >If a book makes a claim it's the inerrant word of God, and someone
| states that "What I'm about to say is not from God", Doesn't that
| cancel the Word of claim?

| I guess the Bible is Lying when it says "The Law of the Lord is perfect, 
| reviving the soul. The staues of the Lord are trustworthy, making the simple 
| wise." Psalm 19:7

	Nice avoidance. Maybe you would care to answer what was asked? I left
it there for you to address.

| You believe the bible was inspired by God, right

	Yes.

| So your saying God who is perfect, inspired man to write an imperfect Word?  

	Nope. What I am saying is God inspired man to write a book about the
times. They did. 

| I think your giving more credit to imperfect man, than to a perfect God.  

	For the Bible? Yeah. The inspiration came from God, but the authorship
came from the humans who wrote it. Humans with free will.

| Are you saying that God who, divinely inspired His appointed and annointed 
| men, whom He chose, to write a lie?  

	He inspired them to write about the times. Our own history books write
about the times that have happened. But when they do this, are they 100%
accurate? No. And it's the accuracy that I question.

| Are you calling The God a liar?  

	Nice twist me boy. A book written by men with free will, which mentions
their own opinions, is not the Word of God. It is a history book about what
happened. Open to human feelings, human thoughts, and of course, human
opinions.

| That's exactly what your theory implies, that God is a liar.

	From your standpoint, it probably does. You believe the Bible to be the
inerrant Word of God. With that belief, anything else stated will appear this
way to you because you keep the origional premise. I don't hold that premise.
So looking at it from my standpoint, I am not calling God a liar, because in
order for me to do so, I'd have to believe as you do, but state what I have
been stating. 

| Isn't God a God of truth?  Let God be true and everyman a liar.

	Gee, if that's the case, aren't the authors liars? :-) Also, as far as 
the liars stuff goes, no one has said anyone is a liar. No one has said that no
one lied. We can't possibly know. We weren't there. But what we can know is
that a claim that the Bible is the Word of God. A mere human superceeded that
and said, "What I am about to say is not from God, but my own opinion." That
much we do know.

| >Remember, that there have been many religious leaders who people
| thought were great. example Jim Baker

| Whose to say that Jim Baker wasn't anointed at one time, not that I agree
| with his actions.  Is Jim Baker the only one?

	Wow, after cutting off the part that he was human, and that he wasn't
as perfect as many made him out to be, I can imagine why you would ask what you
did. You really should have left it on though.

| >Your the first person who has called themselves a christians that has
| made a statement like this to me.  Why do you believe this?

| Maybe the statment was vague, I believe that actions count, because your 
| actions produce fruits, and your fruits indicate your faith.

	I had always thought it was your heart that indicated your faith. I'm
really being serious here. Like I said, you are the first person who stated
actions contribute to faith. How many people in this world have been good
people, helping out others whenever they could, but weren't Christians? Can you
see where I am coming from with this? 

| >Maybe this will help clear things up for me about you.  Can you
| honestly say that everytime you have asked for help from God, that you
| got it right the first time?  No,

| If I don't get an answer it's because I'm not in a place to receive an answer
| or help.  

	I'm talking about those times you DID get an answer. Did you, being a
human, ever get the message mixed up because of your humaness?

| If not, what do you think prevents you from doing it right, everytime
| the first time?  Romans Ch7:v7 - ch8:v17

	I don't think I do it right, everytime, the first time. My humaness
will prevent that from time to time.


Glen

    Glen, 
    
    Around and around we go, were it stops nobody knows.
    
    Avoidance?
    
    The bottom line:
    
    Show me the scripture that you said that proved the inerrancy or the
    Bible.  What did Paul say, that has you convinced (scripture reference
    please)
    
    Then, if you can show what Psalm 19:7 says.
    
    Your view:
    
    Man is errant and this makes the bible errant.  So the Bible can't be
    the Word of God.  (Please correct me if I'm wrong).
    
    
    My view:
    
    The Bible Claims that it is the Word of God.  It also claims that it's 
    perfect, I agree.
    I believe in God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit and God's divinely
    inspired scriptures (The Bible).
    
    
    Kimball
           

| <<< Note 64.304 by NEMAIL::SCOTTK "My multiple extremities: O:) >:> :P +:)" >>>




| Show me the scripture that you said that proved the inerrancy or the Bible.
| What did Paul say, that has you convinced (scripture reference please)

	1Corithians 7:25.

| Then, if you can show what Psalm 19:7 says.

	The Law of the Lord is perfect. BUT, I do not believe the Bible to be
any part of it.

| Man is errant and this makes the bible errant.  So the Bible can't be
| the Word of God.  (Please correct me if I'm wrong).

	That's part of it. Having Paul around also helped prove that point.

| The Bible Claims that it is the Word of God.  It also claims that it's
| perfect, I agree.

	Yet if you had to use something other than the object in question to
prove it's validity, there isn't anything available.

| I believe in God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit and God's divinely inspired 
| scriptures (The Bible).

	Could you show me where a Bible passage says divinely? Or is this your
own twist on things?


Glen

     <<< Note 64.303 by BIGQ::SILVA "Nobody wants a Charlie in the Box!" >>>



	Please answer the following Kimball with a yes or a no. If you can not
answer it with a yes or a no, please explain why you can't.

If a book makes a claim it's the inerrant word of God, and someone in that book
states that "What I'm about to say is not from God", and then goes on with his
own opinion, doesn't that cancel the Word of God claim?

1Corithians

7:25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my 
     judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. 

>If a book makes a claim it's the inerrant word of God, and someone in that book
>states that "What I'm about to say is not from God", and then goes on with his
>own opinion, doesn't that cancel the Word of God claim?
    
    	How would Paul's personal judgement concerning virginity negate
    	what Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John recorded about the life of
    	Jesus?  How would it cancel what Moses, David, Solomon, Isaiah,
    	Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, etc., wrote?  How would it negate
    	everything else Paul himself wrote?

| <<< Note 64.307 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "I'm an orca." >>>


| How would Paul's personal judgement concerning virginity negate what Matthew, 
| etc

	What it negates is the Bible's CLAIM to be the inerrant Word of God.
Paul said HIS judgement ("opinion" in New American/Good News) is NOT from God.
If it is NOT from God, how can the Bible make a claim it is the WORD of God?
That one line negates it. How can a human JUDGEMENT keep the other claim of the
Bible being inerrant? Humans are NOT God, so error exists. That negates the
other claim.

	Because of those two things, it proves the Bible is not what it claims.



Glen

    	How do you know that Paul's personal judgement is not correct?
    	How do you know that despite his humble words, Paul is not
    	saying the true word of God?
    
    	BTW, I disagree with your assessment of "proof".

    re: .305
    
    DUCK!
    
    BOB!
    
    WEAVE!!
    
    Carry on...

    re: .308
    
    (see note .311)

| <<< Note 64.309 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "I'm an orca." >>>

| How do you know that Paul's personal judgement is not correct?

	It does not matter that his opinion is correct or not. For him to say,
What I am about to say is not from God" destroys the Word of God claim. For him
to state his opinion brings in a humaness into it all and destroys it from
being God's Word, and anything inerrant. It, in short Joe, cancels out the
claim the Bible makes that it's the inerrant Word of God. It now becomes a mere
book, a guide, a history book. NOT the INERRANT Word of God. That's all I am
saying.

| How do you know that despite his humble words, Paul is not saying the true 
| word of God?

	Why in the world would God not know of a mistake that is being made by
allowing someone to say that these words aren't from God in His very own book
about His Word? If Paul was being guided by the Holy Spirit as the Bible
claims, then does that mean if these words were from God but Paul wasn't
listening to the Holy Spirit so he said they were his own? And what is so
humble about taking credit for something that is supposed to be God's? It kills
that it is the Word of God.


Glen

| <<< Note 64.311 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>

| re: .305

| DUCK!
| BOB!
| WEAVE!!
| Carry on...

	Steve, what about .305 made you write this?

    	.314
    
>	It does not matter that his opinion is correct or not. For him to say,
>What I am about to say is not from God" destroys the Word of God claim. 
    
    	I see why you are confused now.  
    
    	Paul never says that what he is about to say is not FROM GOD at
    	all, just that it is not a particular comandment from God.  There
    	is a big difference.  And before you resort to a "purely semantics"
    	defense, you've split much finer hairs before.
    
>in short Joe, cancels out the
>claim the Bible makes that it's the inerrant Word of God. 
    
    	I disagree.

    re. Glen
    
    I couldn't believe what I was reading Glen.  I thought you were joking at
    first, and suddenly it dawned on me that your are dead serious.  If I debate
    with you on this point it will give credence to your (don't take it
    personally) ridiculous arguement.  
    
    If that's your proof, I doubt it very strongly that anything that I could 
    say or reason, would convince you otherwise.  You prefer to believe that 
    God Breathed is synonomous to just inspiration.  You believe that Paul's 
    opinion on marital status, which was tempered by his Knowledge of Christ 
    (Revelations that goes far beyond ones that you will receive in your entire
    life time), nullifies the inerrancy of the Bible.  After thousands of 
    years, you come up with this new revelation (Your probably not alone).
    I just hope you don't band together and start a Church, based on this 
    Doctrine.  I'll continue to trust Paul words, as Part of the Word of God.  
    Unlike you, his words concerning Christ are very reliable. 
    
    Serious suggestion (Except it or Reject it)
    
    One:
    
    The KJV can be confusing enough without your added twist, try getting the 
    NIV and **prayerfully** read it.  
    
    Two:
    
    Invest in a good Concordance. 
    
    
    Still working out my Salvation,
    
    Kimball                        
    
    
    
    

    Re: a few previous replies

    Excuse me if I keep interrupting the Bible study program to follow other
    trains of thought.

    I thought that a scientific definition of "instinct" was more along the
    lines of: an inherited, unlearned pattern of behavior. Animals exhibit many
    instinctive behaviors, but many also exhibit the ability to learn, so
    they're not absolutely confined to instinct. Humans appear to exhibit very
    little instinctive behavior, almost none. 

    I have to admit I've become as much intrigued at the chemistry of behavior
    as the genetics. I was watching the Discovery Channel the other night and
    it appears science has actually isolated a chemical that induces love and
    affection. Following the religious slant of this topic, isn't that
    perfectly amazing? It's now feasible that Christ's commandment to "love thy
    neighbor" could be implemented via a pill! 

    I think that's an interesting question to pose to the Christians and
    non-Christians alike. If it became scientifically possible, as it appears
    it soon will be, to chemically induce universal love and peace, would you
    take the pill yourself? Would you approve of infecting the world's human
    population with an artificial bacterium or virus that caused love and
    peace?

    John

    The nature of man can't be changed by a pill, sorry.
    Controlled, yes.
    
    Kind of reminds me of the "Clock Work Orange Theory"

| <<< Note 64.316 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "I'm an orca." >>>



| Paul never says that what he is about to say is not FROM GOD at all, 

	Again, it depends on WHICH Bible you read. 

| just that it is not a particular comandment from God. 

 25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my 
    judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. 

	That's right Joe, it ISN'T FROM God. Yet, it's in a book about GOD'S
WORD! Thank you VERY much for helping clear this up.



Glen

From the Commentary on Corinthians by the Faculty of Theology of the
University of Navarre:

	Jesus Christ never spoke about this kind of situation:
	therefore, the Apostle says that what he has to say comes
	from him, not from the Lord: what he is doing is applying
	-- under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit -- general
	teaching to a particular situation.  Paul's advice carries
	weight because he is an Apostle chosen by the Lord in his
	mercy.

/john

| <<< Note 64.317 by NEMAIL::SCOTTK "My multiple extremities: O:) >:> :P +:)" >>>

| -< I'm off Miracle round..... >-

	<grin>

| I couldn't believe what I was reading Glen. I thought you were joking at first
| and suddenly it dawned on me that your are dead serious. If I debate with you 
| on this point it will give credence to your (don't take it personally) 
| ridiculous arguement.

	Hey, your belief says something different. Therefor you believe my
belief is flawed, ridiculous, what have you. That's ok. Really. But if you
think that debating the point gives credence to my argument, that could only
mean that the argument isn't as ridiculous as you have stated. 

| If that's your proof, I doubt it very strongly that anything that I could say 
| or reason, would convince you otherwise. You prefer to believe that God 
| Breathed is synonomous to just inspiration.  

	Now I'm beginning to see why you shouldn't argue the point Kimball. You
don't understand it yet. heh heh... If I do not believe the Bible to be the
Word of God, which is my belief, then I do not believe it is God Breathed. I
believe God inspired the authors to get going on the writing, but I do not
believe He breathed the words to them. And those reasons are simple:

1) If the Holy Spirit guided the authors, why did Paul state his own opinion?

2) Did Paul not listening to the Holy Spirit when he made his own opinion
   known? (in other words, was it God's, but Paul thought it was his)

3) Does this mean that when the Bible states all glory to God that Paul wasn't
   doing this?

4) If a human opinion is in the Bible, is a human opinion God's Word?

5) If a human opinion is in the Bible, it can not be inerrant, as humans make
   errors.

| You believe that Paul's opinion on marital status, which was tempered by his 
| Knowledge of Christ nullifies the inerrancy of the Bible.  

	Yes. If one opinion is in the Bible, who is to say that others aren't
in there? Paul admitted to one of his anyway, but if he could go against the
guidance of the Holy Spirit, what makes you think others couldn't have done so,
but thought it was God talking to them? One error cancels inerrancy.

| The KJV can be confusing enough without your added twist, try getting the
| NIV and **prayerfully** read it.

	And someone else will come along and say read this version, that
version, why not just all band together and chose one version of the Bible and
stick with it? Could it be that this is an impossibility? Could it be that
humanism is involved?



Glen

| <<< Note 64.321 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>



| Jesus Christ never spoke about this kind of situation: therefore, the Apostle
| says that what he has to say comes from him, not from the Lord: what he is 
| doing is applying -- under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit -- general 
| teaching to a particular situation. Paul's advice carries weight because he is
| an Apostle chosen by the Lord in his mercy.

	John, this would be helpful if what we were questioning was the
validity of Paul's words. But we aren't. We are talking about how valid is the
Bible's claims of being the inerrant Word of God when a humans opinion is
listed. Regardless of whether Paul's OWN words are good advice or not isn't a
factor. I can come up with good advice. 


Glen

That particular human's opinion _is_ the inerrant Word of God.

/john

    .324
    
    let's see the ex cathedra teaching, please, that promulgates paul's
    personal inerrancy.

    John, 
    
    His lights are on, but no ones home.:-)
    
    He's not hearing it, wonder why.

What makes it infallible is Paul's role as an apostle.

What confirms that particular statement as infallible is that it was
accepted by the Church to be so when the Church accepted the entire
canon of scripture as infallible.

/john

    re .322
    
    I'm smelling that smoke, Glen.  Your carnal mind is cooking overtime. :-)
    
    The bible is right, and your wrong.
    
    Geeze I forgot to put in that "the"
    
    "I'm off the Miracle round"
    
    Glad to see your lovely grin.
    
    Kimball
    
                               

    .327
    
    the church accepts that pi == 3.0?  well, i suppose that's all of a
    piece with accepting that the sun revolves around the earth...

| <<< Note 64.324 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

| That particular human's opinion _is_ the inerrant Word of God.
| -< Because he is the Apostle Paul inspired by the Holy Spirit >-

	And Paul didn't give credit to God, Jesus OR the Holy Spirit because...

| <<< Note 64.326 by NEMAIL::SCOTTK "My multiple extremities: O:) >:> :P +:)" >>>


| His lights are on, but no ones home.:-)
| He's not hearing it, wonder why.

	No one has proven differently yet Kimball. In fact, all you have done
is side step the issue altogether!


Glen

| <<< Note 64.327 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>


| What makes it infallible is Paul's role as an apostle.

	Who turned Jesus in? Was it not an apostle? Hmmmmm.....

| What confirms that particular statement as infallible is that it was accepted 
| by the Church to be so when the Church accepted the entire canon of scripture 
| as infallible.

	Accepted by humans does not = Word of God. Look at how the church had
accepted a lot of things in the past, but have changed since then.


Glen

| <<< Note 64.328 by NEMAIL::SCOTTK "My multiple extremities: O:) >:> :P +:)" >>>


| I'm smelling that smoke, Glen.  Your carnal mind is cooking overtime. :-)

	Ha! Your mind is what's cookin Kimball. Just read on....

| Geeze I forgot to put in that "the"
| "I'm off the Miracle round"
| Glad to see your lovely grin.

	Kimball, I wuz grinning because I KNEW what you meant, and thought it
was funny. Wow.... talk about consistantly puuting words into my mouth...

    > Who turned Jesus in? Was it not an apostle? Hmmmmm.....
    
    And as soon as you find the apistle of Judus Iscariot in the Bible,
    you will have a valid point.
    
    -steve

    Just some info. 
    
    As I have mentioned before, my two favorite Christian sects are the
    Roman Catholics and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
    (mormons). I am not totally positive about this but the Catholics say,
    as John C. seems to be arguing, that the bible is god's word and is
    error free. You will find the catholic bible to be differant in many
    ways than all the other translations available. The mormons use the KJV 
    and say that it is the word of god "as far as it is translated correctly". 
    Of course they have the "Book of Mormon" which they claim is the closest 
    to being perfect as man can get.
    
    I personally think it is all man made fantasy that is dishonest,
    malevolent and destructive. For centuries, bibical ideas have provided
    the philosophical ammunition to dimminish happiness, drain prosperity
    and cheat productive people on a grand scale.
    
    But, as Dennis Miller would say, it is only my opinion and I could be
    wrong.
    
    ...Tom  

    .334
    
    > And as soon as you find the apistle of Judus Iscariot in the Bible...
    
    what about the epistles of andrew and philip and thomas didymus and
    simon zelotes and judas (the other one) and matthias and the others?
    they must not be apostles, since according to you the mark of an
    apostle is having epistles in the bible.

>You will find the catholic bible to be differant in many ways than all the
>other translations available.

One bible widely used by Roman Catholics is the Revised Standard Version,
Ecumenical Edition, prepared in conjunction with the National Council of
Churches, which includes some thirty orthodox, catholic, and protestant
churches.

/john

    John
    
    Thanks, I didn't know this. My wife was a catholic, in her youth, and
    the bible that she has contains many differances. She was often
    pointing this fact out to me.
    
    ...Tom

re .336 Logic error.

The epistles you mention have all been judged by the church not to be
the authentic teaching of the apostles mentioned.

/john

    .337
    
    and a bible used by some roman catholics is the COMPLETE authorised
    version, better known as the king james version.  of course most
    protestants remove several of the books...

    .339
    
    according to .334, judas iscariot isn't an apostle because he doesn't
    have an epistle in the bible.  therefore no one who doesn't have an
    epistle in the bible is an apostle.  .336 points out the absurdity of
    .334's position - one piece of faulty logic deserves another, don't you
    think?

    re: .336
    
    That is NOT what I said.  But never mind...I'm in too rotten a mood to
    try and explain everything I post today. 
    
    [see, even this much comes across testy...oh well, at least it's Friday]
    
    -steve

	I hope at one point in time you'll explain what you meant Steve.....

    .342
    
    actually, what i ridiculed in .336 is EXACTLY what you said in .334. 
    if that's not what you meant, well and good.  learn to write what yo
    mean.

As was said before:

The infallibility of Paul's epistles is based _both_ on his being an apostle
_and_ on his writings being confirmed as infallible by in the accepted canon
of scripture.  Luke wasn't an apostle, but as a trusted companion to the
apostles, his writings have also been confirmed by the church to be part of
the infallible canon of scripture.

Judas Iscariot was also an apostle, but he does not have any writings
in the canon of scripture.  And even though he betrayed Christ, we have
no evidence that he ever spoke anything but the truth.  In fact, his
biggest crime was telling the authorities the truth -- the location of
Jesus in the Garden of Getshsemane.

/john

    According to the Biblical account of the Flood, the land was completely
    covered with water from a rainfall that lasted 40 days and 40 nights.
    
    1.	The highest point of land on Earth is the peak of Mt. Everest,
    	29,002 feet above sea level.  Compute the mass of water required to 
    	flood the Earth, and the average rate of rainfall during the Flood.
    
    2.	Falling water releases potential energy.  Assume the rainfall
    	originated at a height of 30,000 feet.  Calculate the energy 
    	released by the rainfall.
    
    3.	Are your answers to (1) and (2) compatible?  If not, why?
    
    [The following is a college-level physics test, the answers to which,
    apparently, are absolutely lethal to the Biblical account of the Flood.
    I know that the answer to (3) is "These answers are incompatible,
    because the energy released by the rainfall would have boiled away the
    water."  I leave it as an exercise for the reader to work out (1) and
    (2).]

| <<< Note 64.345 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>


| The infallibility of Paul's epistles is based _both_ on his being an apostle
| _and_ on his writings being confirmed as infallible by in the accepted canon
| of scripture.  

	Accepted by humans John. You forgot that part.

| Judas Iscariot was also an apostle, but he does not have any writings in the 
| canon of scripture. And even though he betrayed Christ, we have no evidence 
| that he ever spoke anything but the truth.  

	The key words to all of this John are, "we have no evidence".

| In fact, his biggest crime was telling the authorities the truth -- the 
| location of Jesus in the Garden of Getshsemane.

	Yeah, being a truthful traitor sounds so much better.


Glen

>
>	Accepted by humans John. You forgot that part.
>

Accepted by humans in ecumenical council under the guidance of the Holy
Spirit.  You forgot that part.

/john

| <<< Note 64.348 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>


| Accepted by humans in ecumenical council under the guidance of the Holy 
| Spirit.  You forgot that part.

	If I believe the Bible to not have been words that were guided by the
Holy Spirit, why would I believe the council was? 


Glen

    Steve:
    
    Assuming most of the water came from the rain, you may very well be
    correct.
    
    However, it states that parts of the earth split open and the water 
    flowed from the earth.  It stands to reason that much of the water came
    from under the ground, not the rain.
    
    I don't speak here as one who knows for sure.  It is just another part
    of the equation.
    
    -Jack

    Also, many back then considered the world to be Asia and Asia minor.  
    The flood may not have actually encompassed the whole world.
    
    -Jack

    Then the account is inaccurate and therefore the writings are fallible.
    
    Brian

    re .333
    
    I knew you knew, what I meant :-)
    
    I'm still glad to see you <grin>
    
    Talk about side stepping, I get the funny feeling that you've been
    doing this, on this particular subject, for a while.  <grin>
    
    
    Kimball
    

    DIFFERENT bibles???

    How can that be??  That is tantamount to Moral Relativism!

    Get Joe over here to tell us what the Right one is.

    Yours in Moral Limbo,
    \john

| <<< Note 64.353 by NEMAIL::SCOTTK "Don't fake the funk" >>>


| Talk about side stepping, I get the funny feeling that you've been
| doing this, on this particular subject, for a while.  <grin>

	Splain please....

| <<< Note 64.354 by ALPHAZ::HARNEY "John A Harney" >>>


| -< Quick!  Which is THE Word Of God?!? >-

	None of them.... imho

    This topic has more personalities than I do.
    
    
    Glenn/Deirdre/Pamela/Ned/Dierdre/Anton/Franny/Janice/Mehan

    > Glenn/Deirdre/Pamela/Ned/Dierdre/Anton/Franny/Janice/Mehan
                                             ^^^^^^
    
    where's zooey?

	I am not sure about personalities, definately characters...%^)

    Traumatize me Dick, and she just might wink into existence.

    
    I was going to say Zooey is dead, but I think that's Seymour, yes?

    FEED me, seymour!

    
    Not THAT Seymour!  Franny & Zooey's brother Seymour who commits suicide
    in a Florida hotel room while his wife is sleeping!

    .363
    
    what, mz_debra, you don't like free association?  i like THAT seymour
    better; salinger is so dreary.

    
    "Tonight's the night I shall be talking a bout of flu the subject of 
     word association football."
                                

    This is a technique out a living much used in the practice makes perfect 
    of psychoanalysister and brother, and one that has occupied piper the 
    majority rule of my attention squad by the right number one two three for 
    the last five years to the memory.
    

                            Deb, do you use Hertz?

    if it hertz, you're doing it wrong.

    It is quite remarkable baker charlie, how much the millers son,
    this so-called while you were out, word association immigrants
    problems influences the manner from heaven in which wee sleekit
    car an' timorous beasties all American speak, the famous explorer. 

    
    And the really, well that is surprising, partner in crime, is that a lot 
    and his wife at the lions feeding time we may be c d e ef-fectively quite 
    unaware of the fact or fiction section of the Watford public library that 
    we are even doing it its a far, far better thing that I do now then now 
    then what's going onward Christian Barnard the famous hearty part of the 
    let us now praise famous mental homes for loonies like me.
               
    

    So, on the button, my contention causing all the headaches, is
    that, unless we take into account of Monte Cristo, in our 
    thinking George the Fifth, this phenomenon the other hand,
    we shall not be able satisfact or fiction section of the Watford
    public library againily to understand to attention when I am   
    talking to you and stop laughing about human nature, mans
    psychological makeup some story the wife'll believe and hence
    the very meaning of life itselfish bastard I'll kick him in
    the Balls Pond Road.                                           

eeeeeeEEEEEEEEYYYOWWwwwnnnnn

    Question:
    
    The second law of thermodynamics (so I'm told), is that the universe,
    rather than progressing into a better state, is actually in entropy. 
    This would make sense.  For example, if you but a Toyota Corolla, it
    will not turn into a Cadillac as time goes on.  A Cadillac will not 
    better itself in time, it will corrode and eventually fall apart.
    
    Doesn't the tenant of evolution contradict this law of thermodynamics?
    How can something better evolve from a one celled amoeba?!
    
    -Jack

    .374
    
    > How can something better evolve from a one celled amoeba?!
    
    there is grave question as to whether the word "better" applies to
    evolution.  the only criterion is that the evolved species be different
    from its forebears.  usually but not always greater complexity is part
    of the evolutionary process, but today's whales have skeletons that are
    less complex than those of their four-footed ancestors, not more so.

    .374,.375
    
    and that more offspring are produced than the environment can sustain 
    
    ric

    I've had both of my Fords neutered.

RE: 64.374 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur"

> The second law of thermodynamics (so I'm told), is that the universe,
> rather than progressing into a better state, is actually in entropy.

"Entropy" is a formal way of measuring the disorder of a system.  In every
observed case,  the entropy of a closed system increases.


> Doesn't the tenant of evolution contradict this law of thermodynamics?
> How can something better evolve from a one celled amoeba?!

Life is not a closed system.


Phil

    One of those times I used a word and I thought it meant something else!
    Smack!!!
    
    Isn't entropy synonomous with decay?

    I have suffered from tooth entropy.

RE: 64.379 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur"

> Isn't entropy synonomous with decay?

Close,  but not really.  Entropy is "disorder",  and as decay is _a_ process
that increases disorder,  it is an example of entropy increasing.

Another example of entropy increasing is the growth of a tree.  Energy from
the sun (with very little entropy) and some chemicals (with a lot of
entropy) is converted into a whole lot of heat (with a log of entropy) and 
a little chemical energy (with a little entropy).  

The chemicals (CO2 and H2O,  etc) become more ordered (converting to
sugars,  starches and wood),  _and_ the sun's energy becomes a lot more 
disordered.  The total energy is conserved.  The total entropy increases. 
The entropy in the tree decreases.


Phil

    .374  Not a bad question, there are some articles on the topic in the
    newer journals on chaos theory etc. and on cosmology.
    
    Given the 2nd law how did anything at all form from the big bang? 
    Shouldn't the universe consist of a random dispersion of matter?
    How did any structure evolve at all?
    
    Genisis Chp.1 is one answer.
    
    Axel

RE: 64.382 by AKOCOA::DOUGAN

> Given the 2nd law how did anything at all form from the big bang?

Matter clumped together has higher entropy than dispersed matter at the
current temperature of the Universe.


> Shouldn't the universe consist of a random dispersion of matter?

That is one possible endpoint of the Universe.  The other is the big
crunch.


> Genisis Chp.1 is one answer.

Never heard of it.


Phil

    I should be more liberal with my smileys and my spelling - 
    
    Big Bang :-) (this theory seems to be going out of fashion and
    deservedly so)
    
    Genesis :-) I'm not seriously putting forward creationism.
    
    It still leaves a big question - is the complexity of the universe at
    the moment just a momentary, random deviation from chaos or is there a
    more subtle reason ?  
    
