-Caveat Lector-
In a message dated 99-08-16 01:32:11 EDT, Ric Carter writes:
<< Dogs, wolves and foxes can all interbreed. Their DNA is nearly identical.
Their common ancestry is obvious. Humans and other great apes (bonobos,
chimps, gorillas, orangutans) all share similar DNA, to within 95-98%.
Our common ancestry is undeniable. All known primates share similar
behavior patterns too, showing the similarity of our DNA reflected in
our mental structures. You may believe what you wish, but evoluionary
biology is supported by a vast amount of data - it's the best, most
usable model we have thus far. If you have a better explanation, one
that's testable and more inclusive and parsimonious, please whip it out.>>
I do not believe I have ever heard of Darwin's theory being put to the
test. I have not read of anyone putting nonorganic chemicals in a bell jar
and creating organic life . That would be a true test of the theory. The
mathematical probability of this happening is astronomical to say the least:
Dr. Thomas Kindell, a noted-biostatistician, explains that "the double helix
shape of a DNA molecule consists of two strands of sugars and phosphates.
These are connected together by nucleotides arranged like the steps of a
spiral ladder". Dr. Kindell goes on to explain, that a single molecule of DNA
has over 1000 nucleotides. The chemical bonds that join each rung to the DNA
"ladder" have a 1 in 2 chance of having the proper orientation. Thus to
calculate the probability of DNA accidentally forming one must multiply the
independent probability for each rung. The statistical probability that a
single molecule of DNA could form by chance works out to be 2 to the 1000th
power or 10 to the power of 300. This number is larger than the quantity of
all the protons, electrons and neutrons around every atom in the universe.
"This is just one DNA molecule, much more is needed to get cellular
metabolism and autonomous replication," advises Kindell.
Proponents of the theory that inorganic materials accidentally organized
themselves into living organisms draw upon Sir James Jeans' (monkeys
producing all the books in the British museum) argument that given enough
time, anything can happen. Has there been enough time? Accepting Carl Sagan's
estimate that the universe is 20 billion years old, Dr. Kindell demonstrates
that if we allowed 100 trillion events to take place in every electron around
every atom in the universe once every second for 20 billion years we would
still only reach 10 to the 114th power events. The number 10 to the 300th
power more than exceeds the quantity of events that could possibly have taken
place in space and time. We can be absolutely certain that life is not the
product of chance.
<< <nok nok> Is this thing on? Hey, look at the common DNA, the behavioral
and structural similarities, and come up with a better explanation than
common ancestry, eh? Did an infinitely complex deity create humans and
other primates so they just LOOK like they have common ancestry, common
genetics? Dogma of evolutionists? Gimmee a BREAK!! Those arguing for
magickal creationism wrap themselves in dogma; evolution is a testable
theory, hotly debeate and and undergoing continuous revision, in flux
l\ike no explanation of life has ever been, challenged and tested and
verified as no dogma has ever been. That's how science works: test
every idea, see if it works. If it works, it survives. If not, it's
shitcanned. Dogmatic ideas survive despite being worthy of shitcanning.
That's why we still have religions and conspiratorialists.
What you believe is irrelevant to observable reality.
We can observe evolution too. Evolution is [among other things] the
survival of change over time. Go to a microbiology lab, look in a
microscope, watch bacteria cross-fertilize and change and evolve
before your very eyes. New strains of influenza evolve constantly,
with tremendous effects on human communities - some live, some die.
"Think of it as evolution in action." --D.Niven>>
Harrison Matthews, writer of the introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin's
ORIGIN OF SPECIES has this to say:
The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology and biology is thus in the
peculiar position of being a science founded upon an unproved theory - is it
then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly
parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers
know to be true, but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.
Derek V. Ager writes in "The Nature of the Fossil Record":
It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as
a student, from Tureman's Ostrea/Gryphaea to Carruther's Zaphrentis
delanovei, have now been 'debunked'.
<< Nope, a stone cold fact. Have you ever taken and passed a biology course?
Do you have any idea what you're talking about when you attack evolution?>>
Obviously biology is taught from an evolution perspective. When I take
a class I like to learn and make my own decisions, not merely memorize and
regurgitate what the State wants me to believe.
<<Incorrect. A theory is a workable explanation supported by the
preponderence of data. In science, a theory is an explanation
agreed upon by a consensus of workers in a field, because it
best explains the pattern of observations. The idea that a
theory is "an explanation that can't be proved" has nothing to
do with science - that's rhetoric. Scientific theories don't
get "promoted" to LAWS when they're proved - a LAW is an equation
that describes mass/energy/time/space relationships, and it's
eminately demonstrable. A THEORY is a workable explanation.>>
It seems there are many definitions for theory:
First appeared 1592
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an
art <music ~>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of
action <her method is based on the ~ that all children want to learn>
b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances --
often used in the phrase in theory <in ~, we have always advocated freedom
for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of
principles offered to explain phenomena <wave ~ of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE
c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject
<~ of equations>
<< "Figgers don't lie but liars figger." That's why a scientific theory
isn't accepted just because it looks pretty. The data are torturously
tested and questioned and verified before a hypothesis is accepted as
a workable explanation of the relevant data. >>
If anything is a lie, it is the scientists and governments that continue
to push evolution in schools without explaining that it is not a proven
theory. Putting pictures in biology books that portray man evolving from an
ape ~ there is no fossil data to support this although scientists have tried
to pass off false evidence of such.
