Slashdot Mirror

Galileo is pretty much the only person in the history of the Church's reign over the Western world that could be said to be persecuted.

Do you really believe this? I think you misspoke.
I think that there is over whelming evidence that the Church has routinely and persistently persecuted many people.
Here's a short list:
http://amazingdiscoveries.org/...
A longer discussion here:
http://www.heretication.info/_...

Okay, referring to this page: http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/beginning_natura lselection.htm

Can we agree that:

"Natural selection is an ELIMINATOR. In other words, if there are two variations of a creature, the theory goes that natural selection chooses the "fittest" or "best", and allows the "unfittest" or "weakest" to become extinct."

In which case, there must be a large number of varieties to select from. Which is where mutations come in. Up to here, we should be in agreement. If not, tell me where I'm off base.

Now, even well known evolutionist writers (e.g. Richard Dawkins) tell us the probability of successful combinations of mutations is very, very low. If so, the probability of having anything for natural selection to operate on is very, very low. Thus, a belief in evolution requires much faith.

Regarding the replacement of genetic information from one of the parents, this assumes you have parents to begin with. At the individual cell's level, if you have DNA, you must have a working cell of some sort (we've at this point skipped past millions of years of evolution...). Anyway, assuming you have a working cell with DNA, any mutation will either be a change or loss of existing information. This would be analogous to (for example) a 4k memory chip with all bits set or cleared to important values. Changing any of those bits will not add additional information, as it can only replace existing values in the process. If those values were important, then the result was a loss of information. If negligible (e.g. eye color) then it was not a loss, but neither was it a gain. In no case could it be a gain, because for that gene to have meaning the cell must already have a mechanism for translating that gene into a productive feature. (In the computer analogy, there must be a separate program for operating on the 4k of data in the memory chip, otherwise the memory has no useful function).

The same principles apply at lower or higher levels of evolutionary development.

As for the assertion you make that "There are people in non-biological specialties who stumble across some bullshit that confirms their preconceived notions", the professor whose articles I referred to was a noted professor of evolutionary biology, with the preconceived notion of atheism and evolution, yet the evidence he found was compelling enough to change his mind.

Sure, everybody has preconceived opinions-- but I suspect that for many evolutionists, it is their strong desire to eliminate God from the equation that drives their research. Not surprising when you consider how badly Christians have misrepresented God at times.

Regarding his comments on natural selection, I assume you are referring to these:

http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/beginning_natura lselection.htm

I'd be interested to hear any comments on these. They seem compelling to me, especially coming from a respected biologist. (And yes, I have had college level science classes).

Regarding his "hilarious" assertions about radiometric dating (http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/beginning_radio metricdating.htm), he did provide references to respected scientific journals. If even one example shows a system to be flawed, I would be cautious about trusting it without cross checking. The book you linked to (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html) is interesting, and did claim numerous cross checks have been done. Still, these can only show accuracy into the known past, and don't deal with possible changes in the ratios of elements measured in the various tests (though the linked book asserts that such changes are unlikely).

Another possibility I didn't see addressed on either site is that the elements of the earth have been around in their present form much longer than life on earth, thus explaining the great age of the rocks, while leaving room for the possibility of life on earth relatively recently.

Regarding his comments on natural selection, I assume you are referring to these:

http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/beginning_natura lselection.htm

I'd be interested to hear any comments on these. They seem compelling to me, especially coming from a respected biologist. (And yes, I have had college level science classes).

Regarding his "hilarious" assertions about radiometric dating (http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/beginning_radio metricdating.htm), he did provide references to respected scientific journals. If even one example shows a system to be flawed, I would be cautious about trusting it without cross checking. The book you linked to (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html) is interesting, and did claim numerous cross checks have been done. Still, these can only show accuracy into the known past, and don't deal with possible changes in the ratios of elements measured in the various tests (though the linked book asserts that such changes are unlikely).

Another possibility I didn't see addressed on either site is that the elements of the earth have been around in their present form much longer than life on earth, thus explaining the great age of the rocks, while leaving room for the possibility of life on earth relatively recently.

Yes, evolution has been tested by predictions of what we might find in the fossil record. However, it has not always passed the test. Geologists and biologists have repeatedly been surprised when they didn't find what they expected. Of course, they adjusted the theory each time.

However, what if there was another way to explain the evidence?

There is. Check out the site of this noted biologist, a former atheist, who became a creationist based on the evidence he uncovered:

http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/beginning_main.h tm

Actually, there are some noted scientists who believe in an intelligent designer. One, a biologist who was formerly atheist, became a creationist because of the evidence he discovered in his research:

http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/beginning_main.h tm

As for your argument, yes, evolution is a logical system. That doesn't mean it is correct, as something can be internally logical but not have all the facts. Neither does creationism have all the facts, but the point is, it does have at least as much evidence in it's favor as evolution does.

There are a number of misconceptions taught in schools (if not in higher scientific circles) that are not very scientific. For example, the idea that natural selection can cause evolution. Natural selection can only (as the name would indicate) choose among existing genetic material. Another one, that DNA mutations can cause evolution, is more likely, but in most known cases, it actually causes "devolution". In fact, even the cases which seem to provide benefits to the offspring can be shown to be a loss of genetic information.

So, to summarize, it's not all as cut and dried as it might seem. Check out the evidence at the link above, and from other scientific sources who aren't blatantly anti-creationist, and give both sides a fair hearing.

If you only take part of the Bible as literally true, your faith will fall like a pack of cards. What is the logical reason for the need of a savior if death (evolution over time) came before sin?

On the other hand, you don't need to check your brain at the door when becoming a Christian. Here's a noted biologist, former atheist, who became a creationist based on the evidence he discovered:

http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/beginning_main.h tm

You sound very angry.

Okay, I'll bite on the last one. Let's say we don't stop teaching evolution, but at least allow an alternate view, of the best of modern biology, to be presented. Here's a noted biologist, former atheist, who became a creationist based on the evidence he discovered:

http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/beginning_main.h tm

The problem is, the fossils that supposedly clearly point to evolution, don't actually do that so clearly after all. Darwin had a theory for which he was trying to find evidence, and since then, the evidence has been increasingly against the theory.

If you look at the supposed age of fossils, as I have, you will discover a series of assumptions which depend upon each other in a circular fashion. For example, these fossils are X million years old because they are in this layer. This layer is X million years old, because we found Y fossil in it, which we know to be X million years old, because it is always found in the same layer elsewhere. Other dating methods make assumptions of (for example) constant radio isotope decay rates (when in fact we know the rates can change based on outside factors). There are the stalactites that are "millions of years old", which turn out to have grown in the last century. And the fossilized trees, which look strangely similar to ones covered by Mount St. Helens.

Regarding point two, there are those who don't see a conflict between evolution and a creator. It is certainly possible, if you disregard the biblical record. The problem here is if you believe there was death (evolution over time) before "sin", then there is no logical basis for a savior. Then, the reason for the existence of Christianity is gone.

So, to be consistent, you must either throw out Christianity or evolution. Before you discard Christianity, I suggest at least giving a fair hearing to the intelligent design argument-- from an informed scientist, not a "bible beating fundamentalist" who doesn't really know why they believe what they believe. Check out this site by a noted biologist, former atheist, who based on the evidence he uncovered, became a creationist:

http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/beginning_main.h tm