    Probably (?) the answer is that there is a more subtle reason.
    
    Next question, what is the more subtle reason ? ;-{)
    
    Axel 
    

RE                      <<< Note 64.384 by AKOCOA::DOUGAN >>>

>    It still leaves a big question - is the complexity of the universe at
>    the moment just a momentary, random deviation from chaos or is there a
>    more subtle reason ?  
    
  Momentary, random deviation. Of course it may be followed by other random
deviations.

  George

RE: 64.384 by AKOCOA::DOUGAN

> I should be more liberal 

CAREFUL,  this here is Soapbox.  Liberals are hardly welcome!  :-)


> Big Bang :-) (this theory seems to be going out of fashion and deservedly so)

Care to give reasons why the big bang is "going out of fashion"?


> is the complexity of the universe at the moment just a momentary,  random 
> deviation from chaos or is there a more subtle reason ?

Chaos _is_ complex.

 
Phil

    the big bang is going out of fashion largely due to recent hubble
    findings that indicate the ages of certain distant objects to be about
    six sagans short of what is required by the current big bang theories. 
    big bangers are at a complete loss to explain this discrepancy, and
    some have said in print that these findings cast serious doubt on the
    plausibility of the big bang.

    
    So... which "theory" is the latest "fashion"??
    

  <<< Note 64.388 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Zebras should be seen and not herd" >>>

    
>    So... which "theory" is the latest "fashion"??

Punctuated creationism    

    
      Well, it's a problem.  As with archeology,paleontology, geology, or
     for that matter murder investigation, you deal with imperfect evidence
     about the past.
    
      The Doppler is there, measurable.  The meaning of this effect is one
     thing proven experimentally - all the distant galactic groups, in
     every direction, are racing away from us.  The further the galaxies,
     the faster they're going away.
    
      Stars "burn" hydrogen, fusing it into helium.  We know enough about
     this to estimate the rate.  We know how to get the approximate gas
     makeup of the stars from observations and inference.
    
      But this data is currently incompatible with any theory.  You have
     to conjecture something we currently can't see.  A conundrum !
    
      bb

    .390
    on the contrary, happy cosmologists !
    
    cos the unproveability of it all makes for lots of work and research
    grants etc !
    
    ric$cynic
    

    > A conundrum !
    
    which is what science is all about, and why creationism is not, and
    cannot be, science.
    
    creationism states an unassailable belief and makes no attempt whatever
    to test that belief based on experimentation or discovery.  science is
    an iterative process of conjecture and discovery that welcomes ideas
    and information that may refine or even disprove a theory.

    .386 - "care to give reasons"
    
    The last x replies have put it better than I could.  Also I think there
    is some total mass discrepancy, someone else can probably recall the
    details.
    
    And then there is aesthetics/ gut feel/ Occams Razor.  The Big Bang was 
    never a really satisfying elegant solution.  I deliberately called it a
    fashion because it was proposed by some very smart, very persuasive
    people and became The Theory to believe.  So, if you are still waering
    Big Bang it's time to change wardrobe :-)  

    .393 last para
    
    agreed  - bit like the asteroid killing dinosaurs hypothesis
    
    ric

    .394
    
    > like the asteroid killing dinosaurs hypothesis
    
    ackshully, new information has come to light that STRENGTHENS the
    theory that the chicxulub bolide impact put the cap on the dinosaurs. 
    it seems that there is a significant amount of sulfur in the k-t strata
    in the chicxulub area, and an impact would release large volumes of
    sulfurous gases and dust that could easily stay suspended for months,
    even years.

    > the big bang is going out of fashion largely due to recent hubble
    > findings that indicate the ages of certain distant objects to be about
    > six sagans short of what is required by the current big bang theories.
    
    That is not how I interpreted the reports I read.  The recent hubble
    findings had to do with establishing a value for the hubble constant
    which indicates the expansion/age of the universe.  One method of
    measuring it via h.t. (something to do with quasars) recently actually
    correlated well with previous estimates/measurements by another
    (earthbound) method; one other h.t. method (age of cepheid variables, 
    I think) gave a value substantially different than expected.  The way I
    read the reports indicates only that the data are inconclusive, and
    certainly you can't throw out the big bang theory on that kind of
    evidence.  One or the other method of measuring the hubble constant
    (or maybe both methods) have errors of interpretation, or maybe the
    theory itself is flawed; there may be no such constant.  Concluding
    that big bang is therefore out-of-fashion is certainly premature and
    not what reputable scientists actually believe.  I could well believe
    that you heard someone say that the data deserve more investigation
    and thought.
    
    DougO

    .387, .396
    
    ha ha why does this not surprise me ?
    
    .395
    
    given your recent track record excuse me if i take it with a pinch of
    salt
    
    ric

    .397 re my .395
    
    well, gee, sorry about that, i guess i oughta go back to the dinosaur
    mailing list and see if i can get someone like thomas holtz, one of the
    country's foremost vertebrate paleontologists, currently on assignment
    to the us gelogical survey, to REpost it for you.
    
    or maybe you could go to your local public library and dig through the
    newspapers from the last month.  it made big news, i believe it was on
    page 1 in the glob.

              <<< Note 64.392 by SMURF::BINDER "gustam vitare" >>>

>    which is what science is all about, and why creationism is not, and
>    cannot be, science.
    
>    creationism states an unassailable belief and makes no attempt whatever
>    to test that belief based on experimentation or discovery.  science is
>    an iterative process of conjecture and discovery that welcomes ideas
>    and information that may refine or even disprove a theory.

You're right about creationism, but you're waxing a bit romantic about 
science, don't you think, Bounder?

    .399
    
    no.  i don't.

    don't get persnickety with me, Dick, I did get my reports from the news
    media already.  so some bigshot on the net says he doesn't believe in
    the big bang anymore, I'm impressed.  you believe what you want.
    
    DougO

    .398
    
    err, i couldn't give a toss who told it to me, i would still take it
    with a pinch of salt. asteroid hit -> dinosaur extinct is still a big
    if for me.
    
    ric

    .401
    
    DougO, you misinterpreted my .397
    
    what didn't surprise me was that someone was picking holes in one if
    BINDER's pronouncements.
    
    no offense intended
    
    ric

    .402
    
    > err, i couldn't give a toss who told it to me
    
    ah, of course.  today must be the day you took delivery on that new
    pile of sand to keep your head buried in.

    
      Well, on the asteroid/dinosaur theory, I'm afraid you'll have to
     count me among the doubters.  Could be true, of course, but could
     be partly true or not true at all.  There is no need for natural
     disasters to explain the great extinctions.  Life on earth has a
     dynamic all its own, and a climax can be reached, resulting in
     massive population changes, simply through the appearance of the
     humblest of species, under the right circumstances.  Plants and
     animals in an ecosystem are complexly interrelated.  Adding a wilcard,
     or extinguishing a pivotal species, could trigger a chain reaction of
     changes through the whole ecology.  But there are so many variables,
     you might not be able to predict the result.  Chaos.  If you try
     computer simulations, you can get very different results by just
     tiny edits of the initial conditions.
    
      bb

    reputable paleontologists, among them john ostrom and robert bakker,
    are saying that the dinosaurs were on the way out due to climatic
    shifts and possibly other effects such as epidemics caused when once-
    separated populations came together over the bering land bridge.  the
    fossil record shows that virtually all of the smaller species, such as
    coleophylis, ornitholestes, and compsognathus, were already extinct
    some millions of years before the k-t boundary.  populations near the
    boundary are largely big species - in montana, for example, they are
    pretty much all big theropods like t. rex, albertosaurus, and
    gorgosaurus, together with a couple genera of plant-eaters such as
    maiasaura and a myriad variety of ceratopsians.
    
    the bolide probably put the finishing touch on a process that was
    already well advanced.
    
    as for the specifics of the sulfur stuff, here.  how's this:
    
From the "JPL Universe" December 16, 1994

Lab researchers find impact site leading to dinosaurs' demise
By KARRE MARINO

   The Earth's dinosaurs may have been on the decline some 65 
million years ago, but according to a team of JPL researchers, it 
was an asteroid that struck a geologically unique area in Mexico 
that ultimately did them in.
   "We believe that an asteroid, 10 to 30 kilometers (about six to 
18 miles) in diameter, impacted a sulfur-rich site in a region of 
the Yucatan Peninsula," according to Adriana Ocampo, planetary 
geologist in the Space and Earth Science Division 32.
   A paper detailing the results of the researchers' findings was 
published this month in the journal Earth and Planetary Sciences 
Letters  and was co-authored by Ocampo; Kevin Baines, also in 
Division 32; Kevin Pope of Geo Eco Arc Research in La Canada; and 
Boris Ivanov of Moscow's Russian Academy of Science.
   "Several lines of evidence have prompted the scientific 
community to believe that this crater--called Chicxulub--(which 
means tail of the devil in Maya) caused the extinction of more 
than 50 percent of the Earth's species," Ocampo added.
   That theory was first aired in 1980, when University of 
California, Berkeley, geology professor Walter Alvarez and his 
colleagues proposed that dinosaurs disappeared due to a large 
impact. The main evidence was the high concentration of iridium
found in the clay layer in Italy in the Cretaceous/Tertiary 
boundary, which marks the time transition between these two 
geological periods. Iridium, an element rare on Earth, is found in 
high concentrations in asteroids and comets, and in rocks that 
date to the mass extinction. 
   The scientific community found this notion to be highly 
controversial, Ocampo explained. "It was hard for people to 
conceive that the Earth had been so catastrophically transformed 
by the impacts of an asteroid or comet," she said.
   In order to be convinced, scientists had to find the actual 
impact site.
   It took them a decade to do so. In 1989, Pope and Charles 
Duller, of NASA's Ames Research Center, discovered a 170-
kilometer-diameter (105-mile) semi-circle of sinkholes at 
Chicxulub, Mexico. After Ocampo studied the gravity, magnetic and 
stratigraphic data and correlated them with the sinkholes, she 
recognized that the area had the classic characteristics of an 
impact crater.
   These results were published in 1991, the same year Ocampo and 
Pope discovered an unusual deposit of large boulders at the 
Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary in Belize in Central America, 360
kilometers (223 miles) south of the Chicxulub crater.
   The boulders, some the size of a Volkswagen bug, were spewed 
out of the crater upon impact, and flew 320 kilometers (200 miles) 
to land in Belize, she said. Fragments of glass, created by the 
melting of rock upon impact, were found with the boulders. 
Spherical fragments known as tektites, which were formed as the 
molten glass flew through the air and cooled, were also found.
   "These tektites have been found in Haiti, Mexico, Texas and 
Alabama," Ocampo noted, "but the large boulders are only known in 
Belize, because it's so close to the crater."
   Along with the tektites, spherical pieces of calcium carbonate, 
some with an unusual radial structure, were found. The formation 
of these "spherules" remains a mystery, but the scientists 
speculate that they may have formed from the residue of vaporized 
carbonates and sulfates.
   Another important find in the boulder deposit was limestone 
with fossils dating to the early part of the Cretaceous, when the 
Yucatan platform first appeared. "Fossils of this age don't belong 
in northern Belize," Ocampo observed. "Early Cretaceous fossils 
are known from deep down in the platform, recorded in the drilling 
records of a Mexican petroleum company."
   The scientists suggest that the limestone found in Belize was 
excavated by the impact, which probably blew a hole more than 15 
kilometers (nine miles) deep in the Yucatan platform.
   Results of the Belize research by Ocampo, Pope and Alfred 
Fischer of the University of Southern California are scheduled to 
appear with other works in a special paper of the Geological 
Society of America, detailing recent research on major 
catastrophes in Earth's history.
   Now that the crater had been found, "The real challenge was to 
show how it killed the dinosaurs," Pope said.
   In studying the site and modeling the resulting changes in the 
biosphere, the scientists believed that what proved lethal to life 
on Earth was where the asteroid hit.
   "The target area was rich in salts and sulfur, because the Gulf 
of Mexico was cut off from the sea for much of the Cretaceous. The 
evaporites produced by the evaporation of sea water were rich in 
sulfur," Ocampo explained.
   Had the celestial body impacted somewhere else--in the Sierra 
Nevada, for instance--"The extinctions may not have occurred," she 
maintained.
   "The impact created a melange of sulfuric acid, dust and soot
that exploded from the crater to the highest levels of the 
atmosphere, distributing the materials worldwide," Ocampo added. 
"Initially, the Earth experienced a total blackout due to soot and 
debris wafting into the atmosphere as a result of the impact. 
Photosynthesis was shut down for approximately six months, after
which the sky partially cleared."
   From related work on the sulfuric-rich atmosphere of Venus and
a sophisticated computer model of the impact, the team determined
that "Sulfuric acid clouds, such as those that perpetually cover
Venus, blanketed the Earth for more than a decade," Baines said.
"The shielding effect of these high-altitude chemical hazes cooled
the surface to near freezing across the face of the planet."
   The researchers concluded that winter-like conditions lasted
long enough to cool the ocean, as well as the atmosphere, even in
formerly balmy tropical seas on the other side of the globe.
   The scientists speculate that after the sulfuric acid cloud
precipitated, dousing the Earth with acid rain, a greenhouse
effect may have taken over, caused by the carbon dioxide also
released by the impact. Nevertheless, it was the duration and
worldwide extent of the cold period that caused such devastating
effects and ended the era of the dinosaurs.
   This research was funded by the NASA Exobiology Program in the
Solar System Exploration Division, and by the Planetary Society in
Pasadena.
                            ###


    

    .404
    
    i prefer my skeptical stance to jumping on the latest bandwagon and
    trumpeting hypotheses as though they were proven. your practice of
    regurgitating your synopsis of some article you happened to have read as
    if it were accepted fact is intellectual fascism. promulgation of ideas
    by saying things loudly enough and often enough so they become accepted
    as the "facts" really is so primitive.
    
    .406
    
    you should study the style and tone of the article - lots of words like
    "speculate" and "possibly" which seem to be omitted from your synopses.
    
    ric

    .407, ultimately re .395
    
    maybe you should learn to read the words i wrote instead of peeing down
    your own leg in an attempt to ridicule me.
    
    here, i'll quote the relevant points to save you the trouble of learning
    how to go backward through a note string to read an earlier posting:
    
    > ackshully, new information has come to light that STRENGTHENS the
    > theory that the chicxulub bolide impact put the cap on the dinosaurs.
    
    "STRENGHTENS the theory."  not "proves" or "shows [it] to be factual."
    
    "put the cap on."  as in finished off, not "caused the extinction of."
    
    > it seems that there is a significant amount of sulfur...
    
    "seems."  not "has been proven that."
    
    > and an impact would release large volumes of...
    
    "would release large volumes."  not "released large volumes."
    
    > sulfurous gases and dust that could easily stay suspended
    
    "could easily stay suspended."  not "stayed suspended."
    
    really, there's a product that could help you in your quest to become
    better able to cope with the english language.  it's called "hooked on
    phonics."  call 1-800-abcdefg for more information.

    Nice to see evolutionists fight each other for a change!!!

              <<< Note 64.400 by SMURF::BINDER "gustam vitare" >>>
                           -< science != scientists >-

History suggests otherwise. Even the scientific process doesn't "welcome" 
ideas and information that disprove theories. Science resists disruptive 
ideas because progress along any theoretical path requires a certain faith 
among the scientists that they are in fact on the right path. The result is 
more like a punctuated equalibrium then a linear progression suggested by 
your iterative process. Yes, within the bounds of a single theory, the 
process of refinement is iterative. But "established" theories die hard and 
take many prominent scientists kicking and screaming with them.

Science requires new ideas and information for its survival, but unless 
they confirm the core theories already believed, I wouldn't say they are 
"welcome."

    Funny, the same could be said about theologians.

    Oh, theologians dispute all the time.  That's part of the learning
    process and the building of faith.  Remember that iron sharpens iron!
    
    But for years I have conversed with evolutionists who insist they're
    right...and have been quite uppity about it...that is until science
    proves the theory wrong.
    
    I don't relish in this but I see it as a good thing...to come to grips
    with the fact that evolution is not universally accepted in the
    scientific community!
    
    -Jack

    .408
    
    yes you got me there
    
    i wasguilty of transferring the tone of the noses debate to this topic
    
    ric

    .410
    
    > Even the scientific process doesn't "welcome"
    > ideas and information that disprove theories.
    
    not so.  individual scientists, sometimes large groups of them, don't
    laways welcome ideas that would disprove their pet theories.  but
    science, as the ding an sich, DOES welcome disagreement and new ideas,
    because the goal of the scientific process is KNOWLEDGE, not BELIEF. 
    KNOWLEDGE is not what someone THINKS, it is what has been PROVEN.  this
    is the point on which faith-based religions differ from science; by
    their very nature, they can brook no disproof of their objects of
    faith.
    
    iterative processes do not per se suggest a linear progression.  one
    example is the leibniz series for the value of pi.  approximately seven
    million terms are required to achieve accuracy in the 10th digit after
    the decimal point.  the process is smooth, in that it works with an
    orderly progression of smaller and smaller numbers, but the change in
    its output goes in fits and starts; there are millions of steps between
    a change in the 11th digit and one in the 10th.  STEP... compute...
    compute... compute... compute... compute... compute... compute...
    STEP... compute... compute... compute... compute... compute...
    compute... compute... compute... compute... compute... compute...
    compute... STEP...  this is the nature of scientific discovery also.

    .413
    
    truce?

    .415
    
    not sure what you mean ?
    
    i will continue to cast a beady eye on anything notedabout a topic i
    feel i know a bit about and take the author to task rightly or wrongly
    if i disagree and expect you will do the same.
    
    ric

              <<< Note 64.414 by SMURF::BINDER "gustam vitare" >>>

Not sure how you separate the "scientific process" from scientists, any 
more than you can separate religion from believers. But if you can, aren't 
you doing a little anthropomorphosizing saying that it "welcomes" anything?
I'd call that romantic. 

You're quite right, the goal of science is KNOWLEDGE, not BELIEF. However, 
belief isn't the goal of religion, either. It has many goals, I suppose 
(truth and spiritual connectedness with the Creator are a couple of my 
favorites). Belief is just a prerequisite. Sorta like science.

By the way, I'm not arguing that science and religion aren't very different 
endeavors. I don't think they're incompatible, either. IN fact, I've always 
had a love of science. I just think that endowing the scientific endeavor
with pure objectivity romantisizes it - and trivializes it, as if we have
no yearning beyond ourselves. As if "knowledge" is nothing more than graham
crackers for the mind. 

    .417
    
    i separate science from scientists the same way i separate christianity
    from christians, among whom one finds many disparate groups such as
    roman catholics, methodists, and pentecostals of several stripes. 
    there are good and bad scientists, but science isn't the people, it's
    the process.  there are good and bad christians, but christianity isn't
    the people, it's the core belief system they all adhere to despite
    their differences about the outer trappings.
    
    belief isn't the goal of religion, you're right; but belief in things
    inherently unable to be proven is the essence of faith-based religions. 
    this is the antithesis of science, which as a system desires to place
    its belief in the provable - this despite what any individual scientist
    may wish to believe.  and no, this is not a romantic view; i recognize
    that the system is owned and operated by the people and is therefore
    subject to much corruption.  but so is the principle of 'murican
    government; that does not prove that the principle itself is badly
    conceived or unfair.
    
    the essential difference between religion and science, in re belief, is
    that belief is the center of religion whereas belief is the jumping-off
    point from which science explores the universe.  a christian, for
    example, says, i believe thus-and-so, now how many people can i
    convince that i'm right without being able to prove it.  a scientist,
    or at least a good one, says, i believe thus-and-so, now what evidence
    can i amass and bring to bear in proof of this belief.
    
    i do not say, and have never said, that religion and science are not
    compatible.  although i choose to accept the thrust of evolutionary
    theories in terms of how species come and go, i cannot possibly posit
    the absolute origin of the universe.  even the big bang theory, whether
    it be in fashion or out, still begs the question of what caused the big
    bang.  i choose to identify that causative agent with the god of the
    jews, christians, and muslims; in this i am stating a religious belief
    in the unknowable and unprovable.

RE: 64.396 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto"

> Concluding that big bang is therefore out-of-fashion is certainly premature 
> and not what reputable scientists actually believe.  I could well believe
> that you heard someone say that the data deserve more investigation and 
> thought.

Cepheid variables are stars that pulse at a rate that can be correlated to
their absolute brightness.  Knowing their absolute brightness,  we can
measure how bright they appear to be,  and therefor how far away they are.

Periods and apparent brightness of cepheid variable stars in two galaxies 
have been measured.  Both of these galaxies had been thought to be members
of a cluster of galaxies a few million light years away.  It's still quite
possible that they are not members of this cluster,  but are between us and
this cluster.  It's hard to draw conclusive results from a sample size of
two.


Phil

    hey Steve Leech, i'm far too shy to enter anything in WOMANNOTES.
    
    wanna argue in here ?
    
    creationist - pah !
    
    ric

    evolutionist - pah !

    <-- BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!
    
    thanks thats the best laugh i've had for a while
    
    ric

    seriously, Steve, i admire your questioning of evolutionary theory and
    was utterly dismayed how everyone else in WOMANNOTES jumped down your
    throat with emotive and tangential comments.
    
    evolutionary theory is shot full of holes, but that's merely a reflection
    of science's incomplete understanding. my challenge to you is to come
    up with one positive piece of evidence for creationism as opposed to a
    negative against evolution.
    
    creationists imho argue "creation explains it all so if evolution
    doesn't then creation must be correct" - this is such a crocck as to
    not be worth discussing.
    
    again, bravo for questioning.
    
    ric  

    > i admire your questioning of evolutionary theory and was utterly
    > dismayed how everyone else in WOMANNOTES jumped down your throat with
    > emotive and tangential comments.
    
    Nice to know that the impressive array of factual evidence assembled in
    support of the theory didn't bother you.  As for the rest, Steve brings
    it on himself.
    
    DougO

    
    The Theory of Evolution will be abandoned within our lifetimes as an 
    adequate explanation for the world, imho.  It's already tarried too
    long given its significant problems.  Technology will most probably be
    its undoing.
    
    jeff

    .425
    
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
    
    jeff me lad, you *do* have a sense of humor after all!  rarely have i
    seen such a brilliantly written piece of irony.

	Dick, you mean metal will replace the theory of evolution? :-)

    WeltansChauung.  Eternal world view?  Technology will be it's undoing?
    How?

    
    Everyone knows I have a sense of humor!  I laugh a great deal
    (especially reading this conference) and am usually the initiator of 
    humor in most social settings.
    
    If you doubt my humor, blender, go back to the 'box trial of the
    century.  I played with abandon.
    
    jeff

| <<< Note 64.429 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanshauung" >>>

| -< but i'm mostly serious, imho >-

	That's when you're the funniest!

    If anything Jeff, science will bring more and more questions to the
    forefront. Look at the questions that the hubble telescope has raised.
    If you think that science is going to prove that the biblical account
    is 100% accurate, you're in for a disappointment.

    
    .428
    
    "...Technology will be its undoing?  How?"
    
    The Hubbel telescope is a good example of how technology is unraveling
    some of the basics of evolutionary theory.  The age of the universe is 
    being lowered by billions of years at a time.  How long can this go on 
    and still maintain the panacea of "time" and "chance" that evolution theory
    requires?
    
    Another example is our understanding of the cell.  I suspect the AIDS
    virus and all the related research into the cell will provide new
    information that will tear at evolutionary theory.  It's already clear,
    for example, that there are no correlations between skeletal morphology
    and cell morphology.  As you probably know, skeletal morphology within
    families is supposedly strong evidence for evolution theory.  If that
    morphology were meaningful it could be expected that the underlying
    morphology of cells could be predicted.  There are no such
    correlations.
    
    The cell and the cosmos are the least understood components in
    evolution/cosmological theories yet holding the greatest mysteries and,
    we think, opportunities for answers to evolutionary questions.  As space
    technology and microbiology advances, the answers will come exploding
    the evolution myth into itsy bitsy tiny pieces no longer able to
    support the weight of the naturalistic, scientific world view, imho.
    
    jeff

And thus we'll all go back to believing in fairy tales?

Somehow, I think not.

Incidentally, shortening the age of the universe, even by sagans of
years at a time, still leaves more than sufficient room for evolutionary
theory to occupy.

>    If anything Jeff, science will bring more and more questions to the
>    forefront. Look at the questions that the hubble telescope has raised.
>    If you think that science is going to prove that the biblical account
>    is 100% accurate, you're in for a disappointment.
    
    That's right.  And many questions will tear at the already problematic
    evolutionary theory until it will give way to some other naturalistic
    explanation.  But it won't be Darwinian or neo-Darwinian theories,
    imho.
    
    As long as scientific theories strictly embrace naturalism, I don't
    expect any support of biblical principles whatsoever, just more of the
    same, chaotic claptrap. 
    
    jeff

    .424
    
    hmm i must go and re-read the replies cos except for one reply about
    radioactive dating i can't recall seeing much well-argued factual
    evidence. they mostly seemed to be of the "evolution is fact so there"
    variety.
    
    ric

    .434
    
    I think the Darwinian and neo_Darwinian theories are pretty much
    recognised as incomplete and viewed somewhat like Newtonian physics vs
    modern physics. Micro-evolution is a wierd and mysterious world to me I
    freely confess and as such i will not offer any opinions whatsoever
    about it ! But Macro-evolution is slowly coming along as best it can -
    it's by no means as insecure as you seem to think.
    
    ric

    > hmm i must go and re-read the replies cos except for one reply about
    > radioactive dating i can't recall seeing much well-argued factual
    > evidence. they mostly seemed to be of the "evolution is fact so there"
    > variety.
        
    Here, let me help.  Try 390.15, .18, .38, .56, and .61.  All are much
    closer to 'evolution is the theory that best explains the data' than to
    your formulation.
    
    DougO

    .432
    
    > The Hubbel telescope is a good example of how technology is unraveling
    > some of the basics of evolutionary theory.
    
    no.  it is a good example of how technology is helping us to refine and
    change our understanding.  unlike thumpism, which can brook no
    uncertainty, science is a process of examine and guess, examine and
    guess, examine and guess.  that some of our guesses are being brought
    into question - NOT being proven wrong - is good, not bad.
    
    >  The age of the universe is 
    > being lowered by billions of years at a time.
    
    no.  our current guesses as to the age of the universe are being
    examined for the possibility that they need to be changed.  that
    doesn't imply that continued acquisition of new information will
    produce equally great revisions of the timeframe.  i would say, based
    on all that science has shown over the past 2000 years or so, it's an
    asymptotic curve.  so far, science has disproven virtually all of the
    major thumpist contentions about creation without even having to be
    based in absolute certainty.  take the noachian deluge as a classic
    example of balderdash:
    
    	Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains
    	were covered.
    
    					- (Genesis 7:20, KJV).
    
    fifteen cubits covered the mountains?  give us a break!  fifteen cubits
    isn't enough even to cover rolling countryside, let alone MOUNTAINS.
    
    and like really, now, the ark, 500 boxcars though it may have held, did
    not have room to hold two of every species - the HUNDREDS of varieties
    of large dinosaurs, ranging up to 150 feet in length, give the lie to
    that standard thumpist fiction.
    
    > Another example is our understanding of the cell...
    > ...It's already clear,
    > for example, that there are no correlations between skeletal morphology
    > and cell morphology.  As you probably know, skeletal morphology within
    > families is supposedly strong evidence for evolution theory.  If that
    > morphology were meaningful it could be expected that the underlying
    > morphology of cells could be predicted.  There are no such
    > correlations.
    
    oopsie.  what theory requires differing cell morphologies for critters
    of different skeletal morphologies?  that is like suggesting that
    humans couldn't possibly have built both the pont du gard and the
    brooklyn bridge because those two structures are so dissimilar and all
    humans have the same cell morphology.
    
    > The cell and the cosmos are the least understood components in
    > evolution/cosmological theories yet holding the greatest mysteries and,
    > we think, opportunities for answers to evolutionary questions.
    
    actually, subatomic physics is less well understood than either cells
    or the cosmos.  nobody has even the remotest idea of how to explain the
    connection between two photons fired in opposite directions from a
    common source - i.e., how does one acquire the other's energy at the
    exact nanosecond when the other strikes a sensor despite their being
    miles apart?
    
    you have a lot of fifty-cent words in your voccabulary, but you lack
    the fundamental depth of information necessary to their convincing use.