<< You've never taken a science course, have you?>>
This is not like you to personally attack someone, but I understand
emotions run high when your "religion of evolution" cannot be defended. See
below.
<<Cop-out. >>
You can say that and maybe you're correct. I have no interest in
pedofiles or their organizations. Those who may be interested can check out
the URL I provided and further searching may prove or disprove government
action for/against this group.
The following provided by Richard B. Bliss, Ed.D.
Anti-creation groups are distorting the potential value of both models when
they call evolution the only idea available to science. Either they do not
know what the data actually reveal, or else they are deliberately attempting
to deceive the world's educators. Educators should know that some of the most
open attacks on evolutionary dogma come from evolutionary scientists
themselves, and it is from these men that creationists take note of the
religious nature of the evolutionary paradigm.
Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist for the British Museum of Natural
History, in a public lecture before the American Museum of Natural History in
New York City, November 5, 1981, said that he posed this question to the
geology staff of the Field Museum of Natural History: "Can you tell me
anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true?" He also posed
this same question to the prestigious body of evolutionists at the
Evolutionary Morphology Seminar at the University of Chicago. The answer he
received from both groups was silence, until one member of the morphology
group spoke up and said: "I do know one thing - it ought not to be taught in
high school." Scientific creationists disagree. They think that evolution
should be taught, but only when the strengths and weaknesses are discussed in
comparison with the scientific merits of creation. Perhaps it is about time
that we all learned that it is wrong to suppress evidence and teach only one
view of origins as the evolutionists are demanding now. Policymakers and
educators should realize that both models of origins are paradigms. Creation
is neither less scientific nor more religious than evolution. Teachers must
be allowed to realize this without being demeaned by a vocal minority of
self-styled experts in the wisdom of science. Both teachers and students must
have this freedom if today's schools are going to develop the decision-makers
that we need. Open inquiry can solve this problem of teaching origins if
proper skills of scientific inquiry are taught and utilized.
Creationists have been accused of teaching pseudo-science when they state
that the planet upon which we live is probably a young planet rather than an
old one; or that the second law of thermodynamics (systems tend to go from
complex to simple, rather than going from simple to complex, naturally)
applied to the living as well as the inanimate world. These comments and many
others are carelessly given out by the anti-creationists as evidence against
the creationists' credibility; yet, the creationist has shown his willingness
to consider all evidences relating to geologic ages, whether old and young.
On the other hand, the fact that there are many data that seem to limit the
age of the earth and universe to younger ages is never stated or even
considered by evolutionists. Oil well fluid pressures; the helium inventory
in the atmosphere; polonium halos in our oldest rocks; dust on the moon; the
earth's magnetic decay; short-term comets, and many others give young ages
for the earth and the cosmos. Creationists believe that much more research
has to be done and that true scientists should not have a closed mind on this
topic; the question must remain open. Evolutionists deny this and reject, out
of hand, any information that gives anything but old ages. This is bad
science and does not lead to objective decision making. What creationists are
asking for is open and objective science that will leave room for progress
and discovery. No scientific creationist is proposing the use of the Bible as
a science text book in the public schools. However, scientific creationists
believe that scientists should adhere to the principles of science as they
operate in the real world of science, and young people should be taught the
process skills of science and scientific inquiry by exposing them to all
data, regardless of which side they seem to fall upon.
"If you let creation in, you will be teaching a literal interpretation of the
Bible and all of science will collapse," the anti-creationist insists.
Statements such as these are evidently meant to scare the public and
educators alike, but they are totally false. The question of evolution and
creation is easily resolved when professional teachers rise above their
personal biases and confine themselves to teaching the 'process skills' of
science and scientific inquiry. From this point on, the "decision-maker," the
"critical thinker," is the student. Unfortunately, most teachers refuse to
let him be a decision-maker on this issue and literally force him to think in
terms of evolution only.
It is often said that the content for the science curriculum must be selected
data that explain the natural world scientifically, and that it has the
ability to unify, illuminate, and integrate other facts. Does the evolution
model do this any better than the creation model? Not at all. Hubert P.
Yockey, writing for the Journal of Systematic Biology, has this to say about
the whole question of origins:
Since science has not the vaguest idea of how life originated on earth,
whether life existed anywhere else, or whether little green men pullulate in
our galaxy, it would be honest to admit this to our students, the agencies
funding research, and the public.... It is new knowledge, not another clever
scenario, that is needed to achieve an understanding of the origin of life.
Scientific creationists and others are proposing a two-model approach to the
origin of life that will not only stimulate scientific thought among
students, but in fact, capitalize on their motivation toward this subject.
Creationists cannot legitimately be accused of bias or mind-programming when
they merely offer their model as alternative to evolution. If evolution is so
certain, then what is there to be afraid of in this matter? Some
evolutionists seem to be saying, by their passionate resistance to the
creation model, that they are afraid that their model won't stand up. They
say that arguing with a Creator is a no-win situation. By the same token,
can't the creationist say that arguing with a model that can be made to fit
any data is also a no-win situation? Why not let the students decide in this
matter?
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
