"Dan Erick" wrote in message
om...
"Tony Fernandes" wrote in message
...
I think the truth about a "creator" or the nature of the universe or
what
happens after we die transcends conscious thought. It's not even
something
you and I can discuss becuase of our finite ability to comprehend. I'll
stipulate their MAY be a creator if you can stipulate that there may NOT
be
one. Becuase really, neither of us really knows for sure. ;-)

Tony

Well Tony, I'm not going to go into all the ways that God has shown me
that He is indeed real. It's not something I could prove to you, but I
could never deny Him.

But, for arguments sake let's stipulate that there may not be a god.

If I'm right, then I get eternal life in Heaven. And unbelievers are
punished forever.
If you're right, then we die that's it. The End. And I have just
"wasted" my life loving others as myself.

Who's got more to lose? Are you comfortable with the fact that you
just may be wrong? I know that our finite ability to comprehend can
not fathom how terrible eternity in Hell would be. But if you're wrong
that would be the biggest mistake of your life =(


Pascal's Wager, huh?

what is there to lose? how about if god says at the end something like, "I
gave you reason and you discarded it in favor of fantasy. I therefore
condemn all believers to eternal damnation."?

Sorry Mr Stahl, try again. It is NOT A PROVEN FACT!!!!

Very few things, if any, can be considered "proven fact" actually. We tend
to take things as "fact" if the bulk of the evidence supports it.

So far in our
scientific studies noone can prove evolution and deny creation, nor can
they
prove creation and deny evolution.
Although, I have had arguments with people that believe that evolution has
been "proved", like yourself, and before you post again I want you to do
research between microevolution and macroevolution.

Many regard the two as the same thing. These days, I don't think anyone
argues that they're distinct processes.

"Les" wrote in message
...

"Mark Stahl" wrote in message
...

"Doug" wrote in message
...
This is the wrong place to discuss this, so I'll just say that you are
correct in evolution threatens my faith. When evolution is proven,
the Bible is disproven, and I become an atheist. Explaining away
Genesis undermines the entire Bible. No creation, no god.


congratulations on becoming an atheist, then....

Right now, evidence does not fully support evolution.

actually, it does. in fact, it is observed, experimentally verified
fact.

Sorry Mr Stahl, try again.


Probably not worth it, but OK.


It is NOT A PROVEN FACT!!!!

of course it is. evolution has been observed both in the field and in the
laboratory. as a biologist, i am quite familiar with this fact. you may not
be aware of it, but evolution is both fact (observed) and theory (the
explanation for the observation). there are various theories concerning the
mechanism of evolution, but the fact that it occurred and continues to do so
is universally agreed upon, except perhaps by fringe groups of crackpots
such as are often to be found scurrying about dark corners of the usenet.

evolution is simply the change in allelic frequency over time. as such, it
can be observed in simple experiments such as selecting for traits in a
population like antibiotic resistence and such. these observations are
uncontroversial, and are clear demonstrations of the fact of evolution.
these observations are easy to make in microorganisms, but are applicable to
any organism.


So far in our
scientific studies noone can prove evolution

you say "our" as if you have worked in the field. what are your credentials
again?

in any case, yes, many scientific studies have proven that evolution occurs.
in fact, i will probably do one such experiment later on today. for a quick
overview of how, simply see:
Clausen, J., D. D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies on the
nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy,
with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute Washington Publication,
564:1-174.
Shikano, S., L. S. Luckinbill and Y. Kurihara. 1990. Changes of traits in a
bacterial population associated with protozoal predation. Microbial Ecology.
20:75-84
Barton, N. H., J. S. Jones and J. Mallet. 1988. No barriers to speciation.
Nature. 336:13-14.

the latter review paper should be clear enough on this point.


and deny creation,

there is nothing about "creation" to deny.

nor can they
prove creation and deny evolution.

one cannot deny evolution any more than one can deny gravity.


Although, I have had arguments with people that believe that evolution has
been "proved", like yourself, and before you post again I want you to do
research between microevolution and macroevolution.