    > The Hubbel telescope is a good example of how technology is unraveling
    > some of the basics of evolutionary theory.
    
>    no.  it is a good example of how technology is helping us to refine and
>    change our understanding.  unlike thumpism, which can brook no
>    uncertainty, science is a process of examine and guess, examine and
>    guess, examine and guess.  that some of our guesses are being brought
>    into question - NOT being proven wrong - is good, not bad.
 
     A common trait of a badly posited theory is the inability to falsify it.
     And I recommend that you avoid Gould and his ilk as their dogmatism
     has really destroyed their credibility and is fast destroying yours.
   
    >  The age of the universe is 
    > being lowered by billions of years at a time.
    
>    no.  our current guesses as to the age of the universe are being
>    examined for the possibility that they need to be changed.  that
>    doesn't imply that continued acquisition of new information will
>    produce equally great revisions of the timeframe.  

     But it is quite possible that new information will produce great 
     revisions .

>    i would say, based
>    on all that science has shown over the past 2000 years or so, it's an
>    asymptotic curve.  so far, science has disproven virtually all of the
>    major thumpist contentions about creation without even having to be
>    based in absolute certainty.  take the noachian deluge as a classic
>    example of balderdash:
    
>    	Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains
>    	were covered.
    
    					- (Genesis 7:20, KJV).
    
>    fifteen cubits covered the mountains?  give us a break!  fifteen cubits
>    isn't enough even to cover rolling countryside, let alone MOUNTAINS.
 
     Just last year, seismologists witnessed land rise 15 feet after one
      earthquake in California.
    
    > Another example is our understanding of the cell...
    > ...It's already clear,
    > for example, that there are no correlations between skeletal morphology
    > and cell morphology.  As you probably know, skeletal morphology within
    > families is supposedly strong evidence for evolution theory.  If that
    > morphology were meaningful it could be expected that the underlying
    > morphology of cells could be predicted.  There are no such
    > correlations.
    
    >oopsie.  what theory requires differing cell morphologies for critters
    >of different skeletal morphologies?  that is like suggesting that
    >humans couldn't possibly have built both the pont du gard and the
    >brooklyn bridge because those two structures are so dissimilar and all
    >humans have the same cell morphology.
    
    I wasn't clear enough.  The morphology of cells producing the similar
    skeletal structures is nonexistent. 

    jeff

| <<< Note 64.432 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanshauung" >>>



| The Hubbel telescope is a good example of how technology is unraveling
| some of the basics of evolutionary theory.  

	Jeff, doesn't this bring the accuracy of science to a higher level? As
it allows for the corrections of mistakes, where with religion, if a mistake is
believed, it stays, never tested?



Glen

	Dick, looks like we had a notes collision. 

    
    I don't recall, Glen, bringing up the subject of religion.  Blender and
    others are the ones we can count on to bring up religion in this topic
    as if by doing so, they bolster their argument *for* evolution. 
    Religion is a strawman.  
    
    jeff

    When debating scientific theories, the winner is generally the one that
    best explains the available data.  Time and time again, we ask for the
    theory that explains the data better than does the theory of evolution.
    
    None is forthcoming.  Oh, every once in awhile Steve Leech makes a
    vague promise to supply details of "creation science", an oxymoron at
    best, for inspection.  Seldom does it appear.  So we're left to wonder
    what you think explains the data better than the theory of evolution.
    Please, tell us.
    
    DougO

| <<< Note 64.442 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanshauung" >>>


| I don't recall, Glen, bringing up the subject of religion.  

	I guess I knew what your belief is (Genisis+) for creation, so while
talking about science forever making changes, I myself brought up how sometimes
religion does not. I didn't bring it up to bolster an argument for evolution, I
brought it up to show you while one thing (science) can correct it's mistakes,
sometimes things like religion, does not.



Glen

    
    Are you addressing me?
    
    >When debating scientific theories, the winner is generally the one that
    >best explains the available data.  Time and time again, we ask for the
    >theory that explains the data better than does the theory of evolution.
    
    >None is forthcoming.  Oh, every once in awhile Steve Leech makes a
    >vague promise to supply details of "creation science", an oxymoron at
    >best, for inspection.  Seldom does it appear.  So we're left to wonder
    >what you think explains the data better than the theory of evolution.
    >Please, tell us.
    
    I suspect that there may be no better strictly naturalistic explanation
    for the data.  But that's like saying that if I'm a Jew in a
    concentration camp in the 1940s, a certain death for most, a quick death 
    is better than watching my family and friends wither away or simply 
    disappear into the showers. Maybe I'll die from a beating, or in transport,
    or freeze to death in my bed.  In any case, I'm going to die because I'm 
    in the system, all of it cruel and heinous.  Similary, other
    strictly naturalistic explanations would encounter the same problems
    evolutionary theories encounter.   A context or system for interpreting
    data determines the meaning ultimately assigned to data and if the
    context is false, the meaning will be false.
    
    No, I would recommend adequately establishing the truth of one world
    view over another first. Then data is at least interpreted in the 
    framework of reality.  The fallacy of the philosophy which believes
    that naturalism can explain the world is the reason a unified theory,
    for example, cannot be established in science.  A unified theory
    explaining the world can never occur if reality is excluded.
    
    jeff

    I ask for a theory that better explains the data than evolutionary
    theory, and I get metaphors of Jews in concentration camps, and a spiel
    about 'establishing the truth of one world view'.  Scientific theories
    are not philosophies, Jeff.  "World views" need not apply.  Account for
    the data, if you want to call your theory scientific.  If you want to
    talk about the relative "truth" of "world views" you're in the wrong
    topic.
    
    DougO

    ban evolution.

    Yes, as already pointed out, it is "Weltanschauung"
    And I think it is 'Hubble'.
    
    Next in my list: I believe we shouldn't be discussing the
    evolution/creation of humankind in the same string as the creation of
    the universe. 
    
    
    Creationists, 
    
    * please give a plausible explanaition for the fossiles.
    
    * please explain, why it makes a difference if the dating techniques 
      were not accurate. 
      ("not accurate" in my understanding: bones dated 1 million years are
        in fact only 500,000 years old. This is my rule of thumb error 
        possible error rate in C14 dating)
    
    Evolutionists,
    
    *  where is the fault in the creationist argumentation ?
    
    
    
    And to the creation of the universe:
    
    	Did time always exists ?
        Does time need matter and motion ?
    	Would this universe exist, if no being was there to witness it ?
    	Can matter appear spontaneously ?
    	Can anything be eternal ?
    	Is ours the only universe ?
    	
    
    Heiko
    
    Even if (repeat: IF :-) the dating techniques are not accurate, 

RE: 64.432 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanshauung"


Jeff must have gotten a new shipment of tracts.  Wonder how long it will
take him to type them all in?


> The Hubbel telescope is a good example of how technology is unraveling
> some of the basics of evolutionary theory.  The age of the universe is 
> being lowered by billions of years at a time.  

The Hubble space telescope is making more accurate distance measurements to
distant objects.  The trend of the first couple of measurements is to show
objects somewhat closer than expected,  and thereby implying a younger
Universe,  in the range 10,000,000,000 years old.  This has absolutely 
nothing to do with evolution or the origin of life,  as the age of the 
Earth is much more accurately known than the age of the Universe.  

As was pointed out in the Moon Math discussion,  space is big.  Very very
big.

Notice as well,  that the more accurate distance measurements are rather
higher than needed to support a ~6000 year old Universe.


Phil

    Explain how evolution of life to more complex levels follows current
    scientific laws of thermodynamics.  The only way this can be done is to
    say that in the past, these laws did not exist...which by default
    supports a special creation model.  When did evolution from non-living
    matter to living matter stop?  Why?  
    
    Then there's the old argument of moon dust...if this solar system is 4
    billion years old or more, why is there not 4 billion years worth of
    dust on the moon (I only bring it up because I've never actually heard
    the opposing argument). 
    
    What about entropy?  Does this not support the creation science model? 
    All things were specially created differently for different purposes at
    a time in the distant past, and now we are in a conservation of energy
    mode.  
    
    The creation model predicts the first two laws of
    thermodynamics, the evolutionary model must explain why these laws
    didn't work in the past the way they are observed to work today.
    
    There are more "bullet points" of questions, but I'm already covering a
    lot of ground with only brief comments.
    
    -steve

                    <<< Note 64.450 by CSOA1::LEECH "hi" >>>

>    Explain how evolution of life to more complex levels follows current
>    scientific laws of thermodynamics. 

	There is no need to explain. The laws of thermodynamics deal
	with closed systems. As has been pointed on on a number of 
	occasions, the Earth is NOT a clsoed system.

>When did evolution from non-living
>    matter to living matter stop?  Why?  
 
	When the conditions required for form complex molecular bonds
	from less complex material ceased to exist. Open a window and
	take a deep breath. you will notice that the Earth no longer 
	has a methane atmosphere. As to why conditions changed, life
	it self was most likely the driving force, using up the raw
	materials and voiding waste products that altered the 
	environment.

>    Then there's the old argument of moon dust...if this solar system is 4
>    billion years old or more, why is there not 4 billion years worth of
>    dust on the moon (I only bring it up because I've never actually heard
>    the opposing argument). 
 
	How much is 4 billion years worth? Was is the annual rate of dust 
	collection? This red herring is just another non-scientific attempt
	to obfuscate the issue. There IS 4 billion years worth of Moondust,
	it's just that 4 billion years worth ain't a whole lot.

>    What about entropy?  Does this not support the creation science model? 
>    All things were specially created differently for different purposes at
>    a time in the distant past, and now we are in a conservation of energy
>    mode.  
 
	Again, your question show a basic lack of understanding of the
	principles you are trying to use in your argument. Entropy again
	deal with closed systems. The Earth is NOT a closed system.

>    The creation model predicts the first two laws of
>    thermodynamics, the evolutionary model must explain why these laws
>    didn't work in the past the way they are observed to work today.
 
	The creation model badly misuses these principles by not recognizing
	the ACTUAL laws involved. Creationists deliberately misrepresent these
	principles, twist their meaning and regurgitate nonsense to (they
	hope) an uneducated audience.

>    There are more "bullet points" of questions, but I'm already covering a
>    lot of ground with only brief comments.
 
	The only ground you seem to be covering is the exposure of great 
	deal of ignorance concerning both the Laws of Thermodynamics and
	the definition of Entropy.

Jim

    
    Steve : the data for an old earth hits you in the face, and is the
    scientifically strongest part of Darwinism.  It is impossible to hike
    the Grand Canyon (as I had the pleasure of doing a couple of years ago)
    and believe in a young earth.  Geology, astronomy, paleontology, simple
    observations that any child can make indicate this.  From the saltiness
    of the oceans, the spectrograph of the sun, the patterns in the rocks,
    the recession of the moon, and hundreds of others, not requiring any
    great scientific learning, all point to many millions of years as a
    lower bound.
    
     Actually, an old earth does not require Darwinism, and was universally
    agreed in science long before The Origin of Species was published. 
    There are weaker parts of Darwin than this.
    
     In scientific arguments, you "go with the data", them's the rules.
    And our own senses tell us directly of the Earth's great age.
    
     bb

    
>    I ask for a theory that better explains the data than evolutionary
>    theory, and I get metaphors of Jews in concentration camps, and a spiel
>    about 'establishing the truth of one world view'.  

     You also got a statement that said that evolutionary theory might be the
     best strictly naturalistic explanation, as poor as it is.

>    Scientific theories
>    are not philosophies, Jeff.  "World views" need not apply.  Account for
>    the data, if you want to call your theory scientific.  If you want to
>    talk about the relative "truth" of "world views" you're in the wrong
>    topic.
    
>    DougO


     I beg to differ Dougo!  Scientific theories are developed in the context
     of a Philosophy of Science and are therefore subject to its constraints,
     namely empiricism.  It's hardly genuine to ask a theist for a 
     "scientific" theory knowing full well that "science" as defined
     precludes any appeal to supernatural acts (miracles).  Many systems
     ,including empiricism (i.e. modern science), are internally
     self-consistent because data are only given meaning inside an
     interpretive context. The internal self-consistency of scientism and the 
     internal self-consistency of theism preclude one being proven as true 
     over the other, thus eliminating the false view.  One must move up a level
     and appeal to philosophy to resolve this problem.

     Furthermore, if scientific theories are not philosophies then why does
     science struggle so publicly to be the view best describing the truth of
     our world?

     Science is hypocritical to the extreme on this subject, speaking out of 
     both sides of a very big mouth.  On the one hand the scientific method 
     never reaches truth and on the other the truth of the universe is that 
     everything came from everything else via evolution.

     jeff

RE: 64.450 by CSOA1::LEECH "hi"

> Explain how evolution of life to more complex levels follows current
> scientific laws of thermodynamics.  

Simple.  Total disorder of the Universe is increasing.  Some parts of the
Universe have disorder increasing faster than others:  such as the Sun, 
where highly ordered hydrogen is being converted into more disordered
helium and energy.  Some parts of the Universe have disorder decreasing:
examples include the inside of your refrigerator,  life on the surface of
the Earth,  and the production of diamonds by geologic or artificial
processes.  Of course,  always at the cost of increasing disorder
elsewhere,  and always for a limited time.  Even diamonds are not forever.


> The only way this can be done is to say that in the past,  these laws did 
> not exist...which by default supports a special creation model.  

Well,  perhaps.  The "big bang",  which happened somewhere between 8
billion and 20 billion years ago,  probably did not follow the current laws
of physics,  including the laws of thermodynamics. 


> When did evolution from non-living matter to living matter stop?  Why?

When living matter got good enough at snarfing up the interesting
non-living matter.


> The creation model predicts the first two laws of thermodynamics,  

Oh?  Explain,  starting with a scientific theory of creationism.


> the evolutionary model must explain why these laws didn't work in the 
> past the way they are observed to work today.

Let's point out right now that the "evolutionary model" to a creationist
means almost all of current physics,  geology,  astronomy,  biology, 
medicine,  computer science,  math and chemistry.  


Phil

    .453
    
    Scientists don't claim that their view is the TRUTH.
    
    Evolution is a hypothesis, which is continually tested by observed data, 
    so far it has held up pretty well.  But there certainly are difficulties
    in it (The mathematics of mutations is pretty un-convincing).  It's not
    the TRUTH - it could be overthrown by conflicting data any time.
    
    But creationism as a hypothesis is supported by NO observable data.  It
    is a belief.
    
    Still it could be true - Einstein didn't believe in quantum mechanics on
    the basis that God doesn't play dice with the universe, but that was in
    the face of data. I don't believe God created the earth
    with a deliberate scheme to plant clues in the earth to make us believe
    something else (no comparison woth Einstein is intended or warranted)
    ;-).  What is the creatonist position on this?  Is God having a little
    joke, or is he testing us to see if we will ignore the evidence of our
    (God-given) senses and intellect.
    
    I have a funny feeling that we will soon argue about how many angels
    can dance on the head of a pin and wether Jesus had apurse or not.. 
    evolutionists 

    .452
    
    please, evolution <> Darwinism
    
    ric

    Though the earth is not an entirely closed system, entropy is still a
    valid observation of our system.  Why was this not so in the past?  We
    only have recent scientific observation to go on- we have to suspend
    the laws of science as we know them today to rationalize the increasing
    complexity of our system in the past.
    
    What external energies were used to deny entropy during this distant
    past period?  The sun?  If so, how was raw, chaotic energy used in
    forming more complex, more ordered forms.  How is it used in such a
    conversion of energy?  How can randomness produce order to infinitely
    greater degrees?
    
    When one realizes the extreme complexity of the human brain, he has to
    wonder how such an orderly thing was created by chance, over time,
    originating with non-living matter, for no purpose whatsoever.  I'm
    sorry, but the philosophy behind evolution leaves me a bit wanting, and
    sceptical.  
    
    
    -steve 

    .456
    
    broadly speaking, evolution == the process of speciation.  this is an
    observed, demonstrated fact.
    
    darwinism == one theory that attempts to explain how evolution works. 
    not currently the most popular, as it fails to explain the significant
    chronological unevenness that is observed in the fossil record.  (e.g.,
    during the last quarter ot less of the cretaceous period, more known
    ceratopsian dinosaur species appeared than had appeared in all the
    previous and much longer time.)

    .457
    
    > Though the earth is not an entirely closed system, entropy is still a
    > valid observation of our system.
    
    the same can be said for newtonian physics.  they aren't correct, but
    in most frameworks they are a close enough approximation that they can
    be used.  the simple fact is we don't have all the answers.  but we
    have a significant number of answers, backed by real observable and
    measurable data, to suggest that "evolution" is a more accurate model
    than "creation."  the latter has ZERO data going for it.  all it can do
    is try to falsify its opponent.

    .458
    
    whoa for a split second there i thought you'd noted something i
    entirely agree with !!! :-)
    
    but, problem with Darwinism is that it's explanation of speciation ie
    the gradual accumulation of small morphological differences from
    generation to generation, is not backed up by observed fossil lines of
    descent - the missing links remain missing. so it doesn't explain what
    it sets out to do. nor can it explain the evolution of complex things
    which are useless in part.
    
    so the problem of mammalian eyes, whales, ostriches knee-caps, feathers
    etc etc remain.
    
    ric$who_*nearly*_agreed_with_BINDER :-)

                    <<< Note 64.457 by CSOA1::LEECH "hi" >>>

>    Though the earth is not an entirely closed system, entropy is still a
>    valid observation of our system.

	No, it is not. Not only is the Earth "not an entirely closed 
	system", it is a TOTALLY open system.

	By your (misused) definitiotn of entropy, it would be impossible
	for a fertilized ovum to develop into a human being.

	Nonsenical ignorance of the subject matter does nothing to
	forward your argument.

>we have to suspend
>    the laws of science as we know them today to rationalize the increasing
>    complexity of our system in the past.
 
	Do you consider it a violation of the laws of science that I am
	writing this message to you? Using a piece of hardware that was
	at one time nothing more than ore, sand and a few long chain
	polymers? Would you consider a CPU chip to be more complex than
	a pile of sand? Does this violate the laws of science?

>    What external energies were used to deny entropy during this distant
>    past period?  The sun? 

	Very good Steve. Your science teachers were not completely
	incompetent.

> If so, how was raw, chaotic energy used in
>    forming more complex, more ordered forms. 

	Did you ever take Chemistry? Did you ever produce water from
	Hydrogen and Oxygen?

> How is it used in such a
>    conversion of energy? 

	It SUPPLIES the energy required for the conversion.

> How can randomness produce order to infinitely
>    greater degrees?
 
	I suggest you take a good highschool level science class, Physics
	I would guess, to help you answer this question.

>I'm
>    sorry, but the philosophy behind evolution leaves me a bit wanting, and
>    sceptical.  
 
	Philisophically, you are withing your rights to reject science.
	But please don't ask us to join you in your ignorance.

Jim

    .460
    
    you misread .458.  is said specifically that darwinism, with its
    emphasis on gradual change, is NOT currently the most popular theory
    because it does not explain the step-style differences.
    
    the theory that is getting the most general agreement is a combination
    of punctuated equilibrium and darwinism, in that it allows for the
    gradual improvements that can clearly be observed within a species, and
    it also allows for the sudden (geologically speaaking) changes that can
    result in myriad new species.  it further allows for the differences
    between families, such as mammalian eyes, with their inbuilt focusing
    systems, and reptilian eyes, with their sclerotic rings.

RE: 64.457 by CSOA1::LEECH "hi"

> Though the earth is not an entirely closed system,  entropy is still a
> valid observation of our system.  Why was this not so in the past?  

When in the past did entropy not hold?  


> What external energies were used to deny entropy during this distant
> past period?  The sun?  If so, how was raw, chaotic energy used in
> forming more complex, more ordered forms.  

Need an example or three of how raw chaotic energy can produce very ordered 
energy?

1) A steam engine.
2) A thermocouple.
3) A solar cell.

Each of these take heat from a higher temperature source and reject heat to a
lower AND produce work.  Work is energy with no entropy.  Energy with no
disorder.


Phil

    
    In the following replies I'll enter what I consider to be the best
    available treatise found on our net, on the creation vs. evolution 
    debate.
    
    jeff

           <<< YUKON::DISK$ARCHIVE:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN.NOTE;2 >>>
                          -< The CHRISTIAN Notesfile >-
================================================================================
Note 640.0                   Creation vs. Evolution                   22 replies
NETCAD::WIEBE "Garth Wiebe"                         109 lines   1-DEC-1994 17:01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is an organized presentation on the creation vs. evolution
controversy.  This is the third, and most extensive revision of a set of essays
which I had originally submitted in note 840 of the now-archived Christian_V5
conference, with first revisions submitted in note 24 of the Christian_V6
conference and note 35 of the Biology conference, and second revision submitted
in note 25 of the current Christian conference as of this writing. 

It is my hope that this will provide a logical and coherent framework for
defending the fact of special creation and the abrupt appearance of life on
earth against the popular dogma of evolution. 

	"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give
	the reason for the hope that you have."  (1 Pet 3:15)

Table of contents:					Length:

.0	This introduction and table of contents		(109 lines)
.1	An abstract of the presentations to follow	(100 lines)
.2	A defense of Creation				(100 lines)
.3	"Chance" is not a *cause*			(60 lines)
.4	Life from non-life:  Spontaneous Biogenesis?	(127 lines)
.5	Random genetic mutations			(62 lines)
.6	Natural Selection				(66 lines)
.7	Genetics and Micro-evolution			(57 lines)
.8	What about Taxonomy?				(27 lines)
.9	Transitional forms				(32 lines)
.10	The fossil record of life forms			(41 lines)
.11	Fossilization					(28 lines)
.12	Stratified layers of rock containing fossils	(58 lines)
.13	Uniformitarianism vs. Catastrophism		(129 lines)
.14	Radioisotope dating methods			(169 lines)
.15	Dating methods that suggest a young earth	(166 lines)
.16	The "Ape-men"					(206 lines)
.17	Science						(85 lines)
.18	Faith						(34 lines)
.19	Some objections to the design/chance arguments  (139 lines)
.20	Extra-terrestrial intelligence			(184 lines)
.21	Resource list					(498 lines)

As a preface to this document, I want to point out that it is a shame that we
have to continue to refute the same arguments that evolutionists keep bringing
up over and over again in their attempts to argue against the fact of creation,
which fact has been well established for at least 6000 years.  Nevertheless,
the neo-darwinian dogma of the spontaneous auto-organization of random
chemicals into complex biopolymers, by chance forming complex self-replicating
automatic machines that then evolve into more and more complex self-replicating
automatic machines through the injection of random noise filtered into highly
coded information and structures by predators, the climate, and other mindless
agents working together to produce an ecosystem capable of sustaining and
improving all these countless life forms for billions of years has managed to
permeate, over the last 150 years, the thinking in major scientific circles,
the media, and secular education, even penetrating some professing Christian
institutions.  (Excuse the verbosity of that last sentence.)

It is also a shame that the masses have bought all this based on some circular
reasoning about fossils, where they tend to be found buried, similarities
between various life forms, the presence of certain decay products in rocks,
and other inherently speculative arguments about the past, based on phenomena
that exist in the present.  

If I hope to accomplish anything, it will be to simply encourage critical
thinking.  One must get past the arguments _ad populum_ (that its popularity
counts for something), _ad hominem_ (that if you attack the person making the
argument, this counts for something), and especially _ad baculum_ (that there
are people who have the clout to decree it as true), to ask the key questions
and challenge the unsubstantiated assumptions and thinking of those who would
hold to the evolution position.  Today there are an increasing number of
anti-creationist authors who are producing books and periodicals that make this
2500-line presentation insufficient to deal with all the points in dispute. 
Those defending creation today who don't have the time to devote their
life's study to gaining expertise in all fields of inquiry must principally be
prepared to think critically, logically, and challenge unsubstantiated
assumptions made by these people.  They must also keep a level head in the face
of some vicious attacks and diatribes that will be directed against them, as is
advised in the scriptures (1 Peter 3:15-16).  Enough said about that. 

By way of definitions, I want to point out that when I speak of "evolution", I
am referring to the popular contemporary use of the word, which in a nutshell
is the belief that all life forms are related by ancestry, and that the first
life form occurred spontaneously, all due to completely natural processes. 

When I speak of "creation", I am referring to the inherently obvious fact that
the origin of all life forms can be attributed to a creator, who purposefully
created them with planning and intent, and the documented fact that this
occurred over the course of a week's time several thousand years ago.

This document was intended as an apologetic to be submitted and defended by me
in an interactive, online electronic forum.  It is inadequately referenced to
serve as a standalone document, although a general list of references is given
at the end.  I hold no copyright on this document, and grant permission to copy
it in any way, shape, or form as deemed appropriate by the reader.  I have not
written it with a view towards receiving any sort of financial or other
personal gain, and I request that others utilizing this document do likewise.
Those copying and disseminating this document shall assume full responsibility
for doing so, as if they were the original author.  I do not agree to defend
this document in any forum that I did not submit it in. 

The originality of content of this document ranges from mere paraphrases of
material from a wide assortment of authors to entirely original material that I
have not seen expressed by any other author.  The mix is probably about 50/50. 

I wish to thank my critics, especially those anti-creationists whom I 
have encountered along the way, for helping to expose deficiencies in my
presentation, which has contributed greatly to the continuing refinement
of this document.  I also wish to thank those who have encouraged me by
telling me that this presentation has made a difference.

							Garth D. Wiebe
							December, 1994

================================================================================
Note 640.1                   Creation vs. Evolution                      1 of 22
NETCAD::WIEBE "Garth Wiebe"                         100 lines   1-DEC-1994 17:02
                -< An abstract of the presentations to follow >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an abstract of the presentations on the creation/evolution issue that
follow:

As design demonstrates the existence and capability of a designer, the inherent
design in life, the earth, and the universe implies the existence and
capability of its Designer.  The best source of information regarding a design
can be had by inquiring of the designer.  A designer provides better and more
authoritative information about his design than the design does about itself. 
In the case of life on earth, the Designer has unmistakenly identified Himself
and revealed specific information about the some of the circumstances
surrounding creation. [.2] 

Chance does not cause anything.  In fact, within the laws of probabilities 
and statistics we should not expect order and selection to be the result
of "random" processes.  Order and selection are the result of directed, 
non-random causes.  [.3]

Living matter does not and could not have been spontaneously generated from 
non-living matter.  The laws of biochemistry, probability and statistics,
and basic information theory are against it.  It has never been demonstrated
in the laboratory.  [.4] 

Effects caused by random genetic mutations are almost always bad, once in a
while produce some interesting benign abnormalities, and have never been shown
to be beneficial.  They don't and shouldn't be expected to result in complex
and sophisticated designs.  [.5] 

The "survival of the fittest" clause is a tautology, and success does not 
imply complexity.  Natural selection shouldn't be expected to result in
functionally different or more complex designs.  Putting natural selection
together with random genetic mutations doesn't help matters.  [.6] 

Genetics disproves evolution.  Animals vary based on coded genetic information
that is already there.  This is the principle of micro-evolution, which has
been verified by the scientific method.  [.7] 

The animals don't have ancestral dates attached to them.  Evolutionary
taxonomy is an effort based purely upon speculation and prior acceptance of 
the evolution model.  Similarity does not imply ancestry.  [.8] 

Any discussion of "transitional forms" is based purely upon speculation and 
conjecture, and is therefore moot and useless.  [.9]

The fossil record of life forms does not support evolution.  The animals now
fossilized were as complex back then as they are today, and seem to have
appeared abruptly.  The fossil record is consistent with creation according to
separate kinds.  "Hopeful monster" theories are without foundation and
fallacious.  [.10] 

The fossils themselves don't have dates attached to them.  Furthermore, the
process of fossilization should not be expected to occur gradually, but better
fits within the model of a geological catastrophe.  [.11] 

The various stratified layers of rock do not have dates attached to them.  The
ordering of fossils within them are best modeled as a consequence of a 
geological catastrophe.  Burial order does not imply ancestry.  The ordering 
is also too inconsistent to fit within the evolutionary model.  [.12] 

There is no basis for assuming uniform geological processes and ruling out
catastrophic events.  There is no basis for even assuming the uniform and
consistent application of natural law throughout all time.  Uniformitarianism
is an ideology without a foundation.  [.13] 

Current methods for dating rocks and organic material using radioisotopes
involve many assumptions about initial conditions and the environment that
are not known.  The dating results are inconsistent.  Things of known young
ages that have been dated using these methods have produced erroneous results.
These dating methods therefore cannot be considered reliable.  [.14]

Many dating methods exist which would similarly suggest that the earth is
thousands, not billions, of years old.  While these methods also have their own
set of unverifiable assumptions, they invalidate, or falsify, the few dating
methods that would seem to suggest an old age for the earth.  [.15] 

There is no substantial evidence for the existence of ape-men, or any hypo-
thetical sub-human ancestor to man.  As far as we know, there are, and have
always been a single species that was totally human since the beginning.  There
also exist and have existed various species of apes, some extinct, and some
still living.  [.16]

Science is limited to the study of natural phenomena, and is not sufficient
to evaluate the issue of either creation or evolution.  Nevertheless, the
fact of creation is obvious.  In conclusion, it may be stated that the
overwhelming evidence points to creation, and rules out evolution.  [.17]

Faith is "confident belief, trust", "being sure of what we hope for and certain
of what we do not see."  To believe evolution over creation one must ignore the
overwhelming evidence available for creation.  It is better to place our faith
in the Creator, rather than the creation.  [.18] 

Rebuttals are provided to common objections to the design argument and chance
argument.  [.19]

A quantitative comparison is made between a hypothetical message from outer
space and the complexity/coding of a living structure, demonstrating that if
one accepts purpose, planning, and intent as the cause for one, then one is
compelled to accept purpose, planning, and intent for the other.  [.20] 

A resource list of books, pamphlets, tracts, videos, magazines, and research
organizations is provided for further reference.  [.21]

================================================================================
Note 640.2                   Creation vs. Evolution                      2 of 22
NETCAD::WIEBE "Garth Wiebe"                         100 lines   1-DEC-1994 17:03
                           -< A defense of Creation >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the computer industry, we know that any computer system functions according
to a design and contains highly coded information.  Because of the complexity
of this design and the highly coded information, we attribute the origin of
design in such a machine to an intelligent designer and coder.  In fact, the
more sophisticated the machine, the more planning and forethought we attribute
to its development, and the more intelligence and ability we attribute to the
designer.  Computers themselves can assist as tools in the process of designing
other computers, but ultimately the origin of the design can be attributed to
careful planning and intent apart from the machine and tools themselves or any
process of nature. 

No one would suppose that something as complex and sophisticated as a computer
happened together by chance or by natural processes -- this would be considered
an absurd proposition.  So it is with life forms on earth. 

Life on earth is far more complex than computer equipment.  In fact, the 
collective know-how of the greatest minds in all of human history have failed
to produce a machine of the sophistication and success of even the simplest
replicating life forms.  The inherent design in the life forms on earth and the
coded information contained therein must be attributed to a designer of vastly
superior intelligence and ability than man. 

It is set forth here as something obvious that design proves a designer and
coded information demonstrates a coder.  We simply conclude from consistent 
life-experiences that when we stumble across something that has design, this
demonstrates the existence of a designer, and likewise that coded information
demonstrates the existence of a coder.  From consistent experience we also know
that a creator is not the creation, but that a creator exists outside his
creation.  The evidence in the world around us, by itself, is reason for us to
deduce the existence of a Creator, who exists outside of his creation.  (See
Rom 1:19-20, Heb 1:3) 

I am an engineer by trade.  If I want to find out how a particular piece
of computer equipment was designed, I can go about it in a couple of different
ways.  One thing I can do is examine the piece of equipment, taking it apart,
measuring it, etc., to try to come to a conclusion about what makes it tick. 
The other thing I can do is go find the designer and either talk to him or
consult the blueprints and other documentation associated with the device.
Of the two methods, the source of the most authoritative information is to
consult the designer and his documentation.

From the principle that the design in life forms today demonstrate the
existence of their creator, the surest way to resolve the creation/evolution
controversy is to see if that creator has revealed specific information about
the circumstances concerning the implementation of the design. 

Written testimony from the Creator includes things like (paraphrased):  "I am
the only God who ever existed or ever will -- there is no other god besides
me." (see Isa 43:10); "I created the universe by myself.  There was no one else
with me when I did it." (see Isa 44:24); "God created the heavens and the earth
in six days"; "God created each animal after its own kind".  "God created the
first man Adam from the dust of the ground, and the first woman Eve from the
first man's rib" (see Gen 1-2). 

Now, anyone can claim to be the creator, and anyone can fabricate information
as if it was from the creator.  One of the important things we must look for 
is evidence that a piece of spoken or written testimony really did come from
the creator. 

As Creator, God has validated his testimony by causing things to happen in
his creation which are specifically intended for us to take note of his 
existence and his specific revelation to us.  We call these phenomena
"miraculous", because they are supernatural phenomena.  

Examples of God's supernatural intervention are such as:  Parting the Red Sea,
allowing a virgin to conceive, saying that he will flood the whole earth, then
doing it; predicting events in the future with 100% accuracy; incarnating
himself as a man, allowing his body to be killed and buried, then raising
himself up from the dead after three days.  Multiple witnesses have seen these
things happen and heard the Creator speak, and have written them down as
reliable testimony which we can now refer back to.  Such events are not
considered natural phenomena, and so by definition fall outside the realm of
scientific inquiry. 

Keep in mind that in accumulating information, we rely largely on indirect
information about what people have observed.  Even a scientist does this, and
an evolutionist does too.  An evolutionist cites most of his information from
written or spoken testimony by people who have observed things, and a minority
of information from personal experience.  Just like a creationist. 

An adequate defense of the authenticity and reliability of the ancient
historical records that make up what we now call the bible is beyond the scope
of this document, so will have to be assumed as a premise.  Although the bible
is not required to defend the fact of creation and the existence of the
Creator, it is required to defend the historical time frame and circumstances
in which creation happened, and the identity and personality of the Creator. 

We conclude that life on earth came about by a special creative act of God.  A
whole set of life forms, including man, was created at once.  This happened on
the order of several thousand years ago, and the process took less than a week.
We don't fully understand all the "hows" and the "whys" in every detail, but
we pursue further knowledge given those details that we are sure of, accepting
the authority of what the Creator has to say over the more limited information
we obtain by examining His creation.  The Creator is more knowledgeable, and
none of us was there to observe life come about on earth, anyway. 

Hopefully this not only provides a defense for "creation", but also explains
why "creationists" are always appealing to the Creator (God) and testimony that
comes from Him (the Bible).  Because if you really want to know about how
something was designed, it's best to first consult the person who designed it. 

================================================================================
Note 640.3                   Creation vs. Evolution                      3 of 22
NETCAD::WIEBE "Garth Wiebe"                          60 lines   1-DEC-1994 17:04
                         -< "Chance" is not a *cause* >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Chance" does not *cause* anything.

If I flip a coin, you might say that there is a 50% chance that it will
come up heads, and a 50% chance that it will come up tails.  But this is
only an observation, not the cause for it to come up heads or tails.

Say I flip a coin, and it comes up heads.  What was the cause for it to come up
heads?  Consider:  We understand the laws of motion, statics and dynamics,
friction, etc.  If we could analyze each aspect of the position of the coin in
time and space, and take into account all the forces that act upon the coin, we
would conclude that the coin is doing just what it is supposed to do under the
circumstances.  In fact, if I could set up all the same conditions and flip the
coin again in exactly the same way, it would, by necessity, come up heads each
time.  It would take a miracle for it not to. 

The fact of the matter is that I am too clumsy, and lack the skill and ability
to cause a coin that I flip into the air to come down in any particular order. 
So we conclude that there isn't enough intelligence and skill behind my coin
flip and consequently we expect a random distribution of results.  We conclude
that it is my lack of skill and ability that will result in disorder and chaos. 

Probabilities and statistics are mathematical observations of things.  For
things that seem to occur in a random way, we attempt to predict an outcome
using a mathematical model.  If the results don't fit the model, then we must
conclude that either we have done our math wrong or the thing just isn't
behaving in a random way.  In the case of a sequence of coin flips, you expect
chaos and disorder in the long-term -- a random sequence of heads and tails. 

Suppose I announce that I am going to repeatedly flip a coin and hope to come
up with a sequence of all heads.  So I proceed to flip the coin, and it comes
up heads.  You say, "OK."  I flip it a second time, and it comes up heads
again.  You say, "OK."  I flip it again, and it comes up heads again.  You say
"Hmmm... OK."  Say I flip it again, and it comes up heads a fourth time.  You
say "Hmmm..."  Say I flip it again, and it comes up heads a fifth time.  You
say "Wait a minute, what's going on here."  I flip it again, and it comes up
heads a sixth time.  You say "Stop, this isn't fair."  I say, "Why".  You say,
"It isn't random.  You're doing something to make that coin come up heads each
time."  I flip it again, and it comes up heads a seventh time.  I say, "Look,
millions of people have flipped coins throughout history.  This was bound to
happen sooner or later."  I flip it again, and it comes up heads an eighth
time.  You say "Come on, what are you doing?".  I flip it again, and it comes
up heads a ninth time.  I say, "Nothing.  Really!  I'm just flipping this coin
and it keeps coming up heads by chance."  I flip it again, and it comes up
heads a tenth time.  You say, "You're a liar.  What do you take me for, some
sort of fool?" 

Now, if it is true that a million people have tossed coins throughout history
then maybe you should have waited until at least 20 throws (since 2^20 is a
million), before even considering crying "foul".  But most people, in fact,
won't.  Why did the observer in the above example not wait that long?  Because
after 10 tries, he concluded that he could call the coin-thrower a liar based
on the non-random results.  Statistically, he would have only 1 chance in a
thousand of being wrong!

Given the immensely lower probability of things happening in the evolutionary
scheme of things, one should conclude, (to be consistent,) that evolution
didn't happen.  That person would have a 1 in 1000000000000...(fill in desired 
number of zeros)...0 chance of being wrong, solely on the basis of sheer
probabilities.  In any case, this person is not to be taken for some sort of
fool. 

================================================================================
Note 640.4                   Creation vs. Evolution                      4 of 22
NETCAD::WIEBE "Garth Wiebe"                         127 lines   1-DEC-1994 17:05
                -< Life from non-life: Spontaneous Biogenesis? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In considering creation/evolution, we must keep in mind that "chance" does not
cause anything.  A person defending evolution often excludes an intelligent
creator as an explanation for the cause of things happening, and in the void
substitutes "chance".  But "chance" can be one of the evolutionist's worst
enemies. 

First of all, what the evolutionist's "chance" creates (figuratively speaking),
the evolutionist's "chance" ought to destroy, in the long run.  Chance is
equated with randomness, and randomness is equated with disorder and chaos. 
Life on earth is an example of incredible order and complexity.  What, then,
was the cause for this order and complexity? 

The classic evolutionary concept of spontaneous biogenesis involves living
matter coming about from non-living material by chance.  For example, let us
suppose that in a hypothetical primordial sea, ammonia, water, methane and
energy can combine to form amino acids.  That this first step can happen is
indisputable, and has been verified through laboratory experiment (Miller,
1953).  However, to proceed beyond this point to living proteins by chance
would involve a major miracle of such great proportion that one would think
it easier to just accept the obvious (...that it didn't happen by chance). 

Amino acids are molecules that have a three-dimensional geometry.  Any 
particular molecule can exist in either of two mirror-image structures that we
call left-handed and right-handed (in layman's terms).  Living matter consists
only of left-handed amino acids.  Right-handed amino acids are not useful to
living organisms, and are in fact often lethal.  The random formation of amino
acids produces an equal proportion of left-handed and right-handed molecules.
This has been confirmed by laboratory experiment, and is essentially what
Miller produced in his famous test-tube experiment (putting methane, ammonia,
and water in a solution and zapping them with electrical discharges.) 

Life as we know it cannot consist of a mixture of left-handed and right-handed
amino acids.  So it would take an enormous sequence of coin-flips (in which the
coin came up heads each time) to come up with a protein that could constitute
living matter.  Yet there is more... 

Proteins consist of amino acids linked together with only peptide bonds.  Amino
acids can also combine with non-peptide bonds just as easily.  In fact,
origin-of-life experiments in the laboratory yield only about 50% peptide
bonds.  So, it would take another enormous sequence of coin flips to come up
with a protein that could constitute living matter.  Yet there is more... 

Any particular protein contains amino acids that are linked together in a 
particular sequence geometrically.  At a minimum, that sequence must be correct
for any given protein at all the active sites, which comprise about half of the
amino acids in the protein.  Proteins contain anywhere from 50 to as many as
1750 amino acids, depending on the particular protein.

There are about 20 basic amino acids that comprise the basic building blocks of
life.  Any particular protein must have all the correct left-handed amino acids
joined with only peptide bonds with the correct amino acids at all the active
sites.  Yet there is more... 

Let us consider the sequence of chemical reactions necessary for us (or rather,
"nobody") to produce one particular protein contained in living matter:  One
amino acid *can* combine with another amino acid in a condensation reaction to
produce a peptide (two amino acids linked with a peptide bond) and water.  One
peptide *can* combine with another peptide in a condensation reaction to
produce a polypeptide and water.  And so goes the sequence of chemical
reactions that supposedly *can* produce one protein essential to living
organisms that *can* reproduce.  Let's stop again, and consider what has
happened thus far. 

Each condensation reaction described above is reversible.  That is, it can
occur just as easily in either the forward or the reverse direction.  That
means that "randomness" would be consistent with things breaking down as easily
as they are being put together.  But to top it off, the popular scenario
involves things happening in a primordial sea, implying an excess of water. 
Since a condensation reaction produces water, and there is already excess water
in the presence of the chemical reaction, there is much more opportunity for
any complex molecule to break down into the more simple ones.  Thus, a 
polypeptide *should* combine with excess water to produce monopeptides, and a
monopeptide *should* combine with excess water to produce amino acids.  The
initial reagents of the supposed equations that are given as a pathway to life
are favored, in the presence of excess water.  Yet there is more... 

Amino acids can react and form bonds with other chemical compounds, and not
just other amino acids.  Assuming that there is more in our "primordial sea"
than just amino acids and water, we will encounter scenarios where these other
reactions will take place instead of the ones we want to produce a protein.

An oxygen-rich atmosphere, such as we have today, is one example of what
would ruin the chemical reactions proposed for the origin of life.  It is
for this reason that we have the Oparin Hypothesis, which states that the
atmosphere must have originally been reducing, rather than oxidizing,
containing very little free oxygen, and an abundance of hydrogen and gases
like methane and ammonia.  Circular reasoning is employed to defend the
Oparin Hypothesis.

The above only considers the formation of a single protein, not to mention
that there are many different kinds of proteins necessary to form the simplest
single-cell organisms.  And we haven't even begun to address the formation of
the various nucleic acids and other chemical constituents of life, which must
be simultaneously present (...by chance).  Finally, all these must occur in
in a specific arrangement to form a complex structure that would make for a
reproducing organism (...by chance).

Some evolutionists are proposing that not proteins, but DNA or RNA occurred
first.  Consider that this is moot, since the same amount of information must
be coded into the nucleic acid to synthesize a protein as is represented by
structure of the protein itself.  This makes such scenarios to be at least as
unlikely.  In fact, both the DNA/RNA code and the proteins must be
simultaneously present in the simplest known independent self-replicating
organism before that organism can be considered functional. 

The spontaneous organization of nucleic acids into DNA or RNA suffers in
concept from the same problems that the spontaneous organization of amino
acids suffers from.  All nucleic acids must be right-handed, form particular
bonds, in a particular arrangement, in chemical reactions that proceed in
a particular direction and aren't spoiled by other chemical reactions.

Some evolutionists are proposing that life originated not in a primordial
sea, but on some clay template.  Again, this is moot, since the clay template
must by necessity be as complex as what is formed on the template.  This makes
such scenarios to be at least as unlikely.  Furthermore, the evolution of
informational "defects" in the crystalline structures of clays has never been
observed or demonstrated in theory.  Shifting the medium for evolution from 
biological molecules to polyaluminum silicates solves nothing.

The classic examples given for the formation of some of the basic building
blocks of life by chance therefore lacks substance on a theoretical basis both
according to the principles of chemistry, the principles of probability and
statistics, and the principles of basic information theory. 

Without proper theoretical or experimental basis, a scientific hypothesis
cannot be supported.  The formation of living matter from non-living matter
by chance remains within the realm of speculation without foundation.

================================================================================
Note 640.5                   Creation vs. Evolution                      5 of 22
NETCAD::WIEBE "Garth Wiebe"                          62 lines   1-DEC-1994 17:06
                         -< Random genetic mutations >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of us understand that the information that represents the data and 
instructions for a computer program has a particular code, designed
specifically by the software engineer.  What would we expect to happen
if, once the program was loaded and running, we zapped the binary 
image from which it was executing with a random change of some data bit?

In most cases, the program would probably crash, or seriously fail to 
accomplish anything useful.  In a very few cases, the program might 
exhibit some interesting aberrant behavior.  But in no cases would we expect
to get a more complex program, or a program of a totally different kind. 

So it is with random genetic mutations.  Life forms are more complex than 
any computer program that we have ever designed.  Random genetic mutations 
are bad.  When they have an observable effect, they are almost always to the
detriment of the organism, killing it, maiming it, making it sterile, etc. 
Sometimes, interesting aberrations are the result.  But never has anybody
observed such a mutation benefit an organism, much less create a more complex
or different kind of life form. 

Chance does not cause anything.  Things that are caused by processes that 
we observe to be "random" we associate with increasing disorder, not more
complex design.  It has been claimed that mutations are the result of random
causes, such as ionizing radiation.

Random genetic mutations are claimed to be a key factor by which simple life
forms evolve to more complex ones.  A scientific hypothesis is tested through
laboratory experiment/observation and theoretical analysis.  Regarding random
genetic mutations being a plausible factor for evolution to occur, we may
conclude the following: 

	- In a theoretical sense, the claim fails based on sheer probabilities
	  and statistics.  Randomness is associated with disorder, and 
	  disorder is not associated with selection.

	- In an empirical sense, the claim fails, since no one has 
	  demonstrated that random genetic mutations are ever to an organism's
	  benefit.  They have never been observed to create more complex
	  or functionally different kinds of life forms.

When considering the idea of "beneficial mutations", keep in mind that mere
reproductive success in the presence of a particular environment is not
sufficient to account for innovative functionality and increased complexity.
One can imagine a scenario where a runaway computer program, as a consequence
of its malfunction, begins to consume system resources beyond what it was
designed to, even getting in the way of the proper execution of other programs
that are also running under the same operating system.  That program may have
been more than successful in its own right, but it experienced a deterioration
of function that was not advantageous in the grand scheme of things. 

Sickle-cell anemia is an example of a mutation which gives one a reproductive
advantage over normal people in scenarios where malaria is rampant, because
people with sickle-cell anemia aren't as susceptible to malaria.  But
sickle-cell anemia itself is a lethal disease, and represents a deterioration
of function when compared with a normal person who has no disease.  If malaria
became so rampant in the world that only people with sickle-cell anemia
survived, then the final population would be worse off functionally than the
non-mutant population that lived before the plague hit.  This is not evolution.

The important thing to remember is that random genetic mutations are the 
consequence of random noise corrupting highly coded information.  In the long
run, living things should be expected to deteriorate as a whole, implying the
reverse of evolution.  If anything, the complex should evolve into the simple.

================================================================================
Note 640.6                   Creation vs. Evolution                      6 of 22
NETCAD::WIEBE "Garth Wiebe"                          66 lines   2-DEC-1994 04:46
                             -< Natural Selection >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The concept of natural selection involves a tautology, and is not a cause
that would be expected to result in different or more complex designs.

A tautology is a statement that includes all possibilities and is therefore
always true.  A tautology cannot be used in defense of a position, since
it is a restatement of the obvious and contributes no useful information.

Here is the "survival of the fittest" tautology:

	Q:  Who survives?                 A:  Why, the fittest do, of course!
	Q:  And what do the fittest do?   A:  Why, they survive, of course!

Every instance of an animal living or dying can be explained by the "survival
of the fittest" clause, regardless of whether evolution or creation actually
took place.

Consider how natural selection applies even in the computer industry, where we
know the origin of things.  The good computers sell and people buy the good
computers.  The lousy computers don't sell, and people don't buy the lousy
computers.  The proliferation of the best computers and the extinction of the
worst is observed.  And lo and behold, the computers have actually gotten
better and more sophisticated.  But this is not an explanation for the origin
of the the computers and their inherent functionality, just their survival in
the marketplace.  In each case, every aspect of the sophistication and
complexity of a computer can be attributed to intelligent design by actual
designers. 

The neo-darwinian evolutionist should be challenged to explain by what process
of nature the innovative functionality of life forms originates.  Predators
eating prey is not a vehicle for the origin of any innovative functionality --
only its possible destruction if one trait should be driven to extinction.  And
random genetic mutations should be expected to corrupt the existing coded
genetic information.  Furthermore, the animals, their predators, and cosmic
radiation have not been shown to be working in some sort of grand coalition
with each other towards a common engineering effort. 

This last point is worth repeating, for evolutionists tend to provide a
circular justification based upon random genetic mutations and natural
selection.  When it is pointed out that random genetic mutations are but
meaningless noise, the evolutionist counters that natural selection filters it
into something useful.  When it is pointed out that natural selection doesn't
provide any new genetic codes, the evolutionist counters that new information
arrives through genetic mutations.  But cosmic radiation and other natural
environmental influences are random, and predators are self-serving, merely
purposing to kill and eat those less fit to survive, *leaving alone* those who
are more fit to survive.  And the mere fact that these survivors are successful
doesn't compel them to be endowed with new functions and codes that weren't
there before.  In fact, we should expect just the opposite in the presence of
cosmic noise. 

Success does not imply complexity.  Evolutionists should be challenged to 
explain why higher life forms, such as humans, are to be favored over lower
life forms, such as bacteria, in the fight for survival.

Since neither natural selection nor random genetic mutations nor the two put
together have been demonstrated as a vehicle for the design of innovative
functionality, the concept of neo-darwinian evolution (design by mutation +
natural selection) cannot be supported, scientifically or otherwise.  We should
instead expect variations in animals that are limited to already-existing
genetic information. 

In the long run, the opposite of evolution should be expected to occur as
the total pool of highly coded genetic information is gradually corrupted. 
Complete extinction of all life forms is the ultimate end, as the pool of
genetic information finally deteriorates into random data that is no longer
useful to fulfill its intended purpose. 

================================================================================
Note 640.7                   Creation vs. Evolution                      7 of 22
NETCAD::WIEBE "Garth Wiebe"                          57 lines   1-DEC-1994 17:07
                       -< Genetics and Micro-evolution >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Genetics disproves evolution.

Given that neither random genetic mutations, nor natural selection, nor both
put together can be considered a vehicle for one kind of animal to change into
a functionally different or more complex kind of animal, then variations in
interbreeding animals must be restricted to what is already in the gene pool. 

One classic example given for evolution is the peppered moth.  In the mid-19th
century, 98% of peppered moths were light.  The light moths blended in well 
with the mottled gray lichen on the trees.  With the industrial age, pollution
killed the lichen on the trees, making them dark.  Birds selected the light
moths for their meal, and overlooked the dark moths.  By the mid-20th century,
98% of the moths were dark. 

Question:  What did the peppered moth evolve into?  Answer:  A peppered moth.

Each species of animals has a gene pool.  A gene pool is simply all the 
different genes that all the members of a species collectively has.  Already-
existing genetic information allows for variations to occur among members of
that species, as individuals within that species interbreed.  In the case of
the peppered moth, the genetic information already existed in the gene pool,
and one genetic trait became more common in the population as a result of the
changing environment and the fact that birds use their eyes to spot their meal.

Variations such as this demonstrate the concept of micro-evolution.  A
scientific hypothesis is verified through theoretical analysis and laboratory
experiment/observation.  Micro-evolution can be demonstrated in theory
(according to the rules of genetics), and in practice by observation. 

It is important not to quickly jump to the conclusion that any particular 
beneficial trait was due to a mutation.  Already-existing genetic information
can find latent expression in the presence of new environments.  Also, there
are genes that can turn on and off upon being subjected to a particular
environment.  Evolutionists cite all sorts of alleged examples of beneficial
mutations.  The burden of proof is on them, however, to show that a particular
beneficial trait was a mutation to begin with. 

It should also be noted that sometimes animals within one species form distinct
groups which no longer interbreed.  Since the word "species", by definition, is
a group of animals which interbreed, you might say that new "species" of
animals has been formed.  Does this demonstrate evolution? 

No it does not.  In fact, this also works to disprove evolution.  Evolution
requires that the gene pool be expanded, to allow for more variations to occur.
Instead, what has happened here is that the gene pool for each of the splinter
groups has gotten smaller.  Each new group has a smaller set of genetic traits
in its collective pool of genes, and so will now exhibit less variation over
future generations.  Since less variation means less of an ability for the new
species to collectively adapt to its environment, then we should expect a
greater likelihood of extinction (not evolution) to occur if this process of
speciation is taken to its limit. 

The important thing to remember in all of this is that the genetic information
was already there from the beginning.  And further advances in selective
breeding and genetic engineering will only further disprove evolution by
demonstrating that such selective changes in life forms requires planning and
intent.

================================================================================
Note 640.8                   Creation vs. Evolution                      8 of 22
NETCAD::WIEBE "Garth Wiebe"                          27 lines   1-DEC-1994 17:08
                            -< What about Taxonomy >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarity does not imply ancestry.

Taxonomy involves classifying animals according to their physical or genetic 
characteristics.  There are countless species, and among them there are many
similarities, physically and genetically.  

One who is an evolutionist tends to look at the similarities and conclude that
there must be common ancestries between various kinds of animals.

One who is a creationist tends to look at the similarities and conclude that
there must be a common designer and design principles for all the various
kinds of animals. 

In both cases, the conclusion is based on prior acceptance of either the
principle of evolution or creation.  

Correlation does not imply a cause-effect relationship.  If two life forms
"A" and "B" are similar, this does not imply that "B" evolved from "A", any
more than it implies that "A" evolved from "B".  Evolutionary charts drawn up
to illustrate ancestral relationships between all the various life forms are
therefore entirely hypothetical and speculative to begin with.  And it would
be circular reasoning to argue that the charts support evolution.

The important point to keep in mind is that all the animals exist in the
present.  Fossils also exist in the present.  We weren't there to observe
either evolution or creation happen.  So similarities between species do
not demonstrate that either creation or evolution happened.

================================================================================
Note 640.9                   Creation vs. Evolution                      9 of 22
NETCAD::WIEBE "Garth Wiebe"                          32 lines   1-DEC-1994 17:09
                            -< Transitional Forms >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The issue of whether or not "transitional forms" exist is not a productive
topic to debate in the creation/evolution controversy. 

Some evolutionists use similarities between three particular animals to argue
that animal A evolved into animal B based on the fact that animal X exists. 

Some creationists use the dissimilarities between these same animals to argue
that animal A did not evolve into animal X and animal X did not evolve into
animal B. 

Said evolutionists keep seeking to justify their "transitional forms" on
account of the similarities and despite the differences. 

Said creationists keep seeking to rule out "transitional forms" on account
of the differences and despite the similarities.

Anything is good enough for the evolutionist, and nothing is good enough for
the creationist.  Neither will ever satisfy the other or a discerning observer.

A scientific theory is validated through experimental observation and/or 
theoretical evaluation.

Neither party actually observed the origin of animals A, B, or X, and so is
not qualified to argue scientifically from an experimental perspective whether
or not animal X is a "transitional form". 

Neither party can justify the origin of animals A, B, or X from a theoretical
perspective, since no scientific theory exists to explain why animals A, B, 
or X must exist with their particular characteristics.

It can be concluded that a discussion of "transitional forms" is moot and
useless.

>     Note 64.461  SEAPIG::PERCIVAL 
	
>	By your (misused) definitiotn of entropy, it would be impossible
>	for a fertilized ovum to develop into a human being.

    Not at all.  The energy comes from an external source (the mother), who
    in turn gets energy from food.  The fertilized ovum develops inot a
    human being via a PLAN (DNA), which is something that the evolutionary
    model is missing in its entirety.  
    
    Any evidence can fit into the evolutionary model, as it is so broad as
    to encompass nearly anything.  Placing physical evidence (say bones)
    into this model is easy...confirming the model itself, is not.  It is
    circular reasoning to place archaological findings within this model,
    and then using these finding to back up the model. 
    