LOL, the idea of someone who differentiates between "microevolution" and
"macroevolution" (terms not used by scientists) telling me to do "research"
has me in stitches. in fact, i had to show some of my colleagues, who are
also laughing at you.


Once you have studied
the difference in those then show your "proof".

OK, no problem:
instances of speciation (what you presumably mean by your made-up
"macroevolution" term)-
here are a few of the many examples from the primary literatu
Frandsen, K. J. 1943. The experimental formation of Brassica juncea Czern.
et Coss. Dansk. Bot. Arkiv., No. 4, 11:1-17.

del Solar, E. 1966. Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and
negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences (US). 56:484-487.

Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient
species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.

Dodd, D. M. B. and J. R. Powell. 1985. Founder-flush speciation: an update
of experimental results with Drosophila. Evolution 39:1388-1392.

Feder, J. L., C. A. Chilcote and G. L. Bush. 1988. Genetic differentiation
between sympatric host races of the apple maggot fly, Rhagoletis pomonella.
Nature. 336:61-64.

Macnair, M. R. and P. Christie. 1983. Reproductive isolation as a
pleiotropic effect of copper tolerance in Mimulus guttatus. Heredity.
50:295-302.

Manhart, J. R. and R. M. McCourt. 1992. Molecular data and species concepts
in the algae. Journal of Phycology. 28:730-737.



and a very nice textbook selection:

Otte, E. and J. A. Endler (eds.). 1989. Speciation and its consequences.
Sinauer Associates. Sunderland, MA.

Brock, T. D. and M. T. Madigan. 1988. Biology of Microorganisms (5th
edition). Prentice Hall, Englewood, NJ.

Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American
Biology Teacher. 49:3436.

as an aside, no creationist has ever explained how evolution would simply
"stop" at some arbirtary point, a crucial concept for their "theory".
presumably they invoke magic yet again. it is therefore incumbent on those
who insist on a distiction between "macro" and "micro" evolution to describe
this difference, which of course they never will. care to take a swing at it
(providing the appropriate molecualar mechanisms)?


Right now you post
meaningless diatribes with no basis or reference to facts, basically you
are
utilizing strawman tactics.


no, i am patiently attempting to correct the woeful deficiencies in your
understanding. if my posts are "meaningless" to you, it is only because you
choose to understand, or are unable to do so. frankly, i question whether
you even know what a "strawman" is, since i didn't use any such tactic.



If evolution
were fact, we'd see a gradual change of species from one to another,
with increasing diversity as time passes.

which is precisely what is observed, both in the imperfect fossil record
and
in the better-preserved genome.

Precisely? Imperfect? Seems to me that your precision is a little off.


yes, but you have demonstrated that you have no clue what you're talking
about, so it doesn't particularly matter what it "seems like" to you.


Instead, the fossil record
is replete with zillions of instances of different species, with less
and less diversity as time passes.

what on earth are you talking about?


care to explain this bizarre comment? you skipped it before.

There are a very few instances
(Archeopteryx, platypus) that seem to show evolution, but the vast
majority shows distinct speciation, not gradual change.

there are quite a few examples of transitional fossil forms. moreover,
the
genetics show exactly the gradual change you expect.

Well then list some of those examples.

there are literally hundreds. how long do you want this post to be?

OK:
from the Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, 24(4), December,
1972:
"....Similarly, we also tend to refer transitional fossils to that higher
taxon which the most resemble or to which their final representatives
belong. Consequently, the fact that we are dealing with continuously
gradational sequences may be obscured by our conventional practise of
superimposing artificially discontinuous, higher rank taxonomic boundaries
across such lineages (Olson, 1965, p. 100-101, 202-203; Van Morkhoven, 1962,
p. 105, 153; Williams, 1953, p. 29; Cuffey, 1967, p. 38-39). As a result,
for example, in the middle of sequences of transitional fossils bridging the
conceptual gaps between the various vertebrate classes, we find forms which
sit squarely on the dividing line between these high-rank taxa and which can
be referred to either of two. In addition to Archaeopteryx between reptiles
and birds (discussed previously), we can also note Diarthrognathus between
reptiles and mammals, the seymouriamorphs between amphibians and reptiles,
and Elpistostege between fishes and amphibians (see references in Table 5).
"

In an excellent website replete with documentation from the literature,
Kathleen Hunt has documented literally hundreds of transitionary fossils:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

You should also consult the following texts for more information about
fossil data.
Colbert & Morales' Evolution of the Vertebrates (1991), Carroll's Vertebrate
Paleontology and Evolution (1988), and Benton's The Phylogeny and
Classification of the Tetrapods (1988).

all of this is very well and quite convincing to anyone without an agenda,
and that's before consulting the clinching genetic data!