>	Nonsenical ignorance of the subject matter does nothing to
>	forward your argument.

    Ad hominem responses are not beneficial to any argument.
    
>	Do you consider it a violation of the laws of science that I am
>	writing this message to you? 
    
    Nope.
    
>    Using a piece of hardware that was
>	at one time nothing more than ore, sand and a few long chain
>	polymers? 
    
    Yes, but outside forces turned the basic elements into a more complex
    form, via a PLAN and a purpose.
    
>    Would you consider a CPU chip to be more complex than
>	a pile of sand? Does this violate the laws of science?

    Nope...once again, the CPU chip comes about due to outside forces that
    implement a specific plan for a purpose.
    
>	Very good Steve. Your science teachers were not completely
>	incompetent.

    They'll be happy to hear that, I'm sure.
    
>	Did you ever take Chemistry? Did you ever produce water from
>	Hydrogen and Oxygen?

    But guess what?  Once again, we have an outside force creating a more
    complex form out of simpler forms via a plan.  
    
>> How is it used in such a
>>    conversion of energy? 

>	It SUPPLIES the energy required for the conversion.

    Without some sort of plan, it seems hopelessly naive to believe that
    everything randomly came together via chaotic outside energies to
    create systems magnetudes more complex, even over billions of years. 
    Disorder is not the parent of order.  You can have all the outside
    energy you like, but without some sort of blueprint, it seems
    impossible to continually evolve to more complex forms out of pure
    chance and time, against the observed phenomina (and excepted
    scientific law) of entropy.
 
>	Philisophically, you are withing your rights to reject science.
    
    No rejection necessary.  I question the conclusion that scientists have
    made regarding evidence used to support the evolutionary model.  
    
>	But please don't ask us to join you in your ignorance.
    
    So, I am ignorant because, unlike you, I question the evolutionary
    model?  Seems it has quite a few holes in it, and that it is best to
    remain sceptical over it until said holes are filled in.
    
    Maybe the creation model has problems, too, on the scientific realm. 
    That's why I remain sceptical on this model, too (though I do believe
    by *faith* that however He decided to do it, God created the universe
    and all life in it).
    
    
    -steve

================================================================================
Note 640.10                  Creation vs. Evolution                     10 of 22
NETCAD::WIEBE "Garth Wiebe"                          41 lines   1-DEC-1994 17:09
                      -< The fossil record of life forms >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fossil record of life does not support evolution.

The fossils which are found in what are usually considered the lowest deposits
are alleged to belong to the Cambrian era of approximately 800 million years
ago.  In these rocks are found the fossils of various shellfish and
crustaceans, sponges, worms, jellyfish, and various other complex invertebrate
life forms. 

If you were to go scuba diving today, explored the bottom of the ocean, and
then explored a hypothetical ocean full of the life forms that are now
represented by Cambrian fossils, you would probably not be able to tell the
difference, except that many species have now become extinct (e.g. trilobites).
In all, you would find fewer life forms today than you would in this "fossil
ocean".  This in itself would suggest the opposite of evolution. 

Furthermore, suppose we grant genetic mutations as the proposed vehicle for
change.  No evolutionist would debate the fact that most genetic mutations are
bad.  If so, then we should expect the geologic column to be littered with all
sorts of mutant animals that were not fit to survive.  But we find that this is
not the case. 

Charles Darwin actually represented the fossil evidence as being a hostile
witness to his theory, as documented in his famous book "The Origin of 
Species".  He claimed that the abrupt appearance of life and lack of
transitional forms was the most serious objection to his theory. 

However, it should be noted that the fossil record of life-forms does not prove
either evolution or creation, even though it is most consistent with the
latter.  Neither does the fossil record disprove either evolution or creation. 
The fossils that exist, exist in the present.  And the fossils that don't exist
prove nothing.  We weren't there to observe either creation or evolution
happen.  Prior belief in either evolution or creation determines how one
interprets the data, whether it be eons of evolutionary history preserved in
gradual deposition, or catastrophic burial from a worldwide flood. 

Today, more and more evolutionists are turning to other theories, such as the
"hopeful monster" theory, in which Ma and Pa X-o-saur simply give birth to a
Z-o-pus (without proposing the vehicle by which such a thing could happen, or
explaining where said Z-o-pus would get its mate).  Another proposal is the
"life seeded by aliens from outer space" theory, which also has no foundation
and just shifts the problem to some other planet.  

================================================================================
Note 640.11                  Creation vs. Evolution                     11 of 22
NETCAD::WIEBE "Garth Wiebe"                          28 lines   1-DEC-1994 17:10
                               -< Fossilization >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"But doesn't the existence of fossils demonstrate that life has been around
for hundreds of millions of years?"  No it doesn't.

When we talk about fossils, we usually refer to the petrified remains of
animals that died a long time ago.  It is often claimed that animals which have
died fall to the ground and are slowly buried by the accumulation of sediment
and fossilized in the process.  This is not a reasonable assumption, nor is it
supported by experimental observation. 

When an animal or plant dies, its remains are quickly eaten by scavengers
and decomposed by bacteria, etc.  Any remains are also affected by weather.
Fish in the sea that have died usually float to the surface and are soon eaten
(as opposed to settling down on the sea floor, waiting to be slowly buried by 
sediment and fossilized.)  How then, should we expect a fossil to be formed? 

The most reasonable explanation involves a catastrophe.  To get such a fossil,
you would have to suddenly and quickly bury the animal under tons of sediment,
so that it would be isolated from scavengers, deprived of oxygen which bacteria
need to decompose it, and excluded from the effects of weather.  Only then
should you expect the petrification process to work. 

Also, these fossils in and of themselves do not give any indication of the
age of the animals that they represent, for they are just impressions of
once-living organisms that have died. 

Scientists who are not set on ignoring the biblical record generally agree that
fossils are most likely the result of the worldwide flood that is described in
the Genesis record, with its cataclysmic geological implications.

================================================================================
Note 640.12                  Creation vs. Evolution                     12 of 22
NETCAD::WIEBE "Garth Wiebe"                          58 lines   1-DEC-1994 17:10
               -< Stratified layers of rock containing fossils >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burial order does not imply ancestry.

In many places in the world, you can find stratified layers of rock, in which
are embedded various fossils.  The fossils found in each layer make up an
approximately ordered sequence, from the fish in the lowest layers to the
land-dwelling mammals in the highest. 

The evolutionist and the creationist derive different stories from this
picture, depending on the prior acceptance of either evolution or creation.

The evolutionist pictures a gradual build-up of each stratum, or layer,
over hundreds of millions of years of the accumulation of sediment, gradually
fossilizing dead animals in the process.  The oldest evolved life forms that
supposedly arose out of the sea are logically to be found in the lowest layers.
The most recently evolved life forms are to be found in the highest layers. 

The creationist pictures a global catastrophe (the flood), which over a very
short period of time causes the sudden upheaval and deposition of earth and
sediment in some geographical areas.  This upheaval buries animals in that
ecological niche, dumping layer upon layer of sediment on them amidst swirling
underwater currents.  The fish are naturally to be found at the bottom because
they dwelt in the lowest elevations, in ponds, lakes, and rivers.  They were
the first to be buried, and the least able to escape the deluge.  The mammals
are to be found at the top, because they lived in the highest elevations in the
region, and also were the best equipped to escape the deluge, resulting in them
being the last and the fewest to be buried. 

The problem with evolutionary thinking is that fossils of various "evolutionary
periods" are not consistently found in the proper strata.  In many places,
fossils representing "more recent" life forms are found in strata far below
their supposed ancestors.  The classic picture that is now found in textbooks
was actually standardized in the first part of the 19th century based on strata
found in Scotland and England, and hasn't changed much since.  And there isn't
a single place on earth in which this textbook "geologic column" is represented
in its completeness. 

The existence of polystratic fossils (fossil life forms that are found buried
vertically through several layers of strata, such as trees and long cone-shaped
mollusks) also disproves the evolution story, since this would require that the
organic remains of such life forms remain intact and unfossilized for millions
of years in place above the ground, awaiting the deposition of successive
layers of strata. 

For the evolutionist, the mere existence of polystrates and fossils of "recent"
life forms below the fossils of their "ancestors" disproves their hypothesis. 
Evolutionists cannot explain polystrates at all, and they resort to theories of
"overthrusting" to explain how older strata ends up over newer strata, even
though such a phenomena has never been observed, and even though they cannot
explain where the geologic forces should originate.  Overthrust theories also
demonstrate circular reasoning, as evolutionists try to use the geologic column
to support their theory, then use their theory to explain away inconsistencies
in the geologic column. 

However, the creationist acknowledges that the ordering would be approximate,
based on the chaotic nature of the flood, and that different strata models
would be found in different parts of the world, based upon the local ecosystem
and what animals dwelt in it.  And fossils buried through several layers of
strata would obviously not be a problem.

================================================================================
Note 640.13                  Creation vs. Evolution                     13 of 22
NETCAD::WIEBE "Garth Wiebe"                         129 lines   1-DEC-1994 17:11
                    -< Uniformitarianism vs. Catastrophism >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uniformitarianism is the philosophy wherein it is assumed that the geologic
features of the earth have been laid down through uniform processes, gradual
erosion and gradual sedimentation being examples.  A philosophical extension of
this principle is that all phenomena in the universe can be explained by the
uniform application of the laws of nature -- put another way, that all
phenomena are natural phenomena.  A philosophical consequence of this principle
is that there is no Creator who exists outside of the creation able and willing
to intervene in the natural order in a supernatural way. 

Catastrophism is the viewpoint wherein it is assumed that some of the features
of the earth have been laid down as a result of a worldwide catastrophe.  A
philosophical extension of this principle is that some phenomena may be
explained by exceptions to the laws of nature -- put another way, that not all
phenomena are natural phenomena.  A philosophical consequence of this principle
is that there is the allowance for a Creator who exists outside of the creation
able and willing to intervene in the natural order in a supernatural way. 

Since at least one worldwide catastrophe has been historically documented,
catastrophism is backed by historical record.

Uniformitarianism has no backing for it.  It is just a baseless presupposition.
Even if uniformitarianists don't accept the historical record, they have no
scientific basis for assuming that a worldwide catastrophe has not ever
occurred. 

A scientific theory is validated through theory and experiment.

	No theory exists to show that a worldwide catastrophe cannot occur.

	No experiment has been done to show that a worldwide catastrophe
	cannot occur.

	No theory exists to show that all phenomena are natural phenomena.

	No experiment has been done to show that a supernatural phenomenon
	cannot occur.

Evolution is defended based upon the assumption of uniformitarianism.  Because
uniformitarianism is not defensible, therefore its application in the defense
of evolution is not valid. 

No man was there to both observe and document the formation of the major 
geological features of the earth.  Neither do the features have dates attached
to them in any coded form.

The idea of gradual sedimentation and fossilization already mentioned are
examples of uniformitarian interpretations.  Other examples range from multiple
Ice AgeS and plate tectonics, to such cosmological assumptions as that the
speed of light has always been the same as what it is now (implying that the
universe must be old because it took the light from stars so long to get here.)

Multiple Ice AgeS seem to be a basic assumption in geography books and are
spoken of occurring in a time frame of at least hundreds of thousands of years,
consequently precluding an earth that is only several thousand years old.  This
is nothing more than an assumption, based on other unverifiable assumptions,
including even the assumption that N00,000 layers of ice were laid down
annually. 

Yet, in the polar ice has been uncovered large coal deposits and the frozen
remains of animals and plants which used to live there.  The meat of some
animals is so well preserved that it has been fed to livestock.  Corals, which
can only survive at temperatures above 20 degrees Celsius, frozen fruit trees,
and other tropical life forms are found in the polar regions. 

The interesting thing is that fruit trees have been found frozen with the fruit
still on them, and woolly mammoths frozen with food still in their mouths.
What caused them to freeze so quickly?

Plate tectonics assumes that the continents of the earth are riding upon 
some huge geologic conveyer belts that meet at the mid-oceanic ridges.  But
where do the mechanical forces come from to operate such a mechanism?  And
why are there multiple fractures perpendicular to the ridges?

Scientists who accept creation have suggested some reasonable explanations
as alternatives to conventional wisdom.  These should not be touted as
scientific facts, or theories, but working hypotheses: 

The presence of a vapor canopy over the earth, similar to that found on
Venus and Saturn's moon, Titan, would create an incredible greenhouse
effect on the earth, making the climate tropical all over the globe.  
Genesis 1:7 says "And God made the firmament (expanse of the sky) and 
divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which 
were above the firmament."

What may be submitted as one alternative to the "gradual ice age" concept is
that at the time of the flood, there was an immense vapor canopy around the
earth which collapsed (the "floodgates of heaven" -- Gen 7:11).  The polar
regions and significantly beyond were immediately frozen.  In time, the global
environment and atmosphere stabilized, and a good portion the ice extending
down from the polar regions receded.  All this happened orders of magnitude
faster than what is now assumed, yielding a single "ice age".  After the flood,
a rainbow provided as a sign of God's covenant (Gen 9:13-14).  (Underneath a
world-wide vapor canopy, a rainbow would not be possible.) 

Another alternative is that at the time of the flood, there was an immense
subterranean chamber of water ("the fountains of the great deep" - Gen 7:11)
which collapsed under the weight of the earth above it, spewing water/vapor and
mud into the atmosphere which primed the hydrodynamic cycle and precipitated as
rain, or was frozen high in the atmosphere and fell to the earth in the polar
regions as ice, cold enough to freeze animals on contact.  Perhaps also coal
and oil deposits in the polar regions are there because huge mats of uprooted
vegetation *floated* there during the Flood. 

This latter scenario, referred to as the "hydroplate hypothesis" contradicts
the popular plate tectonics hypothesis (and also possibly the vapor canopy 
hypothesis).  It also explains (hypothetically) many more geologic features of
the earth.  Consequently, the mid-oceanic ridges are not the intersection of
moving plates, but the place where the earth underneath where the layer above
the water first cracked and gave way bulged up.  The continents are not 
constantly moving on some geologic conveyer belt, but literally slid on top of
the water of the collapsing subterranean chamber to their present locations,
where they are now nearly motionless.  The mountains were formed where the
continents eventually hit something and buckled upwards.  Paleomagnetic
anomalies showing "reversals" (actually not complete reversals in flux, but
reversals about an average non-zero flux level) reflect originally magnetized
materials that moved away from the mid oceanic ridges.  The continental shelf
defines the edge of the original plates, and is submersed under only shallow
water because that is where the edge of the newly-formed continents, rapidly
eroded by moving water underneath, submerged and settled. 

An adequate description of the hydroplate hypothesis, its geologic
implications, and a comparison to conventional geologic explanations is beyond 
the scope of this document.  The descriptions above are merely meant to
illustrate that there are alternatives to conventional wisdom (dogma, really)
that is based upon uniformitarianism, which is not defensible. 

In any case, once the allowance is made for an all-powerful creator, it is
a small matter to allow for him to have acted supernaturally upon the earth,
which means that a natural, scientific explanation may not even be appropriate.

================================================================================
Note 640.14                  Creation vs. Evolution                     14 of 22
NETCAD::WIEBE "Garth Wiebe"                         169 lines   1-DEC-1994 17:12
                        -< Radioisotope dating methods >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the problems in the creation/evolution dilemma was that we weren't
there to observe either happen.  Can we determine how long ago an animal
lived, by examining its organic or petrified remains, or by examining
rocks found in the vicinity of the dead animal?

Several methods have been proposed for dating of animal remains and rocks,
by measuring the decay of radioactive isotopes.  The general public tends to
view them as high-tech "hocus-pocus", and so people often aren't prepared to
question their validity, and tend to assume that the measurements are valid.  
But are they?

The following are the major radioisotope dating methods, and their associated
problems.

Carbon-14:
----------

Cosmic rays hit Nitrogen-14 in the earth's atmosphere, producing radioactive
Carbon-14.  Plants absorb the Carbon-14.  Animals eat the plants.  Animals
eat animals.  Eventually all living things are supposed to have the same amount
of Carbon-14 in them. 

When the animal or plant dies, it quits eating, and so takes in no more 
Carbon-14.  The Carbon-14 decays back to Nitrogen-14 over time.  Measuring the
amount of Carbon-14 left in the animal remains is supposed to tell you how long
it has been since the animal or plant died. 

It is universally accepted, even among evolutionists, that Carbon-14 is only
useful for dating the organic remains of living tissue, and that it only works
up to about 20, 30, maybe 60,000 years.  So Carbon-14 dating is irrelevant to
the discussion of the time frame of macro-evolution, which is supposed to have
occurred over a time span of hundreds of millions of years. 

It is assumed that the level of atmospheric Carbon-14 has been constant for
tens of thousands of years, when it has only been measured since the early
part of this century.  This is a ratio of 1/1000 over the span of the proposed
measurement period.  (Tree-ring dating and other methods of historical dating
have provided some corroborating data for some samples, however.)

Things like the strength of the earth's magnetic field affect how much cosmic
radiation gets through to the atmosphere (which affects how much Carbon-14 is
produced.)  The strength of the earth's magnetic field has declined since it
was first measured in 1835.

It is assumed that the rate of radioactive decay of Carbon-14 has never 
changed.  However, in the laboratory, it has been demonstrated that the
rate of decay of Carbon-14 can be changed, by application of an electric
potential.  (Although this does not necessarily explain sufficient measurement
error, it does demonstrate that the rates are not necessarily constant.)

It is assumed that no exchange of Carbon-14 between the animal remains and
the environment has occurred since the animal died.

Successive Carbon-14 measurements of individual specimens have been shown
to produce conflicting results, the differences amounting to about a 1:2 ratio.

Dating of specimens of known age has produced erroneous results.  (For example,
a living mollusk at 2300 years, a seal skin at 1300 years.)

Potassium-Argon
---------------

Potassium-40 decays into Argon-40.  When molten lava solidifies, it has some
Potassium-40 in it.  Potassium-40 trapped in the rock decays into Argon-40.
The amount of Argon-40 that has formed in a rock since it solidified is
supposed to tell you how long it has been since the rock was formed. 

Potassium-40 also decays into Calcium-40.  The rate of decay into Argon-40 vs. 
Calcium-40 is not accurately known.  Uranium dating methods (see below) are
used to "calibrate" the Potassium-Argon method.  So to begin with, Potassium-
Argon dating cannot be more accurate than Uranium isotope dating. 

It is assumed that no Argon was originally trapped in rock when it solidified.

It is assumed that there was no exchange of either Potassium or Argon between
the specimen or its environment since it solidified.

It is assumed that the rate of decay of Potassium-40 has not changed since 
the formation of the rock.  The strength of neutrino flux from cosmic 
radiation, which is affected by things like supernovas and the strength of
the earth's magnetic field, which is known to change, are known to affect
decay rates.  (Again, this does not necessarily explain sufficient measurement
error, but does demonstrate that the rates are not necessarily constant.)

Successive measurements of individual specimens have produced different
results, representing inconsistencies on the order of hundreds of millions
or billions of years.  The difference can be on the order of a ratio of 1:10.

Measurements using Potassium-Argon have produced results inconsistent with
those obtained using other radioisotope methods.

Measurements of rocks of known age obtained from recent volcanoes using the
Potassium-Argon method have produced erroneous results.  Rocks known to be
less than a couple hundred years old have been dated at billions of years old.

Uranium-235
-----------

Similar principles and problems as shown above.  Uranium-235 decays into
Lead-207, and the amount of Lead-207 is supposed to tell you how old the
rock is.

The original content of Uranium-235 vs. Lead-207 is not known.  (It is simply
assumed that there was no Lead-207 to begin with.)

It is assumed that no Uranium-235 or Lead-207 is exchanged with the environment
over the life of the rock.  Laboratory experiments have leached Uranium out of
some specimens with a weak acid. 

It is assumed that the decay rates have always been constant.

Successive measurements of the same sample often produce different results.

Measurements by this method often disagree with measurements using other
methods. 

Uranium-238
-----------

Similar principles and problems as shown above.  Uranium-238 decays into
Lead-206.

Thorium-232
-----------

Similar principles and problems as shown above.  Thorium-232 decays into
Lead-208.

Lead-Lead
---------

Similar principles and problems as shown above.  Lead-207 decays into
Lead-206.

Rubidium-Strontium
-------------------

Similar principles and problems as shown above.  Rubidium-87 decays into
Strontium-87.  (It should be noted that the "Isochron" nature of this method
eliminates only some of the unsubstantiated assumptions.)

	----------------------------------------------------------------

The magnitude of the problem can be easily seen.  Many assumptions are
made about decay rates, initial conditions, environmental influences,
etc.  The results obtained are inconsistent with successive measurements
made using the same and different dating methods.  Measurements made of
specimens of known age produce erroneous results.  (We know about these 
inconsistencies, ironically enough, because they are usually the subject
of papers by evolutionists attempting to explain them away.  Such explanations
demonstrate more circular thought, as evolutionists resort to concocting more
unsubstantiated scenarios to explain away data based on the prior assumption
that the dating metric must be good.)

Furthermore, the dating procedures are not testable under controlled,
laboratory conditions over the period of time they are supposed to measure.

It should be noted that dating of fossils is almost never done by measuring
the fossil itself, but by measuring rocks in the vicinity of the fossil.  So
it is assumed that a rock in the vicinity of a fossil is the same age as the
fossil.

It can be concluded that radioisotope dating methods lack the theoretical
and experimental foundation needed to be considered reliable indicators of
the age of the specimens being dated.

Finally, keep in mind that age does not imply ancestry.  If evolution does not
work in theory or practice, no amount of time added into the scenario will make
it work. 

================================================================================
Note 640.15                  Creation vs. Evolution                     15 of 22
NETCAD::WIEBE "Garth Wiebe"                         166 lines   1-DEC-1994 17:13
                 -< Dating methods that suggest a young earth >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It should be pointed out that the age of the earth or life on it cannot be
rigorously demonstrated through any dating method, because the method is not
testable over the range of time it is supposed to date.  There are always
critical assumptions made which are not verifiable, and a considerable amount
of extrapolation of the results over time. 

Some radioisotope dating methods appear to suggest that the earth is billions
of years old.  However, many dating methods of at least equal merit suggest
that the earth is only several thousand years old and/or at least contradict
the notion that the earth is billions of years old.  In all, I have seen a list
of about 70 different dating methods that would instead suggest that the earth
is anywhere from N00 to N00,000,000 years old.  Given any preconceived age of
the earth, there can be found a dating metric to support it. 

Honest scientific inquiry should involve an unbiased quest for data.  One of
the requirements for validation of a scientific hypothesis is that it be
subject to falsification.  In verifying a hypothesis, you must consider all
data, including that which may contradict your hypothesis.  If data is found 
which contradict the hypothesis, then this contradictory data must be accepted
and considered, along with the data that supports the hypothesis. 

A hypothesis made that isn't subject to falsification falls within the realm
of dogma, rather than scientific inquiry.  

The following are examples of some of the dating metrics contradicting the
hypothesis that the earth is N billion years old.  Keep in mind that each
of these metrics is also subject to limitations due to its set of unverifiable
assumptions, extrapolation of data, and so forth, and should never be touted as
"proof" that the earth is young. 

Population of the earth:
------------------------

Today the population grows at 2% per year.  If we set the population growth
rate at just 0.5% per year, then total population reduces to zero at about 4500
years ago.  If the first humans lived 1,000,000 years ago, then at this 0.5%
growth rate, we would have 10^2100 (ten with 2100 zeros following it) people
right now.  If the present population was a result of 1,000,000 years of
human history, then several trillion people would have lived and died since the
emergence of our species.  Where are all the bones?

Ancient civilizations:
----------------------

Written history and archaeological evidence of ancient civilizations dates back
to several thousand years.  Beyond that, all traces of civilization disappear.
This is not consistent with a species which is supposed to be at least hundreds
of thousands of years old. 

Decaying magnetic field of the earth
------------------------------------

We know that the earth's magnetic field has been decaying since the time it was
first measured in 1835.  Given the most plausible model of magnetism being
generated by circulating electric currents that are decaying within the earth,
and projecting the numbers backwards, 10,000 years ago the earth would have a
field as strong as a magnetic star, which utilizes thermonuclear processes to
maintain a field of that strength. 

Critics of this theory insist on the existence of an electric generator 
("dynamo") inside the earth, without theoretical or empirical evidence to
justify such a thing.  (Paleomagnetic anomalies are touted as evidence, but
are inferior to the global statistically averaged data used to justify the
young-earth model.  Said paleomagnetic artifacts are dated using old-earth
metrics and assumptions.)  Again, circular reasoning is employed:  "The earth
is old, therefore the magnetic field has not been monotonically decaying. 
Because the magnetic field has not been monotonically decaying, there must be
a dynamo.  Because there is a dynamo, the magnetism in the earth has not been
monotonically decaying.  Because the earth has not been monotonically decaying,
the young-earth model is invalid."

Comets are disintegrating:
--------------------------

Each time a comet swings around close to the sun, the sun causes part of the 
comet to disintegrate.  It is the tail that we see as a result.  Astronomers
have observed that the life of a short-term comet is on the order of 1,500 to
10,000 years.  There are an abundance of short-term comets.  Why aren't they
all gone by now?

Critics of the young-earth model hypothesize what they call an OORT cloud,
which supposedly generates comets, even though they have never observed such a
thing, nor can theoretically show that it must exist.  Circular reasoning is
employed:  "The universe is old, therefore something is producing the
short-term comets.  Because something is producing the short-term comets,
therefore the young-earth metric is invalid."

Io, the still-volcanic moon of Jupiter
--------------------------------------

Small bodies like Io should have lost the heat and energy that it takes
to be volcanic a long time ago.  How can Io still be volcanic, after billions
of years?  (...Leave it to the evolutionist to propose some source of heat and
energy.)

The moon's craters
------------------

Even rocks have a viscosity and flow like a liquid if you give them enough
time.  This can be observed in old tombstones and glass windows.  The moon's
rocks are basalt-like, and so the moon's craters should have all smoothed out
if the moon was not thousands but billions of years old. 

Four stars moving apart
-----------------------

Four stars in the Trapezium of the Orion nebula are moving away from each 
other.  Their paths can be traced back to a common point of origin 10,000
years ago.  

Volcanoes spewing out "juvenile" water
------------------------------------

As much as 20% of the erupted material in a volcano is water that was trapped
deep within the earth.  This water is called "juvenile" water, because it is
assumed to have never been on the surface of the earth before.  About a dozen
volcanoes erupt each year.  The amount of water spewed out from all these 
volcanoes is estimated to be about a cubic mile.  There are an estimated 340
million cubic miles of water in all the oceans, lakes, and streams on earth.
This would imply that there weren't any oceans 340 million years ago.  Yet
it is said that life originated in the oceans some 1-2 billion years ago.

Volcanoes spewing out lava
--------------------------

The amount of lava currently being spewed out by volcanoes (using a low
estimate of 0.8 cubic km/year) in 4.5 billion years roughly corresponds to the
volume of all the continents on the earth today (3.3 billion cubic km).  Where
did all the lava go?

Helium rising into the atmosphere
---------------------------------

One of the decay products of Uranium and Thorium is Helium-4.  Given the
estimated concentrations of Uranium and Thorium in the earth's surface, current
decay rates, and the estimated helium content of the atmosphere, the
implication would be that this could not have been going on for N,000,000,000
years.  Based on the numbers used, the calculations I have seen range from
N,000 years to N0,000,000 years. 

Substances washing into the sea
-------------------------------

Many substances are being eroded, dissolved, and/or otherwise flushed from the
land into the oceans, where they do not return to the their point of origin. 
Given the estimated rate of influx of each substance, and given the current
concentration of these dissolved minerals in the sea, and working backwards,
we get values ranging from N00 to N00,000,000 years. 

	-----------------------------------------------------------

Again, these are but a few examples of metrics which contradict the far fewer
metrics that suggest a billion-year-old earth.  They don't prove that the earth
is young, but they are not less valid than the metrics which suggest that the
earth is old.  The inconsistencies between dating metrics mean that we have no
good reason for accepting dating methods that yield old dates over the dating
methods that yield young dates.  This is the principle of falsification which
every scientific hypothesis must be subject to. 

Given that both the old-earth metrics and the young-earth metrics are subject
to the same sort of fallacies of assumption, the evolutionist should be asked 
to explain why he is such a vehement supporter of the old-earth metrics and 
such a vehement critic of the young earth metrics.  Why doesn't he apply the
same sort of reasoning he uses to justify the old- in support of the young-?
And if he can so keenly and appropriately point out the problems with the
young-, then why won't he point out the problems with the old-?
================================================================================
Note 640.16                  Creation vs. Evolution                     16 of 22
NETCAD::WIEBE "Garth Wiebe"                         206 lines   1-DEC-1994 17:13
                               -< The "Ape-men" >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In considering the issue of creation vs. evolution, we must keep in mind that
a discussion of transitional forms is moot and useless.  To the evolutionist,
anything looks good enough to be considered a transitional form, and to the
creationist, nothing looks good enough to be considered a transitional form. 

There remains, however, the prominent issue of whether there has ever *existed*
a species of animal that was decidedly sub-human and super-ape -- the so-called
hominids. 

The following is a list of the various "ape-men", who found them, what the
evidence consists of, etc.  The information should be current to about 1985. 


		======================================


Australopithicus africanus, Australopithicus robustus, Zinjanthropus bosei,
Australopithicus afarensis, "Lucy", Paranthropus, Plesianthropus, 
Telanthropus, "Skull 1470", Homo habilis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

A juvenile skull was discovered in East Africa in 1924 by Raymond Dart.  Dart
projected that an adult would stand 4 feet tall and have the brain size of a
gorilla.  An adult was discovered in 1936 by Robert Broom.  Discoveries of
various bone fragments skeletal parts continued by several others.  "Lucy" was
a skeleton about 40% complete.  The work of Mary and Louis Leakey, and later
their son Richard, gained considerable publicity through the help of the
National Geographic Society.  They found tools in the vicinity of the bones,
and assumed that Australopithicus used them.  They found human footprints, and
assumed that they were not human.  Extensive analysis of the Australopithicene
bone structure has called into question whether the animals ever walked
upright.  They were long-armed, and short-legged, and were probably
knuckle-walkers, more closely resembling an orangutan.  These animals are no
longer considered by most anthropologists to be man's ancestor, but rather are
classified as apes. 


Homo erectus / Africa
---------------------

Along with the Australophithecenes, Louis Leakey found a skull cap, part of
a femur, and a hip bone, and attributed them to Homo erectus.  In 1975, Richard
Leakey found a relatively complete cranium and parts of the rest of a skull.
More finds continued.  In 1984, an almost complete skeleton was found.  Limited
information is available regarding these latter finds.  They appear to be
similar to Neanderthal man in some respects, and bear some resemblance also to
some skeletons dug up in the Kow Swamp area in Victoria, Australia, which have
been dated on the order of 10,000 years.  Based upon where the bones were dug
up in Africa, it must be concluded that Australopithecus, Homo Habilis, and
Homo Erectus lived contemporaneously.  Underneath all these bones has been dug
up the remains of a circular stone habitation hut which could only have been
attributed to Homo sapiens.  Thus, none of them could be man's ancestor,
evolutionarily speaking, and one evolutionist, Geoffrey Bourne, has gone so far
as to seriously suggest that apes evolved from men. 


Homo erectus / Java Man (Pithecanthropus erectus)
-------------------------------------------------

A Dutch physician by the name of Dubois found a skullcap (1891), a femur and
two teeth (1892), and a third tooth (1898) near Trinil, Java.  The leg bone
appeared human, while the skull resembled that of an ape.  These fossils were
found 45 feet apart at a level in the rock which also contained two human
skulls, which Dubois concealed for 30 years (until 1922).  Dubois announced at
the end of his life that the fossils did not belong to an ape-man, but that in
fact the skull belonged to a giant gibbon.  Further study by anthropologists
ascribed the first two teeth to an orang and the third tooth to a human. 


Homo erectus / Peking Man  (Sinanthropus pekinensis)
----------------------------------------------------

In 1921, Davidson Black found a couple of teeth and, on the basis of this
find, immediately declared that this established evidence for a hominid.  In
1928-1929, 30 skulls and 11 mandibles (lower jaws) and 147 teeth were found at
Choukoutien (near Peking, China).  The skulls were all bashed in at the rear,
evidence that they were all killed by hunters for food.  The question was, who
was the hunter?  All the bones mysteriously disappeared sometime during the
period of 1941-1945.  A major limestone quarrying industry existed in ancient
Choukoutien, and the skulls were all allegedly found in heaps of debris from a
collapsed limestone hill.  Without tangible evidence we are left with the
skeletal reconstructions and work of a man who would declare that he found a
hominid based on a couple of teeth.  It has been suggested that Sinanthropus
was either a large macaque or baboon, and that the workers at the quarry killed
them and ate their brains for food. 


Neanderthal Man  (Homo neanderthalensis)
----------------------------------------

In 1848, workmen at a quarry in Gibraltar found a fairly complete fossil
skull.  In 1856, another partial skeleton was found near the village of
Neander in Germany.  Professor Schlaafhausen reported the find in 1857 and
gave it the name Neanderthal.  Rudolf Virchow, a pathologist, studied the
fossil material and concluded that the Neanderthals had rickets, a disease
caused by Vitamin-D deficiency and resulting in bone deformities that would 
account for their awkward appearance.  In 1888, the Galley Hill skull, a very
modern-looking skull, was found in strata believed older than Neanderthal. 
More modern-looking discoveries were found in 1855 at Ipswich, and in 1863 at
Abbeville.  In 1932, a modern human jaw was found in deposits "older" than
Neanderthal.  In 1939, Professor Sergio Sergi demonstrated that Neanderthal
walked erect as we do.  In 1947, a Neanderthal was discovered to have lived in
a cave after a modern man had inhabited the cave (some have alleged that this 
was an "intrusive burial").  The brain capacity of Neanderthals are found to 
be on the average larger than the average size of modern man.  It is today
generally admitted that Neanderthal man was fully human. 


Nebraska Man  (Hesperopithecus faux pas)
----------------------------------------

A field geologist by the name of Harold Cook sent Henry Fairfield Osborn, the
director of the American Museum of Natural History a tooth.  Osborn sent the
tooth to be analyzed by specialists, and the consensus was that the tooth more
closely resembled the human tooth than of any known ape, and concluded that
this was the first evidence of an anthropoid ape in the western hemisphere.
A book was published claiming that this species, Nebraska Man, was halfway
between Java Man and Neanderthal Man.  A field expedition was launched to
find more remains of the creature.  It was found that Hesperopithecus was in
fact a wild pig.


Piltdown Man  (Eanthropus dawsoni)
----------------------------------

In 1912, William Dawson and A. S. Woodward reported the discovery of an ape-man
in Kent Plateau in England.  The skull was broken but the jaw resembled that of
an ape.  Mammal bones, stone tools, and an elephant bone ground to a point were
also found.  More expeditions at another location produced a two skull pieces
and a single tooth.  In 1953, Kenneth Oakley did chemical tests on the bone
fragments, and demonstrated that the skull and the jaw didn't belong together,
and that neither belonged to the animal bones.  The material had been
chemically treated with iron salts to make it look old, and the teeth had been
filed down to make them look worn.  How could anthropologists be fooled for 40
years? 


Ramapithecus
------------

A 1932 find in India by G. E. Lewis.  On the basis of a handful of teeth and
fragments of a jaw, it was claimed by Simons and Pilbeam in the 1960s that this
was an evolutionary ancestor to modern man.  Pilbeam admitted in 1984 that his
conclusions were based more on his preconceived ideas than actual data.  It 
should be noted that a baboon that lives in high altitudes in Ethiopia,
Theropithicus galada, has teeth and jaw characteristics very much like
Ramapithecus and Australopithicus.  Ramapithecus is now generally classified as
essentially the same animal as a fossil orangutan known by the name of
Sivapithecus. 

Cro-Magnon Man
--------------

There is nothing to differentiate these European finds from modern man.  If
anything, they have superior size and brain capacity than what is average for
modern man.


Orce Man
--------

In 1983, a skull fragment was found.  A year later, it was determined that
the fragment came from a four-month old donkey.


"Flipperpithecus"
-----------------

A man by the name of Noel Baez mistook a dolphin's rib for the shoulder bone
of a hominid, as reported in a 1983 edition of Science News.


	-------------------------------------------------------------


As can be seen, there just isn't enough substance to build a case for the
existence of ape-men.  The above examples illustrate conclusions based on
preconceived notions, major extrapolations upon scanty finds, and some 
outright frauds. 


	-------------------------------------------------------------


The Flintstones  ("Homo hannabarbaras")
---------------------------------------

In many ways, the cartoon character Fred Flintstone is a better representation
of what have become known as "cave-men" than what is taught today by modern
anthropology.  Fred Flintstone is depicted as having modern intelligence, able
to communicate, and lived alongside dinosaurs (as early man certainly did
before the dinosaurs became extinct).  Yabba-dabba-doo. 


Adam, Eve, and their descendants  (Homo sapiens)
------------------------------------------------

The Genesis account gives us reliable historical information about the first
men.  They were intelligent, able to communicate, organize societies, cultivate
the land, classify animals and domesticate them, make tools and weapons, etc. 
They are indistinguishable from modern man.  The first man was created from
out of the dust of the ground.  The first woman was created from the first
man's rib.  Every human on earth is descended from that first pair.  Estimates
based on genealogies in the bible and archaeological evidence of ancient
civilizations suggest that Homo sapiens appeared on the earth on the order of
several thousand years ago.

================================================================================
Note 640.17                  Creation vs. Evolution                     17 of 22
NETCAD::WIEBE "Garth Wiebe"                          85 lines   1-DEC-1994 17:14
                                  -< Science >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, is 

	"The observation, identification, description, experimental 
	investigation, and theoretical explanation of natural phenomena."

It is important to keep in mind that science only deals with *natural*
phenomena.  Intelligent design, planning and intent is not a natural phenomena.
Miracles are not a natural phenomena.  "Logic" and "common sense" are concepts
presented as intuitively obvious, consistently applied, and profitable, but are
certainly not a science.  "History" is not a science. 

Some have elevated the natural sciences to the level of ideology, such that all
things can ultimately be explained by scientific thought.  (Consider that such
a proposition is not a scientific proposition in and of itself, so it is
self-refuting!)  In any case, there is no foundation for such thinking. 
Rather, science is a discipline which deals only with the workings of the
natural order.  It does not invalidate other means of inquiry, and in fact it
*requires* other methods of inquiry. 

When a scientist makes experimental observations, the actual facts of the
observations themselves can't be subject to scientific scrutiny.  If this were
not the case, then no scientific progress could be made.  Suppose that we 
launched a highly accurate clock into orbit and then discovered that it lost
time.  Now, you could make an appeal to the science of Newtonian mechanics, and
conclude that something went wrong with the measurement.  And as for Lorentz,
FitzGerald, and Einstein, you could just state that they were quacks.  A wiser
thing to do, however, is to consider the possibility that Newtonian mechanics
needs to be revised.  The issue, then, is not whether a particular observation
violates a scientific theory, but whether the observation was correctly and
reliably made.  And that is not a scientific matter. 

This last point is worth repeating.  In the above example, it is not Newtonian
mechanics (a scientific theory) which invalidates the observation, but the
observation which potentially invalidates Newtonian mechanics (the scientific
theory).  The issue is whether the observation was correctly made, and again,
that is not a scientific matter.

I have made assumptions about the validity of certain ancient historical
records (the books of the bible).  A defense of the authenticity and validity
of these is beyond the scope of this document on creation vs. evolution.  But
it is important to keep in mind that evolutionists also rely principally on
written testimony by reliable witnesses who have observed events in the course
of their experience and written down their observations.  Scientists cannot
contradict what are historically confirmed observations, since historically
documented observations are the very basis for scientific analysis.  Scientists
should be challenged as to their objectivity in selecting which authors they
consider reliable and which authors they don't. 

Those who have elevated the natural sciences to the level of ideology desire
to scientifically test and judge the authenticity of the bible.  But the bible
is not a scientific treatise containing any scientific theories to be
scientifically evaluated.  The bible is principally an historical record of
historical events written down by historical witnesses.  In fact, some of what
is written documents supernatural phenomena, which is inherently outside of the
realm of any kind of scientific inquiry. 

When it is recorded that Jesus turned water to wine at the wedding at Cana,
the issue is not whether that event was "scientifically plausible".  The issue
is whether we can rely on the written testimony that states that the phenomenon
did in fact occur.  If it did in fact occur, then either there is something 
about the natural order that needs to be better explained by scientific study,
or the event was simply a violation of the natural order brought about by a
cause outside of the natural order. 

"Creation scientists" (at least those who accept the authority of the Bible)
are those who pursue scientific study in light of the facts of history that
the scriptures document.  They are not (or at least should not) be those who 
suppose that they can scientifically prove creation or any of the circumstances
surrounding it.

Neither evolution nor creation are strictly scientifically defensible.  No
scientist was there to observe the origin of life.  No scientist has been able
to repeat it in the laboratory.  No scientist has been able to demonstrate a
theory that compels the present array of life forms to exist with their present
characteristics.  A scientific theory is validated through experiment and/or
theory.  Both evolution and creation ultimately fall outside the realm of
scientific verification.

Evolution has been touted as a scientifically defensible theory, but these
essays have endeavored to show that it is not.  Creation is intuitively obvious
based on the consistent observation about how complex, sophisticated designs
and codes whose origins have been observed always have required purpose,
planning, and intent.  It is confirmed based on testimony revealed by the
Creator.  Furthermore, the abrupt and recent appearance of life is an
historically defensible fact, explicitly revealed to us by the Creator.

================================================================================
Note 640.18                  Creation vs. Evolution                     18 of 22
NETCAD::WIEBE "Garth Wiebe"                          34 lines   1-DEC-1994 17:15
                                   -< Faith >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Faith, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, is "confident belief,
trust".  According to the Bible, it is "being sure of what we hope for, and
certain of what we do not see" (Heb 11:1).  It is no mystical or necessarily
religious concept.  It is not the religious buzzword some have made it out to
be.

Every time we decide to sit in a chair, we are demonstrating our faith that
this chair will hold us up.  And we even sit in chairs that we have never seen
anyone sit in before!  Obviously, there are a set of criteria which we use to
decide whether we should place our faith in any particular chair, that it would
hold us up and not collapse just as soon as we sat in it. 

When people say things like "it takes more faith to believe in creation" or
"it takes more faith to believe in evolution", they are misusing the word
"faith".  It is like saying, "it is more rickety to sit in that chair".  The
fact of the matter is that it is a matter of faith to believe in either
creation or evolution.  And the issue is, how much faith do you have that
creation (or evolution) took place, and how much faith will you place in the
Creator (or the creation) as the cause for the origin of life, and how well
will your faith stand the test when all is said and done? 

In the case of creation vs. evolution, no mortal man was there to observe the
origin of life.  The creationist did not observe the Creator create, and the
evolutionist did not observe the life forms evolve.  Yet, based on a variety of
reasons and criteria each individual purposes to place their faith in either
the Creator or the creation as the cause responsible for the origin of life. 
The question is, which is the better substantiated position to place one's
faith in:  Creation, or Evolution? 

These essays have endeavored to show objectively that there is a good
foundation for believing that the Creator was responsible for the creation, and
that there is no good reason to believe that the creation was responsible for
the creation.  Therefore, we should place our faith in the Creator, and not the
creation. 

================================================================================
Note 640.19                  Creation vs. Evolution                     19 of 22
NETCAD::WIEBE "Garth Wiebe"                         139 lines   1-DEC-1994 17:15
              -< Some objections to the design/chance arguments >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The argument from design is actually the most powerful and obvious defense
for the fact of creation vs. evolution.  It is one expression of what has been
written in scripture:

	"...since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has
	made it plain to them.  For since the creation of the world God's
	invisible qualities -- his eternal power and divine nature -- have
	been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that
	men are without excuse."  (Romans 1:19-20)

There are four popular objections to the argument from design.  The first is
"If design demonstrates a designer, then who designed the designer?" 

The answer to that question is actually irrelevant to the design argument.  The
argument from design insists that complex and sophisticated designs demonstrate
the existence of a designer.  Whether or not *that* designer was designed makes
no difference to the point that design demonstrates a designer.  Computers are
designed by computer engineers regardless of whether the computer engineers
themselves were designed.  The reason we know our Creator was not created is
not because of the design argument, but *because he said so*, which is based on
our acceptance of the record of his testimony, and is an entirely different
matter. 

The following is a more rigid definition of the design argument presented:

Point 1:  For all complex and sophisticated things (especially machines, even 
more especially automatic machines) whose origin we have observed, we see that
it was always through planning and implementation by a designer.  We therefore
apply this reliable and consistent experience and observation to those things
whose origin we have not observed, and assume that they likewise were designed.

Point 2:  Further to point 1, the greater the sophistication and complexity of
something, the more obvious that it was designed, and the more intelligent and
capable the designer. 

Point 3:  We are inferring the existence and skill of the designer from the
complexity of the design, not making statements about the nature of the
designer (e.g. he must be likewise "complex" in construction).

Point 4:  In all cases of observed design, the creator is apart from that which
he created and not necessarily bound by all the rules which he caused his
creation to operate in.  The Designer of the universe can be assumed to be
apart from the universe, and not necessarily bound by any process or phenomenon
which we observe. 

Point 5:  From points 3 and 4 above, we can say nothing about the nature of
the Designer, but only that he exists and has demonstrated awesome power and
intelligence in our realm, unequaled by anything in the known universe.  Not
necessarily bound by anything we have observed in the universe, it is premature
to make statements about his nature or abode (e.g. he also must be complex, and
therefore designed).  He himself is therefore not necessarily even bound by the
principle of the argument from design (though perhaps he defined it!)

Point 6:  That God did not himself have a creator is not known from empirical
observation (i.e. the argument from design), but by his own testimony.  That
however is a different issue, requiring a different defense.  In any case, it
is irrelevant to points 1 through 5 above.

Point 7:  It is important to note that both creationists and evolutionists are
equally responsible for ultimately attributing phenomena in the universe to an
"uncaused cause".  The creationist says that God caused everything but was not
himself caused by anything.  The evolutionist says that the cosmos that we
behold caused everything but was not itself caused by anything.  In either
case, someone or something had to be first, or else there would be nobody and
nothing ultimately responsible for the origin of things.  If your boss needs to
ask his boss, who needs to ask his boss, who needs to ask his boss, ad
infinitum... permission to give you a raise, then you can be sure that you will
never get one. 

The second objection to the design argument is this:  "Crystals and snowflakes
are examples of ordered things spontaneously occurring in nature."  First, this
is a weak rebuttal even on the surface, because crystals and snowflakes are
nothing compared to the complex and sophisticated self-replicating automatic
machines that living systems consist of.  Secondly, crystals and snowflakes do
not actually demonstrate complexity -- only very simple order and repetition.
They are but natural consequences of structures at the molecular level which
make them up. 

The third objection to the design argument goes like this:  "The panda's thumb
is an example of poor design."  Now, one could embark on a useless discussion
about whether it is indeed poor design or not.  For that matter, we could just
as well embark on a useless discussion about whether it is a design flaw that
men aren't given the ability to fly like birds or breath water like fish.  For
all we know, it could be an issue of pure aesthetics. 

But to begin with, we shouldn't consider ourselves qualified to criticize the
design, since we ourselves have not designed anything of the level of
sophistication of a panda, let alone a single-celled organism.  But further
than that, the person stating this objection has not observed the genesis of
the panda, such that he could describe the panda's functionality in light of
the panda's original environment, which is not known for certain to be the same
as it is today.  For all we know, the Panda may have been much better suited in
its original environment, regardless of whether he evolved or was created!

The fourth objection to the design argument is this:  "If the design argument
is so intuitively obvious, then why don't more people believe it?"  God only
knows.  But this is an objection _ad populum_, and so is invalid.  The validity
of a position is not determined by how many people support it.  But as the
scripture quoted at the beginning of this essay then proceeds to elaborate:

	"For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor
	gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their 
	foolish hearts were darkened.  Although they claimed to be wise,
	they became fools..."  (Romans 1:21-22)

There are three objections to the chance issue, all based on the same theme. 
The first:  "It may have been improbable, but the fact that we are here
demonstrates that the improbable did happen." 

This assumes the conclusion in the premise and is circular reasoning.  

The second objection is this:  "The chances of winning the lottery are one in
a million.  But someone has to win the lottery.  When someone pulls a winning
ticket, you don't cry foul.  Why do you cry foul when you observe the fact that
there is life on earth?" 

This is a bad application of a valid example of probability and statistics.
If there are 1,000,000 people in a sample set, each with a 1 in 1,000,000
chance of winning it, then we are not surprised to find 1 person who has a
winning number.  The key point is that there were 999,999 people with losing
lottery tickets who could win, but didn't, and we could theoretically collect
all those losing tickets to prove that point.  In the case of evolution, the
evolutionist has not even specified the sample set, to demonstrate that
evolution should be considered probable.  In fact, he is using a sample set of
1 (this biosphere), since he has no examples of planets that had the right
materials and conditions but in which life did not evolve.  

The third objection is this:  "97565075027519207409.  There!  Now I have
successfully typed a random sequence of 20 numbers.  Yet there was only a 
1 in 100000000000000000000 chance of me typing _that_ number."

Again, this is a bad application of probability and statistics.  The number
typed is not meaningful.  "Success" was already defined as anything and
everything before the number was randomly typed.  So in reality there was a
100000000000000000000 in 100000000000000000000 or 100% chance of success.  If
a particular number had been specified in advance, that would be a different
issue.  In application, life cannot be construed as anything or everything.
In fact, life as we know it can only exist and operate under some extremely
narrow boundaries.

================================================================================
Note 640.20                  Creation vs. Evolution                     20 of 22
NETCAD::WIEBE "Garth Wiebe"                         184 lines   1-DEC-1994 17:16
                      -< Extra-terrestrial intelligence >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a caveat and disclaimer to this final essay, it should be noted mind that it
is in principle impossible to prove a universal negative.  To categorically
exclude all possibilities requires one to have all knowledge of past, present,
and future events, information, and processes.  One who is omniscient puts
himself in the position of claiming to be God -- a particularly bad image to
project. 

Rather, it should be kept in mind that the burden of proof remains on the
evolutionists to provide a *working* hypothesis for the chance formation of
life from non-life -- something they have not done.  All the evolutionists have
done is state their first article of faith:  that increasing complexity occurs
spontaneously, given enough time.  This statement of faith is made in spite of 
the fact that there is no evidence to support it. 

The purpose of the following work is to show the magnitude of the problem that
evolutionists face in their propositions and speculations about life arising
spontaneously.  That said, let us proceed. 

Most of us have heard of the project called SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial
Intelligence).  Radiotelescopes are pointed towards outer space, searching for
a coded message among the electromagnetic noise that bombards the earth from
distant sources.  It has been said that just one coded message would prove the
existence of intelligence elsewhere in the universe. 

Let us suppose that on one of these radiotelescopes the following message
is received, to the evolutionists' delight:

"Hello.  We are the inhabitants of a planet in the Alpha Centauri system,
your closest neighboring star.  We have been monitoring radio transmissions
from your planet for several years, and have figured out your English 
language.  What a coincidence that life evolved on two planets so close
together!  Sadly, our society is largely controlled by right-wing
fundamentalist religious quacks who believe in a Creator who created everything
from nothing, and until now they have prevented us from funding this noble
communications project.  Now let us tell you a little bit about what life is
like over here, and hopefully in eight years we will hear back from you..." 

Let us suppose that the text of this message continues for the equivalent of
some 133 lines of text 80 characters wide totalling 10658 characters and 1500
words, roughly the size of one of these essays on creation vs. evolution.  How
do we know that a message such as this had an intelligent author, as opposed to
being something that just appeared spontaneously out of random noise? 

There are about 60,000 words in the American Heritage Dictionary.  Yet, a
random assembly of just 10 alphabetic characters would produce 26^10 =
140 trillion different possibilities.  Clearly, meaningful words are a very
small subset of what we would expect to get from random letters.

If we arranged 1500 random words, the result would be 60,000^1500 = 10^7167
possibilites.  And even though we cannot begin to count the number of possible
arrangements of words that would result in a meaningful message -- any 
meaningful message -- we know that meaningful messages are but a miniscule 
subset of all the possible word arrangements.  One can get an idea of how small
this subset is by repeatedly arranging random words picked from out of a
dictionary, and seeing how many arrangements turn out to be meaningful.

If we were to choose from a set of 80 possible characters, including the upper
and lower case letters, the ten digits, and another eighteen non-alphanumeric
characters, a random assortment of 10658 characters would produce 80^10658 =
10^20283 possible text strings. 

Note that even though we cannot begin to count all the possible text strings
that would constitute a recognizable message, we conclude that the message has
an intelligent author.  The message is non-random, containing only recognizable
words, following some specific rules of English syntax, spelling and grammer. 
More importantly, the message accomplishes a purpose, carries out a project,
and executes a task, with a clearly defined goal. 

If such a message were actually received, neither evolutionists nor
creationists would debate the fact that it had its origin in intelligence,
planning, intent, motive, and purpose. 

Now let us consider the chance formation of a protein structure.  A protein
consists of a chain of only left-handed amino acids connected by only peptide
bonds, in an arrangement in which the amino acids at approximately half of the
sites (called the "active sites") must be the correct amino acid.  The smallest
known protein contains 50 amino acids; the largest, 1750 amino acids.

All proteins are manufactured within a living cell in complex structures called
ribosomes.  Each of the some 15,000 ribosomes found in a very simple
single-cell organism, Escherichia Coli, contains 56 proteins and 3 ribosomal
RNA molecules in a particular structure.  53 of the 56 proteins in this
structure are unique.  The ribosomes in higher organisms may contain as many as
100 such macromolecules, manufacturing perhaps 50,000+ different proteins that
make up the organism. 

A ribosome can be viewed as a machine that manufactures proteins according to
the genetic code that it receives externally from messenger RNA molecules
generated elsewhere in the cell.  And the proteins in the ribosome itself are 
similarly built according a genetic code.  Altogether, E. Coli is made up of
several thousand different proteins, nucleic acids, and other organic
compounds.

The correspondence between code and structure should be noted.  Any complex
structure can be represented by a finite amount of information that describes
the structure and how it is built up from raw materials, like the blueprints
for a computer.  E. Coli has both the hardware (complex machine) and the
software (code) to not only function, but replicate itself. 

A ribosome is a highly integrated miniature chemical factory.  When separated
into smaller components, the individual components lose their function. 

In order for the simplest living cell to replicate, it must manufacture
proteins.  In this analysis, we will consider just the chance formation of
the proteins in a single ribosome.  

Note that viruses and bacteriophages are simpler in construction than the
single-cell organism that we are using as a model, but require the prior
existence of a host, so a discussion of their origin is moot. 

The total molecular weight of the proteins in the E. Coli ribosome is about
1215000.  The molecular weights of the 20 known amino acids range from about
75 for glycine to about 181 for tyrosine.  For simplicity, let us use an
average amino acid of molecular weight 132 (asparagine has this molecular
weight) for our calculations.  Subtracting 18 for the molecular weight of a
water molecule given up when two amino acids form a peptide bond, we have
132-18 = 114 for the molecular weight of the amino acid residue.  This would
give us something on the order of 1215000/114 = 10658 amino acid residues in
the protein structure of a ribosome in E. Coli. 

In a random arrangement, the probability of a particular amino acid being
right-handed versus left-handed is 1 in 2.  The probability of having a peptide
bond versus a non-peptide bond is about 1 in 2.  The probability of getting the
correct amino acid is roughly 1 in 20 (the distribution isn't quite even).  The
probability of getting a correct right-handed amino acid connected with a
peptide bond is therefore 1 in 20*2*2 = 80.  The probability of all 10658 amino
acids in the ribosome being correct is 1 in 80^10658, which is 1 in 10^20283.

Compare this with the number 10^20283 for the character arrangement in our 
hypothetical intelligent SETI message. 

Which brings us to point of this exercise:  Both the message and the protein
component of the ribosome are information-rich.  They both represent complexity
and/or coding that accomplishes a purpose.  Why is it then, that some people
would attribute the origin of the former to an intelligent source, but insist
that the latter came about through some yet-to-be-determined chance processes? 
And if the codes and complex structures inherent in life forms on earth cannot
be attributed to a natural origin, shouldn't we conclude that the evidence for
extra-terrestrial intelligence is right under our noses?  Why then do some look
to the stars for evidence? 