BTW, just because something obeys
what you would expect in genetics does not prove one thing and disprove
the
other.


perhaps not, but it is extremely suggestive. in fact, it would be an
incredible coincidence (a deliberate deception, perhaps?) for a "creator" to
produce precisely the kind of nested hierarchy of descent-with-modification
that we see in the fossil record and flesh out with genetics. taking the
data at its face value and combining that with observations we can make in
real time, the evidence in favor of the general theory of evolution as the
mechanism for producing our current bioversity is truly overwhelming. it is
the best supported scientific theory of all time, after all.


...and don't
forget speciation is a classification thought up by humans to explain
what they see. Many different species (I'm referring mostly to
invertebrates here) are in fact the same creatures, or "kind" if you
will.


ridiculous assertion. there is no such thing as a "kind" outside of the
bible.


Now I'm done (I hope), as this is really the wrong place. ...just
wanted to point out that the science does not fully support either
side,

sure it does. evolution is scientifically observed. creation is made up.

Again. No basis in fact. Just a useless troll. Why do I feed these things?


well, if by "no basis in fact" you mean "more supporting facts than any
scientific theory ever", you may have something there.

as to why you "feed these things", i suspect at least part of you was crying
out to be educated.

tell me, did you go to public school or....?


and creation makes more sense to many than the "magic" of
evolution.


creation only makes sense to the uneducated, sorry.

OHHHHH I see what you are now. Well you have fun in your circle of
"educated" people who do not know the difference between theories and
facts

so i suppose you know the difference between "theories and facts"? do tell
us.

or macro vs micro.


in terms of evolution, there is no such difference. unless you want to try
to suggest how one might exist...?

Relax Les. He's a troll.
--
Todd

"Les" wrote in message
...

"Mark Stahl" wrote in message
...

"Les" wrote in message
...

"MZ" wrote in message
...
I agree, almost. Personally I would amend it slightly. It is
impossible
to
prove, to another person, that a creator does or does not exist.
It
is
a
topic that you basically just have to believe one way or the other
and
be
comfortable in that because as of now it cannot be "proven" in a
manner
to
appease everyone.
Now, with that being said, it is a useless argument since neither
side
can
be wrong in their beliefs on the issue.

Neither side can be wrong with their beliefs, perhaps. But, as I've
hopefully pointed out in this thread, one can be wrong with their
reasoning
for adopting such a belief system. Like many mysteries, it's simply
a
matter of weighing evidence and choosing the option which appears to
be
the
most plausible.

One can be wrong with their reasoning, on both sides, to the point of
being
blinded by their faith. I think that everyone can agree to that, and
it
has
been pointed out. Someone who relies solely on science, which cannot
be
"proved", seems foolish to those who believe in God.

i suppose that is the problem with scientifically illiterate people--
they
forget that the beauty part of science is that it can be, to the extent
that
anything can be, "proved".

Let's get a few things straight right off the bat here Mr Stahl.
Creationists can be and are scientifically minded.

No they're not, at least not with respect to their creationism. If that were
so, there would be scholarly, peer reviewed journals publishing the
creationists' scientific findings. For that matter, there would actually
*be* a "theory of creation".

I know physicists that
are creationists and I know some that are evolutionists, and they even
coexist with mutual respect.

Perhaps in other fields, but not in their "creation science". People can and
do compartmentalize.