Stating the dilemma a different way, if the evolutionists so dogmatically hold
to the position that life arose spontaneously, regardless of its
sophistication, then shouldn't said evolutionists be ready to reject any SETI
message as being of intelligent origin, regardless of its sophistication?  Why
then do they look to the stars for evidence?

So if we shouldn't expect that many proteins to randomly occur in a functional
arrangement, then we shouldn't expect the whole ribosome to occur.  And if we
shouldn't expect a ribosome to occur, we shouldn't expect a functional
single-celled organism to occur.  And if we shouldn't expect a functional
single-celled organism to occur, we are left with nothing for higher organisms
to evolve from. 

In reality, it takes a considerable amount of know-how by scientists with 
advanced academic degrees using technologically advanced equipment in a well-
equipped laboratory to synthesize proteins, which is what a ribosome, a machine
too small to be seen by the naked eye, accomplishes.  And the synthesis of a
biological structure like a ribosome is currently beyond the capability of the
collective know-how of all of the most intelligent minds of mankind, let alone
a fully functional single-cell organism. 

Keep in mind that what we are encountering is in principle a significant
information/complexity problem.  Regardless of the exact path which one
proposes to get to a fully functional organism, be it protein evolution or
RNA evolution or anything else, the same level of complexity must be achieved
in the outcome through chance events.  The point is that a random, natural
process should not be considered a reasonable explanation for it.  And since
time does not imply complexity, the putting together of many separate events of
proportionally better probability over eons of time does nothing to help solve
the dilemma. 

It is therefore demonstrated that we shouldn't expect life to have come about
by chance, given what we know.  The dogma of life coming about by chance is
reduced to a mere ideology without basis.  Furthermore, by removing the
foundation for the common ancestry of living things, the dogma of the evolution
of all present species through mutations + natural selection, and all the
various peripheral issues concerning fossils, dating, stratigraphy, taxonomy,
and etc. are rendered moot, because the present species cannot be evolved from
a non-existent first life form.  And if the origin of the first life form must
have required planning and intent, then it is an even easier matter to say that
the origin of the higher life forms required planning and intent. 

Upon all this I rest my case.

================================================================================
Note 640.21                  Creation vs. Evolution                     21 of 22
NETCAD::WIEBE "Garth Wiebe"                         498 lines   1-DEC-1994 17:17
                               -< Resource list >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is a resource list of some good (and not-so-good) books,
pamphlets, tracts, and videos that I know of which deal with various aspects of
the creation/evolution issue.  These are mostly secondary source information
(i.e. textbooks), but do reference the primary research sources to allow for
further in-depth study in specific areas. 


_Biochemistry_
Geoffrey Zubay
The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc, 1983, 1986
Hardbound, 1268 pages

This is a standard introductory college-level secular biochemistry textbook,
assuming a knowledge of introductory college-level general chemistry as a
prerequisite.  This book, more than any other in this resource list (aside
from the Bible), made me want to just fall prostrate before God.  The final
chapter of the book addresses the origin of life from an evolutionist
perspective, and is amusing to read. 


_Principles of Biochemistry_
Albert L. Lehninger
Worth Publishers, 1982
Hardbound, 1011 pages

This is another standard introductory college-level secular biochemistry
textbook.  Easier to understand than Zubay, and is weighted more towards
Biology than Chemistry.


_Chemical Principles_
Masterton/Slowinski
Saunders, 1973 (3rd ed)
Hardbound, 715 pages

This is a standard secular introductory college-level general chemistry
textbook.  The last chapter contains an introduction to biochemistry.


_CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics_
Robert Weast
CRC Press, 1977 (58th ed)
Hardbound, 2348 pages

This is a standard reference which contains physical constants, formulas, etc.


_In the Beginning..._
Walter T. Brown, Jr.
Center for Scientific Creation, 1989 (5th ed)
Paperback, 122 pages, $9.00+10% shipping

I very recently (12/93) came across this book in a bookstore, and now put it at
the very top of my list to recommend.  If you like my outline and approach, you
will appreciate Dr. Brown's as well.  (Obviously, I am quite biased.)  He
organizes his writings into categories in a tree structure, with adequate
references to support each point.  His approach is extremely objective.  He
also proposes an interesting model to explain 17 known geological phenomena and
the flood based solely on the bursting forth of the "fountains of the great
deep". 


_The Creation Hypothesis_
J. P. Moreland, editor
Intervarsity Press, 1994
Paperback, 335 pages

Difficult reading.  This book argues for the creation hypothesis being a valid
scientific pursuit.  Very secular approach.  Good material on information and
biological origins -- chapter 5 makes the book worthwhile. 


_Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics_
Duane T. Gish
Institute for Creation Research, 1993
Paperback, 451 pages

This book does exactly what the title implies.  Gish goes into very lengthy
discussions concerning the points and counterpoints of his opponents. 
Laborious and lengthy reading, but contains interesting information.


_The Creation Explanation_
Robert E. Kofahl, Kelly L. Segraves
Harold Shaw Publishers, 1975
Paperback, 255 pages, $4.95

This is an excellent treatment which covers evidence in design of life forms,
fossils, the geological strata, dating methods, age of the universe, age of
the earth.  Quite a bit of information on the latter topics.  However, last
I saw, this book was out of print.  Try a used book store or a library.


_The Collapse of Evolution_
Scott M. Huse
Baker Book House, 1983, ...4th=1988
Paperback, 170 pages

This is an excellent treatment, covering creation/evolution issues in geology
and paleontology, physics, mathematics, biology, anthropology.  It has 
appendices listing organizations, creationist scientists throughout history,
a glossary, references, and index.


_Evolution:  The Challenge of the Fossil Record_
Duane T. Gish
Creation-Life Publishers (Master Books Division), 1985, ...2nd=1986
Paperback, 278 pages, $8.95

An excellent treatment, concentrating on the fossil record, geologic column,
origin of man.  Lots of information on the subject of "ape-men".


_Evolution:  The Fossils say No!_
Duane T. Gish
Creation-Life Publishers, 1978
Paperback, 189 pages, $2.95

An earlier and shorter version of the above mentioned book by the same author.


_Scientific Creationism_
Henry Morris
Master Books, 1974, ...2nd=1985
Paperback, 281 pages, $8.95

An excellent treatment covering a wide range of topics.  Considered by most
creationists to be a classic and standard treatment of creationism.


_What Is Creation Science?_
Henry M. Morris, Gary E. Parker
Master Books, 1982, 1987
Paperback, 331 pages, $10.95

This book is an attempt at producing a school textbook on creationism, assumes
that the reader does not have a biblical world-view, and avoids direct 
scriptural references.  Provides a defense for creation as science and
criticism of evolution as science. 


_It's A Young World After All_
Paul D. Ackerman
Baker Book House, 1986
Paperback, 131 pages

A summary of the dating methods that suggest a young age for the earth.  Lots
of subjective commentary, very selective about which dating methods to present,
doesn't document the assumptions, but interesting and informative reading
anyway.


_Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field_
Thomas G. Barnes
Master Books, 1983
Paperback

This is a technical monograph in which the author evaluates the magnetic 
flux of the earth's magnetic field in recent history and argues that the
earth must consequently be of recent origin.


_Darwin's Enigma_
Luther D. Sunderland
Master Books, 1984
Paperback, 178 pages, $8.95

An OK treatment of fossils and transitional forms.  Secular approach.


_The Genesis Flood_
John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris
Baker Book House, 1961, ...29th=1986
Paperback, 518 pages, $11.95

This is a very thorough treatment of the biblical record and scientific
implications of the Flood.  Most of the information is pertinent to the
creation/evolution controversy.  Considered a classic, if not _the_ classic.


_The World That Perished_
John C. Whitcomb
Baker Book House, 1988, ...3rd=1990
Paperback, 178 pages, $9.95

This is a sequel to _The Genesis Flood_ (which is not a prerequisite), and
an introduction to biblical catastrophism.  Easy to read, and more up-to-date.


_The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution_
A. E. Wilder Smith
Master Books, 1981
Paperback, 166 pages, $7.95

An excellent treatment, specifically dealing with the biochemical implications
in detail (e.g. spontaneous generation of life from non-life), which is missing
from most other books.


_The Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory_
A. E. Wilder Smith
TWFT Publishers (PO Box 8000, Costa Mesa, CA, 92683), 1987
Paperback, 148 pages, $7.95

An excellent treatment, specifically dealing with information sources and
structures, showing that it is necessary to consider "know-how" or an external
source of information in developing a scientific theory on origins. 


_Science, Scripture, and the Young Earth_
Henry M. Morris, John D. Morris
Institute for Creation Research, 1989
Paperback, 95 pages, $4.95

Provides rebuttals to current arguments (especially Davis Young) against a
recent creation and flood geology.


_Flaws in the Theory of Evolution_
Evan Shute
Craig Press, 1961, ...7th=1976
Paperback, 286 pages, $3.50

An OK treatment, not easy reading, not as thorough, but some good information.


_How To Think About Evolution, And Other Bible/Science Controversies_
L. Duane Thurman
InterVarsity Press, 1977, 1978
Paperback, 144 pages, $5.95

This book deals specifically with what the title suggests.  It does not
provide much useful information about creation/evolution, and the viewpoints
are liberal.


_From Goo To You By Way of the Zoo_
Harold Hill
Power Books, 1976, 1985
Paperback, 223 pages, $5.95

If you like mudslinging, this book addresses the issues with all the tact and
maturity that the title suggests.  


_The Great Brain Robbery_
David C.C. Watson
Henry E. Walter, LTD., 26 Grafton Road, Worthing, Sussex, 1975-1977
Paperback, 108 pages, 95p.

A very short general treatment, very subjective, but interesting.  


_Here's Proof:  Evolution is a Lie_
Dennis Miller and Louis Watrous
El Camino Press, 1976
Paperback, 57 pages

Another very short general treatment, subjective, but interesting.


_Fallacies of Evolution_
Arlie J. Hoover
Baker Book House, 1977
Paperback, 85 pages, $2.50

This is a short book that provides a refutation of the arguments for teaching
only evolution in the public schools.


_Evolution and the Modern Christian_
Henry M. Morris
Presbyterian And Reformed Publishing Co., 1967
Paperback, 72 pages, $3.95

This is a very brief treatment of evolution, intended to be easy and quick
reading for a high school or college student, Sunday school class, etc.


_Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation_
Dennis R. Peterson
Master Books, 1987
Hardbound, 207 pages, $18.95

An excellent general treatment of a wide range of topics on creation/evolution,
including some information on ancient civilizations.  This is a children's 
book, but contains enough information and references to be valuable for anyone 
to read.  Highly illustrated.


_Fossils:  Key to the Present_
Richard Bliss, Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish
Creation Life Publishers, 1980, 1984
Paperback, 81 pages, $4.95

This is a children's book which discusses fossils.


_The Long War Against God_
Henry M. Morris
Baker Book House, 1989, 3rd=1990
Hardbound, 344 pages, $21.95

This covers the history and impact of the Creation/Evolution conflict.


_The Origin of Species Revisited_, Vol 1 and 2
W.R. Bird
Philosophical Library 1987, 1989
Hardbound, 1102 pages total, $50.

This is a thorough, high-level scientific/philosophical treatment.  It requires
a very high reading comprehension level.


_The Genesis Record_
Henry M. Morris
Baker Book House, 1976, 1989
Hardbound, 716 pages

This is essentially a verse-by-verse commentary on the book of Genesis by a
creationist author. 


_Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity_
Josh McDowell, Don Stewart
Here's Life Publishers, 1981
Paperback, 249 pages

A general christian apologetic, of which pages 82-218 contain an assortment
of question vs. answers on the ark and evolution.  Goes together with another
book by the same authors, entitled _Answers To Tough Questions Skeptics Ask
About the Christian Faith_, which contains a few points about the Flood. 
Quick, short summaries, ample references.  Classic McDowell treatment.


_The New Atheism and the Erosion of Freedom_
Robert A. Morey
Bethany House, 1986
Paperback, 176 pages

Not a creation/evolution title at all, but contains information very relevant
to understanding the evolutionist mindset.  Includes discussion of atheism,
agnosticism, materialism, logical fallacies, etc., debate transcripts and
excerpts, from the author's experience as a Christian apologist/lecturer/
debater.


_Evolution: Bone of Contention_
Silvia Baker
Evangelical Press (P.O. Box 29, Phillipsburg, NJ, 08865-0029, (201) 454-0505)
1976, ...1986, Paperback, 35 pages 

This is a short treatment that gets right to the point and is very convincing.
An excellent and inexpensive thing that looks like a magazine, and can be
passed around or distributed easily, read quickly.


_Creation or Evolution?_ (Parts I, II, III)
Winkey Pratney
Pretty Good Printing (Last Days Ministries, Box 40, Lindale, TX, 75771), 1982
Set of 3 Tracts, 12 pages total

These 3 tracts from Last Days Ministries (Keith/Melody Green's organization)
are an excellent treatment of the creation/evolution issue in a nutshell,
with references, a book list, and evangelically oriented.


_Understanding Genesis_
Ken Ham, Gary Parker
Creation Life Publishers, Box 983, El Cajon, CA, 92022 (1-800-999-3777), 1987
Ten 45-minute videotape lecture-presentations, VHS format, $200

This is an excellent series to have in a church library or for group study.
It is authored by two knowledgeable and experienced lecturers on the subject,
packed with information, yet easy to understand.


_The Genesis Solution_
Ken Ham
Films for Christ, 2628 W.Birchwood Circle, Mesa, Arizona, 85202 (602-894-1300)
45 minutes, VHS format

This is a good motivational film for creation evangelism, discussing the
foundation of Genesis and why the creation/evolution issue is so important.


_The Great Dinosaur Mystery_
Films for Christ, 2628 W.Birchwood Circle, Mesa, Arizona, 85202 (602-894-1300)
20 minutes, VHS format

This is a very subjective film, documenting sketchy "dragon" legends and
similar stories, attempting to show that dinosaurs have been around in 
recent historical times. 


_Origins:  The Origin of the Universe_  (Episode 1)
Films for Christ, 2628 W.Birchwood Circle, Mesa, Arizona, 85202 (602-894-1300)
30 minutes, VHS format, 1991

This is an excellent film discussing the origins of the universe, arguing
that the universe is young and not old.  Features A. E. Wilder-Smith.


_Origins:  The Earth, a Young Planet?_  (Episode 2)
Films for Christ, 2628 W.Birchwood Circle, Mesa, Arizona, 85202 (602-894-1300)
30 minutes, VHS format, 1991

This is an excellent film discussing dating methods, arguing that the
earth and life on it is young and not old.  Features A. E. Wilder-Smith.


_Genesis_
God-breathed
Various translations, ~4000 B.C. (?)
50 chapters

This book has been around for several thousand years, and is surely the
most authoritative book on the subject.  This is the only historical account
we have, originating from the only One who was there to witness it happen. 
Provides information on creation and the flood, genealogies, some early
civilizations.  Excellent reading -- a must!

	----------------------------------------------------

The following is a list of creation research periodicals that I know of:

_Creation Research Quarterly_
Creation Research Society
P.O. Box 14016, Terre Haute, IN, 47803
($17 for 4 issues/year)

_Creation Ex Nihilo_
Creation Magazine USA
P.O. Box 710039
Santee, CA, 92072
($22 for 12 issues/year)

_The Bible Science Newsletter_
The Bible-Science Association
P.O. Box 32457
Minneapolis, MN, 55432-9825
($22 for 12 issues/year)

_Acts & Facts_
Institute for Creation Research
P.O. Box 2667, El Cajon, CA, 92021
(free, 12 issues/year)

_The Ark_
The Genesis Institute
7232 Morgan Ave. S.
Richfield, MN, 55423
(free, 12 issues/year)

_Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith_
American Scientific Affiliation
55 Market St.
Ipswich, MA, 01938
($20 for 12 issues/year)

_It's About Time_
Chronology-History Research Institute
P.O. Box 3043
Spencer, IO, 51301

	----------------------------------------------------

The following are some organizations I know of which are involved specifically
in creation-oriented research and apologetics. 

Institute for Creation Research
P.O. Box 2667
El Cajon, CA, 92021
(619) 448-0900

Creation Research Society
P.O. Box 28473
Kansas City, Missouri, 64118

Creation Science Foundation
P.O. Box 302
Sunnybanks, Queensland
4109 Australia

Creation Resource Foundation
P.O. Box 16100
So. Lake Tahoe, CA, 95706
(916) 542-1509

Creation-Science Research Center
P.O. Box 23195
San Diego, CA, 92193
(619) 569-8673

Center for Scientific Creation
5612 N. 20th Place
Phoenix, AZ, 85016

Gezzzz where have I seen those before.

Too bad Jeff can't turn on his brain,  think about and discuss this,  but 
only posts tracts.


Phil

    re: .487
    
    And do you not post tracks in defense of your position?
    
    
    -steve

    
    Phil, 
    
    I posted them for informational purposes.  I have no intention of
    defending them.
    
    As I have recently stated, bare facticity has no meaning.  Meaning is
    given to data in an interpretive context only.  The context of
    empiricism allows a self-consistent intepretation of data.  The context
    of creationism allows a self-consistent interpretation of data.  So
    neither system is adequate to establish the truth of one over the
    other to both parties satisfaction.  So why bother with it?
    
    jeff
    
    

          <<< Note 64.489 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanshauung" >>>

    
>    As I have recently stated, bare facticity has no meaning.  Meaning is
>    given to data in an interpretive context only.  The context of
>    empiricism allows a self-consistent intepretation of data.  The context
>    of creationism allows a self-consistent interpretation of data.  So
>    neither system is adequate to establish the truth of one over the
>    other to both parties satisfaction.  So why bother with it?
 
	So on one hand we have almost 100 years of scientific tests,
	theories, more tests, new theories, more tests and so on.

	On the other hand we have "God did it".

	I know which model makes ME more confortable.


	But I do thank you for posting those entries. I PARTICULARLY liked
	the one about using the number of humans on the Earth as a dating
	method. That was a absolute SCREAM.


Jim

 
>	So on one hand we have almost 100 years of scientific tests,
>	theories, more tests, new theories, more tests and so on.

>	On the other hand we have "God did it".

>	I know which model makes ME more confortable.

	This is an odd statement.  You mean you would rather hold, in the
    name of personal comfort, a false explanation for data?  Aren't you
    interested in truth should it be obtainable?
    
>	But I do thank you for posting those entries. I PARTICULARLY liked
>	the one about using the number of humans on the Earth as a dating
>	method. That was a absolute SCREAM.

        Jim, so you're not so quickly discounted by such a sarcastic
    statement, maybe you would elaborate on exactly what was so absurd as
    to be funny in those entries.
    
    jeff

re reposts from ::CHRISTIAN:

I've never seen such a collection of incorrect, misinterpreted or simply
bad science in one spot before.  And that's in the 4 or so of the notes
I bothered to read, how bad must the rest of them be?

         <<< Note 64.491 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>

>	This is an odd statement.  You mean you would rather hold, in the
>    name of personal comfort, a false explanation for data?  

	No.
>Aren't you
>    interested in truth should it be obtainable?
 
	Yes.

>        Jim, so you're not so quickly discounted by such a sarcastic
>    statement, maybe you would elaborate on exactly what was so absurd as
>    to be funny in those entries.
 
	An extrapolation of TODAY's population growth used as a dating
	model? Doesn't even pass the most basic giggle test.

Jim

                    <<< Note 64.475 by CSOA1::LEECH "hi" >>>

>    Not at all.  The energy comes from an external source (the mother), who
>    in turn gets energy from food.  The fertilized ovum develops inot a
>    human being via a PLAN (DNA), which is something that the evolutionary
>    model is missing in its entirety.  
 
	The evolutionary model does not propose a PLAN. But it does propose
	a PURPOSE. Survival.

	But the discussion was about your ignorance of Entropy, not about
	whether there was a plan or not. 
   
>    Any evidence can fit into the evolutionary model, as it is so broad as
>    to encompass nearly anything.  Placing physical evidence (say bones)
>    into this model is easy...confirming the model itself, is not.  It is
>    circular reasoning to place archaological findings within this model,
>    and then using these finding to back up the model. 
 
	Now it seems that the scientific method is outside the scope of
	your education.

	A model is developed, a theory is formulated, that theory is then
	tested. In this case the test consists of examining the evidence
	(including the fossil record) and seeing if it supports or
	contradicts the theory. To date, the record supports the theory.

>>	Nonsenical ignorance of the subject matter does nothing to
>>	forward your argument.

>    Ad hominem responses are not beneficial to any argument.
 
	Oh, sometimes they are. When you keep misusing scientific
	terms, after having been repeated told that you ARE misusing
	them, then it saves time and energy to merely point out your
	ignorance.
   
>    But guess what?  Once again, we have an outside force creating a more
>    complex form out of simpler forms via a plan.  
 
	But the PROCESS merely mimics a natural event that has, and does,
	happen due to random circumstances.

>    Without some sort of plan, it seems hopelessly naive to believe that
>    everything randomly came together via chaotic outside energies to
>    create systems magnetudes more complex, even over billions of years. 
>    Disorder is not the parent of order.  You can have all the outside
>    energy you like, but without some sort of blueprint, it seems
>    impossible to continually evolve to more complex forms out of pure
>    chance and time, against the observed phenomina (and excepted
>    scientific law) of entropy.
 
	Again, your basic ignorance of scientific principles is evident.
	Order can indeed come from disorder, given outside influence.
	You again misuse the term entropy. Even after we have pointed
	out that we are not dealing with a closed system.

>    No rejection necessary.  I question the conclusion that scientists have
>    made regarding evidence used to support the evolutionary model.  
 
	No Steve, you are rejecting science itself. By not understanding
	its basic principles, by not educating yourself on their meaning
	and application, you reject science, not just its conclusions.

>    So, I am ignorant because, unlike you, I question the evolutionary
>    model?  Seems it has quite a few holes in it, and that it is best to
>    remain sceptical over it until said holes are filled in.
 
	No, not because you question. Science itself is based on questioning.
	You are ignorant because you refuse to learn.

Jim

    DINOSAUR tracks, that is...  in layer after layer of the fossil record...
    
    Read & heed!!
    

    
    re the 10+ notes on creationism.
    
    I was hoping for an objective presentation of facts, [plural of] thesis
    and argumentation.
    
    I was a bit bewildered by the opinionating choice of words in the
    first reply. And I expected the worst when I read that discussing the 
    validity of the Bible was out of scope. Why bother to discuss the
    subject then ?
    
    I also have to criticise (sp) that a lot of [plural of] thesis are just
    made, without backing them with argumentation or data.
    Some examples are badly chosen. Anyone who ever chose the old roulette
    strategy 'bet on red - double when you lose' knows that 'black' ten times 
    in a row happens quite often. There are, however, random experiments
    that can not be calculated, no matter how much data is present, e.g.
    	- radioactive decay
        - human action and reaction
    
    Then, the description of a tautology is wrong. 
    
    
    I could go on and on.
    Heiko

RE: 64.489 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanshauung"

> As I have recently stated, bare facticity has no meaning.  Meaning is
> given to data in an interpretive context only.  

Drive a 2000 pound truck over a bridge that can support 1000 pounds,  and
try to claim that facts have no meaning. 


> The context of empiricism allows a self-consistent intepretation of data.  
> The context of creationism allows a self-consistent interpretation of 
> data.  So neither system is adequate to establish the truth of one over 
> the other to both parties satisfaction.  So why bother with it?

Ideas have consequences,  Jeff.  This isn't just a matter of "you like red
and I like blue,  so why bother arguing?"  If we as a society retreat into
pseudo-science like Creationism or astrology,  then this society will self
destruct.

The other problem is that Creationism likes to pose as science (or
empiricism,  if you wish):  Will you agree that this is dishonest?  


Phil

    re: .495
    
    Never mind, Jim...you refuse to see what it is that I question.  You'd
    rather go into attack mode.
    
    
    -steve

                    <<< Note 64.498 by CSOA1::LEECH "hi" >>>

>    Never mind, Jim...you refuse to see what it is that I question.  You'd
>    rather go into attack mode.
 
	I see quite well. And I have pointed it out. It's up to you
	to clarify your position and show us that you do indeed
	understand the terms that you keep using.

Jim

  bb (looking back up) :  Wow, bb, what a trail the Kaibab is !!  It's a
    good thing I carried all that water.  Now to find my reserved campsite.

  BB :  Um, you rang ?

  bb :  Hoozat ?  Why...it's a Burning Bush !  Unconsumed by your own flames.
    And you talk ?

  BB :  You can just call me BB for short.  Of course I talk.  No point in
    being a Sign if you have to shut up, is there ?

  bb :  Bush, Bush...hmmm, you wouldn't happen to be Republican, would you ?
    Um, meaning no disrepect, Mr. Bush, sir, but aren't you out of place
    here at the bottom of the Grand Canyon ?

  BB :  I'm an Angel of the Lord, stupid.  Of course, I'm Republican.  But
    we miracles don't do rat-holes, so stop changing the subject.  What
    makes you say I'm out of place ?  This is a desert, and that's my
    shtick, remember ?

  bb :  Well, look.  I slept through those geology lectures, and in all my
    hiking, I never did get the knack of reading the rocks.  Consider the
    Adirondacks, for example.  All kinds of lines running horizontal,
    vertical, seismic activity, ancient volcanoes, ice age signs.

      But this is different.  All the layers are horizontal, all consistent
    over 217 lateral miles. From the top down a vertical mile to the bottom,
    the Canyon is obviously just a big water runoff ditch.  The slight
    widening heading downstream.  The loops, exactly the size and shape of
    riverbeds everywhere, and the shape of nothing else.  Steeper on the
    inside of a bend, shallower outside.  All the marks of water erosion.
    And the river still there doing it's thing, eroding away.  Here, I take
    a cup of the Colorado - see the suspended material ?

  BB :  So it's a big riverbed.  What's your point ?

  bb :  OK, look here, where Americans marked the river a hundred years ago.
    The Colorado River's  cut 5-6 inches further since.  And here, the
    ruins of the old Indians, who we know were gone long before Cortez.
    Less than 5 feet above the river.  Simple math and it can't be wrong
    any logical way.  The Canyon is a million years old, give or take 25% tops.

  BB :  Couldn't the river have cut at a different rate in the past ?

  bb :  Not only could !  It did - back up about 500 feet, there's an obvious
    place where it was once a slow swamp.  And higher still, a place where
    it ran faster - the looping is less, the relative cuts are those of a
    faster stream.  We know how fast the river was.  Over a million years.
    We're not talking some fancy science here.  It's just water erosion,
    something any illiterate dirt farmer or grade school kid can see.  The
    most common phenomenon on Earth.  And not a sign of any catastrophes or,
    um, miracles, anywhere, at least till I met you.

      But the incontrovertible age of the Canyon isn't the important thing.
    It's what is revealed by the cut that is most striking.  As the river
    cut through that rock, 6 inches a century, it gradually revealed, in
    perfect  strata, one by one, rocks of successive ages.  Alternating
    seabeds, vulcanism, dramatic differences over incredibly ancient ages.
    I can hardly estimate how old - must be hundreds of millions, maybe
    billions of years.

  BB : So what better place for me to appear, next to one of the Seven
    Natural Wonders of the World ?

  bb : But you're completely unnecessary here !  I don't need you to explain
    anything.  The park rangers warned me of the effects of dehydration.  So
    I'm afraid I'm going to have to disbelieve you.  Meaning no disrespect.

  BB : So, OK, wise guy.  If you're so smart, what would you suggest as a
    better location for a miracle ?

  bb : That's easy !  I work for Digital (tm).  If anybody ever needed you...

  BB :  Digital, Digital...you make watches ?  Hell has your number ?

  bb :  That's us.  "whatever it takes".  Have a nice day !

    so tell me BENSON, what bits of "science" do you "believe" in ? do you
    "believe" in electromagnetism ? metallurgy ? chemistry ? all the things
    that enable us to have this discourse ? these are founded on, and the
    result of, the scientific process, the same process by which we are
    seeking to explain the origin and evolution of life on earth. 
    
    ric

    Ric:
    
    If I may respond (and Mr. Benson is alot more elogent than I), there
    are debates amongst conservative Christians as to whether or not the
    seven days of Genesis were seven literal days...etc.  I personally have
    no problem discussing the existence of the Mezozoic Era or the
    Paleozoic Era or whatever era you want to discuss.  The teaching I
    totally reject however is the teaching that we evolved from a single
    celled organism and hence are now in the state we are in today...simply
    because this is just as proposterous to me as Adam and Eve may be to
    you.  I believe we were created as Spiritual beings...this is
    scientifically unprovable, it is based strictly on faith...but Jesus
    believed this and I am far more likely to put confidence in what he
    taught than Darwins theories, that's for sure.
    
    The way I see it, there are two possibilities here.  If I die a
    Christian and I was wrong, then all that was proven is that I was a
    village idiot throughout my life...and it doesn't matter because none
    of us will exist anymore to laugh at the other person.  So the
    gratification of intellectual victory is moot.  If however you were to
    die as a nonbeliever, dying in your sin (which I'm not saying you will,
    only a what if here), rejecting the gospel of Christ, then you would
    face God as your judge and spend eternity separated from God. 
    Evolution from a one celled organism has not been proven just as
    spiritual separation has not been proven, therefore the one question we
    would all have to ask ourselves is, where is our allegiance, to God or
    to ourself?  Then we would have to live with the consequences.
    
    -Jack

    .502
    
    thanks for your frank and sincere reply.
    
    i have absolutely *no* problem with your stance - belief in creationism
    as faith - either you do or either you don't. though i must confess you
    confuse me when you seem to partially accept the "science" behind
    things ie the geological column.
    
    what i find perturbing is persons who hold your stance who then proceed
    to try and argue the toss using the very tools ie scientific rationale
    they dismiss (as most of all the claptrap reposted here ad nauseum
    does).
    
    ric        

    .502
    
    jack, i am a christian.  if i die and am wrong, i was wrong.  about the
    object of my religion, at least.  but whether i am wrong does not alter
    the centuries' worth of data collection that all point to a system that
    has evolved to where it is today.  it was what it was, with plants and
    animals more or less complex, and it is now what it is, with plants and
    animals more or less complex.  not the same species, but the actual
    degree of biological sophistication has not changed all that much -
    only the complexity of CERTAIN PARTS of certain species, e.g., the
    human brain.  our bodies are not any more sophisticated than those of
    dinosaurs, they're just different.
    
    occam's razor says take the scientific model - it's a complicated one,
    but at least it's possible.  the creationist model, which is denied by
    all the evidence, is actually not possible unless you accept magic. 
    and, as sherlock holmes once remarked, when you have eliminated the
    impossible, whatever is left, however implausible it may be, must be
    true.
    
    the evolution of which you so dismissively speak isn't quite so handily
    laid out as "we evolved from a one-celled organism."  we didn't.  what
    evolved from the earliest one-celled organisms some 3 billion years
    ago, which were ALL plants, by the way, was other one-celled organisms. 
    from them more one-celled organisms evolved.  at some point, some of
    those organisms crossed the boundary between plant and animal - but
    that boundary, on the unicellular level, is extremely subtle; even
    today there are single-celled plants that can move around as animals
    do.  (they're classed as plants because they possess chlorophyll.)
    
    at some point, a two-celled organism appeared.  most likely, it was the
    result of a failed fission.  perhaps a one-celled organism happened
    that was a mutation, and its failure to divide cleanly proved
    prosurvival.  happens enough times, and you have a new species.
    
    speciation is a DOCUMENTED phenomenon, you know.  at least twice in the
    past 75 years, the same new species of a certain plant genus has
    appeared in nature.  interestingly enough, this new species is more
    complex than the species that produced it by mutation.  but of course
    this is absurd, right?  can't happen.  so let's see YOU explain it if
    it can't happen.

> As I have recently stated, bare facticity has no meaning.  Meaning is
> given to data in an interpretive context only.  

>>Drive a 2000 pound truck over a bridge that can support 1000 pounds,  and
>>try to claim that facts have no meaning. 

You have proven my point, Phil, by providing the context for the facts
in your statement.

> The context of empiricism allows a self-consistent intepretation of data.  
> The context of creationism allows a self-consistent interpretation of 
> data.  So neither system is adequate to establish the truth of one over 
> the other to both parties satisfaction.  So why bother with it?

>>Ideas have consequences,  Jeff.  This isn't just a matter of "you like red
>>and I like blue,  so why bother arguing?"  If we as a society retreat into
>>pseudo-science like Creationism or astrology,  then this society will self
>>destruct.

>>Phil


I will be the last to argue for relative truth, Phil.  

Society seems to be self-destructing with science more than it ever did with 
psuedo-science. 

Furthermore, empiricism cannot effectively claim to define existential truth 
while claiming at the same time that it cannot reach the truth with certainty.
This is self-stultifying.

Empiricism and Creationism are the wrong levels at which to argue existential
truth.  One must go up a level to Philosophy, using the tools of deduction to
establish one world-view over another, such as anti-theism over theism or vice
versa.  If anti-theism is true and theism is false then empricism may be true 
and creationism is false.  If theism is true and anti-theism is false then
creationism may be true and empiricism is false.  In any case, contradictory
claims are defeated at a high level.  If theism is true and anti-theism
is false, we can eliminate the explanations for the universe which 
    contradict theism.  Then we can test the truth of the competing 
theistic explanations for the universe without regard to the false 
anti-theistic views, for example.

jeff

re: .502

>    you.  I believe we were created as Spiritual beings...this is
>    scientifically unprovable, it is based strictly on faith...but Jesus
>    believed this and I am far more likely to put confidence in what he
>    taught than Darwins theories, that's for sure.

However, Jesus was not a man of science, was he? And the "science" of
two millenia ago wasn't anywhere near as robust as it is today, so that
about which he and his fellows might have been knowledgable was somewhat
limited. The more pertinent question is, if Jesus were flesh today,
what would his beliefs and views be? I doubt that anyone is in a position
to be so presumptuous as to answer that.

    Well Jack, considering Jesus was also a prophet and, in my opinion,
    co-equal with God the Father, it would seem his knowledge would be
    infinite...considering God is the creator of all things.
    
    -Jack 

But Jack, my point was that, as a man of his time, there would be limits
to that which he could expound on. For him, 2000 years ago, to have made
any sort of implications outside of what was culturally and intellectually
understandable wouldn't have been of much use to anyone. A prophet is
constrained to making their prophecies in terms and measures which are
assimilable by the contemporaries which they are conversant with, else
they are not taken with much gravity. We know today that a water molecule
is made up of two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom. Now maybe Jesus
did, and maybe he did not, know that same fact two millenia ago, but
it certainly wouldn't have made a whole hell of a lot of sense for him
to have expressed the idea, would it? Likewise, for him to have expressed
an opinion on Evolution would have been pointless. Not so today, though

    .507
    
    > seem his knowledge would be
    > infinite
    
    BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!  but thank you for playing.  jesus was explicitly
    clear in stating that his own knowledge was not infinite - see matthew
    24:36 and mark 13:32.

re "nor the Son":

As God, he had access to infinite knowledge, i.e., he could have known it
if he had wanted to, but it was not in his office to reveal it.

/john

    OHH  PAAARRDON ME.  Jesus did not have infinite knowledge.  Jesus could
    have had the knowledge of when the day was of his second return but
    chose to yield all knowledge to the Father.  See Philippians chapter
    two on the humility and obedience of Christ!!
    
    -Jack

    .510
    
    how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, /john?  jesus said, IN
    SO MANY WORDS, that there was at least one thing that he did not know. 
    any contention to the contrary is wrong, and a denial of the truth of
    his words.
    
    whether he COULD HAVE KNOWN that thing is irrelevant.  he didn't.  and
    from that it can be extrapolated that there were other things he did
    not know because, to use your words, it was not in his office to reveal
    them.

    .511
    
    we are not talking about whether jesus was obedient.  we are discussing
    whether there was something he did not know.  there was.

    We are talking about the 2nd coming of Christ, correct?

    It's funny how the evolution topic always gravitates towards a
    discussion in theology.

	 .515  yeah, it's a regular laugh riot

    
    Just goes to show that evolution is more metaphysical than
    evolutionists want to admit.
    
    jeff

    Of course Glen.  A foundation of origin needs to be established.  If we
    can conclude we are spiritual beings, then we are also accountable to
    Godly standards.  If we conclude we are animals and not mmade in the
    image of God, then we have the natural right to act the same if society
    wants to succumb to animalistic behavior..abortion not withstanding!
    
    -Jack

    I don't think Glen is in today.

    .515
    
    yeah i want to talk about the minutiae of punc equilibria vs Darwinism
    and Lamarckism vs Weissman's barrier and these guys are on about what
    Jesus did/didn't know based on this quote in the Bible vs that quote !
    
    ric$fwustwated

    .514
    
    > We are talking about the 2nd coming of Christ, correct?
    
    no.  we are takling about the scientific admissibility of statements
    made approximately 2000 years ago by a nonscientist who was speaking to
    a nonscientific community on matters of religious faith.
    
    the question is whether that nonscientist possessed the sum of all
    knowledge, and the answer is the he himself said (with specific
    reference to his own second coming) that he did not.  hence, his input
    to the scientific debate is questionable at the very best.

    
    Bender is correct in that Jesus did not claim infinite knowledge, only
    that which His Father in heaven revealed to Him.
     
    However, He clearly claimed to know the origin of the universe and that
    being the creation described in Genesis.
    
    jeff

    Dick, that's like me saying because I don't know the UNIX Operating
    System, I wouldn't know how to change a diaper.  Just because Jesus
    din't know when he was to return doesn't mean he lacks vast knowledge
    of other things.
    
    -Jack

    Dick:
    
    Keep in mind there is a difference between literal and infallable.
    
    The Bible has many sequences that are symbolic...but it is not
    fallable.
    
    -Jack

UNIX don't have to know how to change diapers.

    I should have known that was coming!!!!

    .522
    
    he claimed to know the origin of the universe as it pertained to
    matters of faith and spirituality, not as it pertained to quarks and
    quantum mechanics.  unless, of course, you choose to take his words
    literally, in which case you have to take them ALL literally, and you
    end up believing that a loaf of bread is your god.
    
    jesus was a master of allegory and symbolism.  it's too bad people who
    claim to follow him can't even understand such types of speech.
    
    can we plese get off this topic and back onto evolution, which is
    documented and provable despite our not at this time knowing how it
    works?

    Dick:
    
    Pardon my cynicism and I will get off the topic, but I found your last
    entry astounding...amazing how you have such a grasp on scientific
    datum.  I'm sure Jesus could really learn alot from your knowledge and
    wisdom.  Kind of like the pottery telling the potter how to make a
    vase!!
    
    -Jack

    .528
    
    actually, my remark was more along the lines of a sun-dried brick
    telling another sun-dried brick (remember, made out of mud and all)
    that the world's best brickmaker didn't know how to make bone china
    plates because nobody was buying bone china that year.
    
    you really just don't get it, do you, jack?

    No, I guess I don't!!

    if you disolve salt in hot water and allow that water to cool salt
    crystals will form.
    
    Which is in a higher state the crystal or the salt water ?
    
    The salt water is more uniform....
    
    If the universe started out as matter (hydrogen) evenly dispersed in
    space does it not follow that that matter will collect ?
    
    
    
    
    If the fossil record is real then it contradicts the bible
    If the bible is true then the fossils where created by god as a joke or
    the terrible lizzards weren't mention because they didn't seem
    important....
    
    pick one 
    
    
    Brian V
    

Date: Mon, 6 Feb 95 22:42:08 CST
From: Michael T. Espiritu

The Book of Creation

Chapter 1


    In the beginning God created Dates.  And the date was Monday, July
4, 4004 BC.

    And God said, let there be light; and there was light.  And when
there was Light, God saw the Date, that it was Monday, and he got down
to work; for verily, he had a Big Job to do.

    And God made pottery shards and Silurian mollusks and pre-Cambrian
limestone strata; and flints and Jurassic Mastodon tusks and
Picanthopus erectus skulls and Cretaceous placentals made he; and those
cave paintings at Lasceaux.  And that was that, for the first Work Day.

    And God saw that he had made many wondrous things, but that he had
not wherein to put it all.  And God said, Let the heavens be divided
from the earth; and let us bury all of these Things which we have made
in the earth; but not too deep.

    And God buried all the Things which he had made, and that was that.

    And the morning and the evening and the overtime were Tuesday.

    And God said, Let there be water; and let the dry land appear; and
that was that.

    And God called the dry land Real Estate; and the water called he
the Sea.  And in the land and beneath it put he crude oil, grades one
through six; and natural gas put he thereunder, and prehistoric
carboniferous forests yielding anthracite and other ligneous matter;
and all these called he Resources; and he made them Abundant.

    And likewise all that was in the sea, even unto two hundred miles
from the dry land, called he resources; all that was therein, like
manganese nodules, for instance.

    And the morning unto the evening had been a long day; which he
called Wednesday.

    And God said, Let the earth bring forth abundantly every moving
creature I can think of, with or without backbones, with or without
wings or feet, or fins or claws, vestigial limbs and all, right now;
and let each one be of a separate species.  For lo, I can make
whatsoever I like, whensoever I like.

    And the earth brought forth abundantly all creatures, great and
small, with and without backbones, with and without wings and feet and
fins and claws, vestigial limbs and all, from bugs to brontosauruses.
But God blessed them all, saying, Be fruitful and multiply and Evolve
Not.

    And God looked upon the species he hath made, and saw that the
earth was exceedingly crowded, and he said unto them, Let each species
compete for what it needed; for Healthy Competition is My Law.  And the
species competeth amongst themselves, the cattle and the creeping
things; and some madeth it and some didn't; and the dogs ate the
dinosaurs and God was pleased.

    And God took the bones from the dinosaurs, and caused them to
appear mighty old; and cast he them about the land and the sea.  And he
took every tiny creature that had not madeth it, and caused them to
become fossils; and cast he them about likewise.

    And just to put matters beyond the valley of the shadow of a doubt
God created carbon dating.  And this is the origin of species.

    And in the Evening of the day which was Thursday, God saw that he
had put in another good day's work.

    And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness,
which is tall and well-formed and pale of hue: and let us also make
monkeys, which resembleth us not in any wise, but are short and
ill-formed and hairy.  And God added, Let man have dominion over the
monkeys and the fowl of the air and every species, endangered or
otherwise.  So God created Man in His own image; tall and well-formed
and pale of hue created He him, and nothing at all like the monkeys.

    And God said, Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed,
which is upon the face of the earth.  But ye shalt not smoketh it, lest
it giveth you ideas.

    And to every beast of the earth and every fowl of the air I have
given also every green herb, and to them it shall be for meat.  But they
shall be for you.  And the Lord God your Host suggesteth that the flesh
of cattle goeth well with that of the fin and the claw; thus shall Surf
be wedded unto Turf.

    And God saw everything he had made, and he saw that it was very
good; and God said, It just goes to show Me what the private sector can
accomplish.  With a lot of fool regulations this could have taken
billions of years.

    And the evening of the fifth day, which had been the roughest day
yet, God said, Thank me it's Friday.  And God made the weekend.

	.532   aagagag.  "Thank me it's Friday."  ;>  I love it.

That was great, Dick! A true classic.

I especially liked the parts about "vestigial limbs and all"!

    And god said, let there be man called hesperopithicus and create thou
    out of the tooth of an extinct pig, and there it was for Soapbox noters 
    to blindly follow!

>         <<< Note 64.535 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

>    And god said, let there be man called hesperopithicus and create thou
>    out of the tooth of an extinct pig, and there it was for Soapbox noters 
>    to blindly follow!

And what does that prove Jack? One scientist made a mistake in identifying
one of the millions of fossil bones unearthed. Big Deal!
No one has said archeology/paleontology/whatever is _THE_ perfect science
however the proof for the theory of evolution is immense where as the
so-called proof for creation is one slim volume written and re-written
by men. (Oh and of course blind faith, lest we forget!)

    Amos:
    
    It is a big deal because that one mistake throws the whole Darwins
    Origin of man chart off completely...which would account for millions
    of years off.  Like I said, I have no problem with the possibility that
    Carbon 14 and the like prove the age of the earth.  But to use a
    fallable chart to show the origin of man...and keep using it even after
    this big mistake was proven is sheer ignorance...not science at all! 
    It is a religion, just like the belief in the Adam and Eve account!
    
    -Jack

    .537
    
    darwin's chart isn't the one used these days.  we have gathered much
    more data in the past 140 or so years.
    
    > But to use a
    > fallable chart to show the origin of man...and keep using it even after
    > this big mistake was proven is sheer ignorance...
    
    sort of like insisting that the genealogy in the first chapter of the
    gospel according to matthew is that of jesus.  sheer ignorance - or
    foolishness, you pick.  bad writing, you gotta admit, since it says in
    explicit words at the beginning that it's the genealogy of jesus and
    then fetches up at joseph the husband of mary and ADOPTIVE father of
    jesus.  oopsie...

    <--- That has always bothered me. I always wondered what Mary's
    genealogy was.

    .539
    
    mary was only a woman; her genealogy was immaterial.
    
    luke gives - get this - a CONFLICTING genealogy for joseph.  i wonder
    which is right and which wrong...

    Not only that, her genealogy wasn't that important either.
    
    Wonder what St. Anne would say.....

    Sorry, Mary and Joseph have the same geneology but under two different
    lines.  Secondly, Josephs geneology is recognized in that culture as
    the primary one, since he was the man of the family.  Don't blame me,
    that's the way it was in Israel!
    
    -Jack

    .542
    
    > Mary and Joseph have the same geneology but under two different
    > lines.
    
    maybe you ought to look up what genealogy means.  does the phrase
    "family tree" mean anything to you?
    
    but it really doesn't matter, jack, because the two genealogies given
    by matthew and luke, each stated by itself to be that of joseph, are
    DIFFERENT.  there are different names, and one has several more
    generations than the other.  ONE OF THEM IS WRONG.
    
    > Secondly, Josephs geneology is recognized in that culture as
    > the primary one, since he was the man of the family.
    
    of course the fact that luke, a gentile, was writing for a gentile
    audience does nothing to diminish the importance of jewish legalism,
    does it?

    .538
    
    doh !!
    
    just as i thought we were getting down to evolution you go and bring up
    the Bible again !
    
    shame on you
    
    ric
    :-)
    

RE: 64.505 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung"

>>>Ideas have consequences,  Jeff.  This isn't just a matter of "you like red
>>>and I like blue,  so why bother arguing?"  If we as a society retreat into
>>>pseudo-science like Creationism or astrology,  then this society will self
>>>destruct.
>
>>>Phil

Jeff,

Are you trying to ignore this question?


.497> The other problem is that Creationism likes to pose as science (or
.497> empiricism,  if you wish):  Will you agree that this is dishonest?  


Notice that this statement came between the paragraph quoted above,  and my 
name.  Why was my name important enough to quote,  but the above question 
wasn't?


Phil

    I think the Bible should be baned until all the passages are
    politically correct.

    Some people would really like that...
    
    Maybe the fact that the Bible is not PC should give a hint as to the
    nature of the PC movement.
    
    -steve (I know, what's this got to do with evolution?...nothing, but I
    didn't start this rathole)                                      

    howsabout a new topic - the Bible - and move all these biblical replies
    to there ?
    
    ric

    Dick:
    
    This is my understanding of it.  I promise to get off the topic but I
    believe this to be important.
    
    There are two geneologies regarding Jesus in the Bible.  The One in
    Matthew 1 is the line from Abraham to David, then Solomon to Joseph.
    Joseph was the oldest son of the oldest son of the oldest son of the
    oldest son.  This makes Joseph the heir apparent from the line of
    David.
    
    Marys line in Luke 3 start from the opposite end (Jesus) and going all
    the way back to Adam.  The key within these two lines is that they are
    both from the line of David, however, Joseph is from Solomon, Davids
    older son.  Mary is from Nathan, Davids second son.  Therefore, the
    names in each of the lines, although the same geneology, are two
    distinct lines within the family tree.  Joseph was the Heir apparent
    and Mary being from the tribe of Judah had the royal blood.  Another
    key here is that within Josephs distinct family line, there was a king
    named Coniah.  Coniah had a curse put on him that none of his
    descendents would sit on the throne.  Therefore, it was imperative that
    Josephs line did not bear the messiah, but that the royal blood line
    came from Nathan through Mary.
    
    -Jack

    Sounds like a little incest here!

    i will create a new topic for the bible discussion.  please discontinue
    it here.
    

   Phil,

   I responded to the following paragraph in .505.  I've included it below
   again.  And I've added a comment.

>>>Ideas have consequences,  Jeff.  This isn't just a matter of "you like red
>>>and I like blue,  so why bother arguing?"  If we as a society retreat into
>>>pseudo-science like Creationism or astrology,  then this society will self
>>>destruct.


!>Jeff,

!>Are you trying to ignore this question?


>I will be the last to argue for relative truth, Phil.  

>Society seems to be self-destructing with science more than it ever did with 
>psuedo-science. 
    
    I would suggest that "science", to the extent that it is and has been 
    promoted or adopted as an adequate arbiter of existential truth either 
    directly or by implication, is culpable for many of our society's
    social problems.
    

>Furthermore, empiricism cannot effectively claim to define existential truth 
>while claiming at the same time that it cannot reach the truth with certainty.
>This is self-stultifying.

.497> The other problem is that Creationism likes to pose as science (or
.497> empiricism,  if you wish):  Will you agree that this is dishonest?  


!>Notice that this statement came between the paragraph quoted above,  and my 
!>name.  Why was my name important enough to quote,  but the above question 
!>wasn't?

!>Phil

Your name provided identification for readers.

Creationism is not empiricism.  But neither is scientism.  I don't know if 
creationism claims empiricism as a basis of authority.  Scientism certainly 
does.

jeff

    was that a sidestep or a pagefault?
    

RE: 64.552 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung"

.497> The other problem is that Creationism likes to pose as science (or
.497> empiricism,  if you wish):  Will you agree that this is dishonest?  

Try again.


Phil

                 ... this would HAVE to be my personal_name ...
    
    |-{:-)
    

    My dad had a wank against a wall and the sun hatched me out.
    

How nice.

    How very maculate.
    

    Re: .556
    
    You must be a nuclear-free zone...
    

    Science Musings
    Chet Raymo
    
    The real battle over creationism
    
    Here's a statistic that may surprise you. According to a 1993 Gallup
    poll, 47 percent of all Americans believe that God created human beings
    pretty much in their present form sometime during the past 10,000
    years.
    
    Only 46 percent believe that humans evolved over millions of years from
    less-advanced forms, either with or without divine intervention.
    
    A decade ago, these numbers were reversed, with creationists a
    minority.
    
    And the debate over beginnings is drawing still closer to home.
    
    Christian fundamentalists in Merrimack, N.H., want the biblical story
    of creation taught in the schools as a viable scientific alternative to
    evolution.
    
    The key word here is "scientific."
    
    In a Globe story, electrical engineer David Ham is quoted as saying:
    "Creation science can be taught without quoting the Bible if we just go
    with the facts.'
    
    Norman Phillips, a former MIT professor, counters with: "We don't teach
    astrology with astronomy. We don't teach witchcraft with medicine. We
    don't teach the science of the world with the first chapter of
    Genesis."
    
    I grew up in the Bible Belt, not far from Dayton, Tenn., the site of
    the famous Scopes Monkey Trial. Early on I came to New England so that
    my children could be raised in the thoughtful tradition of the Adamses,
    Emerson, Thoreau, Agassiz and Gray. Now the Bible Belt has been
    loosened to encompass the expanding girth of fundamentalism, just in
    time for my grandchildren to hear in science class that the world is
    10,000 years old.
    
    My first reaction to the Merrimack story was to rehearse once again why
    "creation science" is not science.
    
    Science is not a collection of statements about the world (e.g.,
    "matter is made of atoms," "light travels at 186,000 miles per second,"
    "all complex forms of life evolved from simple beginnings"). Rather,
    science is a web of relationships. Our confidence in any scientific
    statement derives entirely from the resilience of its connections with
    the rest of knowledge.
    
    Science is not a smorgasbord of truths from which we pick and choose.
    Science is the ensemble. Start snipping away whatever bits don't agree
    with one's particular religion and soon the whole fabric is in tatters.
    
    If the world is less than 10,000 years old, as Creationists say, then
    virtually everything we know ahout astronomy, physics, chemistry,
    geology and biology is called into question. To be replaced by - what?
    A few questionable "footprints" down in Texas where men supposedly
    walked with dinosaurs?
    
    But why am I saying this here? Most readers of the Globe science pages
    won't need convincing. And people who accept a literal interpretation
    of Genesis believe in a surer path to truth than science - which is of
    course their right.
    
    Meanwhile, a half-baked scam called "creation science" attracts
    increasing numbers of believers. School boards are taken over by folks
    who learned their science from supermarket tabloids and radio talk
    shows. Textbook publishers back away from teaching evolution and human
    pre-history for fear of losing sales.
    
    Even in New England the pressure is on to bring Genesis into the public
    schools.
    
    My second reaction to the Merrimack story was to say: Let's call their
    bluff.
    
    Let the National Academy of Sciences and the Christian Coalition each
    produce a series of high-school-level videos, presenting the scientific
    evidence for evolution and biblical creation respectively. No quoting
    scriptures. No recourse to revelation. Just go with the facts.
    
    Comparing the scientific evidence for a literal Genesis to the
    scientific evidence for evolution would be like comparing a child's
    nonsense rhyme to the works of Shakespeare, or like comparing an almost
    empty spool of thread to the Bayeux Tapestry.
    
    It would be a wonderful opportunity to show the kids what science is.
    
    And isn't.
    
    And while we're at it, we could convey the spirit that motivated Darwin
    himself, as expressed in the first edition of "The Origin of Species":
    
    "There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers,
    having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that,
    whilst the planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of
    gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and
    wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."
    
    Unfortunately, calling the creationists' bluff would confer an
    unwarranted legitimacy upon "creation science," and open the door for
    adherents of other pseudosciences (astrology, parapsychology, UFOlogy)
    to ask for a place in the curriculum. For the time being, enlightened
    communities should continue to fight the constitutional battle in the
    courts.
    
    The battle is not between science and religion. It is not between
    evolution and theism. It is between science and a ravel of disconnected
    religious assertions claiming to be science.
    
    If the battle is lost, all of America may become the Dayton, Tenn., of
    the 21st century.
     
    (Chet Raymo is a professor of physics at Stonehill College and the
    author of several books on science.)

    Light only travels 186,000 mps in space. It slows down some when it
    hits our atmosphere. 

    No.
    It changes its frequency. That's why the sun turns red at sunset.
    
    Heiko

    .562
    
    > It changes its frequency. That's why the sun turns red at sunset.
    
    no.  the sun turns red because there's more air to be passed through,
    and more air carries more particulates that absorb the more energetic
    wavelengths, leaving a greater percentage of red for the viewing
    pleasure of the masses.

>    .115
    
>    So, Jeff, is calling Creationism "science" truth?
    
    So, Dick, is evolution "science" (when the mathematical probability of 
    evolution being true is virtually zero; the odds for it are 1 in a "number 
    which is greater than the number of atoms in the universe"), truth?
    
    jeff  

	Jeff, why didn't you answer Dick's question? You're so good at hiding
or being avaisive, now how about answering?

RE: 64.564 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung"


Answer the question,  Jeff.

Is calling Creationism "science" truth?


Phil

    Answer the question, Phil.
        
    Is calling evolutionary "science" (when the mathematical probability
    of evolution being true is virtually zero; the odds for it are 1 in a 
    "number which is greater than the number of atoms in the universe"), truth?
    
    jeff  

    If my car does 186,000 mps do I need head lights/

	Keep on running from the truth Jeff. You do it so well. How long are
you going to keep running? Why won't you just stop, and answer the question
that was asked you? 


Glen

    -1 yes, very fast lights...

    .564
    
    > when the mathematical probability of
    > evolution being true is virtually zero
    
    no, actually, the mathematical probability of evolution's being true is
    1.000000...
    
    it's been observed, jeff.  in REAL LIFE, with REAL LIFE FORMS.
    
    the mathematical probablility of any single theory of evolution's being
    true is rather less.  but then, that's what science is all about.  you
    keep at it until you find a theory that works.  current theories are
    pretty good at explaining what has been observed.  unlike creationism,
    whose mathematical probability of being true is EXACTLY, not VIRTUALLY
    zero.
    
    so, jeff, is calling creationism "science" truth?  either answer the
    quesdtion yes or no, since you're so big on absolute truth, or admit
    that you cannot - or will not - answer it.