Your insistence that creation has no basis in
science is wrong,

No, it's perfectly correct. If you know otherwise, post here the "scientific
theory of creationism". show me where they've published their results.
introduce me to their field workers and lab workers. show me the scientific
basis of creationism; i'm all ears.

much like your insistence that evolution is proven.

i certainly hope we've dispelled your ignorance on this topic and you
understand that evolution is an observed fact, just as gravity is.

Neither is proven nor disproven,

except that evolution actually is...

what we had been doing was exchanging
thoughts and ideas in a calm interesting fashion, until you came here and
spout your idiotic arguments.

no, you were displaying your ignorance and i was helpfully correcting you.


And likewise those who
believe in God, which cannot be "proved", seems foolish to those who
rely
on
science. It would reason, although it is flawed as well, that a person
who
uses BOTH is bound to not be foolish and have the whole picture.

that makes no sense whatsoever, and elevates wishful thinking to the
level
of observation and empiricism.

What doesn't make sense?


claiming that using both reason and belief in "god" would prevent someone
from being foolish and allow them to have the "whole picture" makes no
sense. one is a matter of faith, the other has a basis in reality that can
be demonstrated to the outside world. if you wish to discuss the "wisdom"
that must accompany the learning we obtain from our reason, that is one
thing and many people obtain that from their faith. But it's degrading to
both faith and reason to somehow suggest both are equally useful for all
things.


There are 2 different thoughts there, both of which
make sense to me. You didn't seem to have a problem with is making sense
when it providing something to your argument.


again, in english?


But they
are usually more sure of their beliefs and not easily swayed. If you
can
talk somebody into something, then someone can talk them out of it.

Unfortunately, most folks arrive at a decision before they
actually weigh the evidence. So then they search out evidence that
supports
their initial belief while ignoring that which doesn't support it.

True, for some people. There seems to be a debate in these types of
threads
that God and Science are mutually exclusive. They are not. There has
never,
to my knowledge, been evidence that a belief in God and the Bible
defies
proven (not theoretical) science.

well, certain versions of the bible contain obvious and documented
scientific errors, so perhaps your knowledge needs updating...

Perhaps you would like to show evidence of that?

i can literally come up with hundreds. i am shocked that you can't. even
believers are comfortable with the idea that their scriptures are not
science or history texts.

Besides translations can in
some passages get things a bit off. The languages, Greek and Hebrew, that
the bible has been translated from are on the whole more complex than our
own. It is bound to have "errors" when our language lacks the complexity
to
fully show the complete meaning or understanding. I suggest you should
update some of your knowledge.

such bluster from such an undereducated person....

It would be similar to translating old Greek
plays and such to our modern language. Try as we might to find the right
word or words we can easily miss something due to basically the lack of
words to complete the understanding. But by your logic all the Greek plays
we have are inaccurate.


no, i am not in any way referring to translational errors. i am talking
about documented errors of fact, from virtually every field of human
endeavor. from geology where the bible asserts that the earth was created in
several days approximately 6000 years ago and was involved in a global flood
to biology in which it is claimed that rabbits chew their cud (Lev. 11:5-6),
insects have the wrong numbers of appendeges, bats are birds, humans live to
ridiculous ages and are resurrected after death to historical inaccuracies
like the supposed exodous of the israelites from Egypt and the conquest of
the Cannanites, which archaelologists dispute. there is no doubt that the
bible is fraught with factual errors that contradict known science.

that doesn't mean that one cannot be a theist and accept scientific
principles. but where the two cross-- and they often do-- i know which side
rationality is on.

"Todd" wrote in message
news:8VjEc.904926$Pk3.108576@pd7tw1no...
Relax Les. He's a troll.
--
Todd

what would that make you, then?

Stop, already with the filly-soffikal discussion, and line the trunk
with Dynamat Extreme. Watch out for the edges, I have bandages
on 5 of 10 finger tips right now. Worse than paper cuts, as the pain
is not there until after the cut happens. Usually when cleaning a new
area and the alcohol gets in there. Ow. I just finished (?) the doors
and door liner on my 97 Ranger and it's a lot quieter. Get the bulk
pack, it's cheaper than getting a wedge pack, and another, and another
and another.

Tom
Seattle