NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/atheism/27135

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-28 | 7.7 KB

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:27135 talk.religion.misc:27726
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!griffin!kraken!ednclark
From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: Where does Adam and Eve Fit In? Attn: Jeff West
Message-ID: <ednclark.728177650@kraken>
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: kraken.itc.gu.edu.au
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Jan 93 23:34:10 GMT
Lines: 131

[e-mail] (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:

>     I wouldn't mind feeling comfortable with evolution.  But to my
>knowledge, there is not enough facts to show that that is true either.
>I have more problems with evolution that I have with God's creating
>the animals.   The following may be a rumor, but did not  Darwin
>say that if scientists do not find evidence of transitional species
>in the fossil record, then his Evolution theory doesn't hold water?
>By a transitional species, he meant an in-between animal--an animal
>between a lower order and a higher order.  For example, skeletons of

Did he? Well that is news? And even if Darwin did say such things, one must
realise that he was ignorant of genetics. He had no idea that the change in
a SINGLE gene may completely remove a tail in one generation (obviously he
was about as ignorant of genetics as you, but then he lived about 120 years
ago, before Gregor Mendel's results were understood for what they were, you
however have no excuse).  It is highly unlikely that parrallel mutation
would happen in multiple organisms so a new species is likely to gain a
major evolutionary change in one geographical region which will then spread
from that region. Therefore in most fossil records we should see abrupt
changes, to see anything else would be surprising if evolution were correct.

>men with but half a tail, a quarter of a tail, etc. and all variations
>between.  There should be lots of evidence since the changes were
>gradual.  However, as far as I know, such has never been found.
>There is no evidence.   Do you know anything on these lines?

>    What appears to have happened, is that new species simply
>appear--significantly disjoint from their predecessors, as if the
>animals were placed on earth intermittently throughout time.  This
>would concur with Genesis.  Also, in the entire recorded history of
>man, no one has wrote down an observation of a transition from a
>lower ordered species to a higher ordered one.  For thousands of

What's this lower order or higher order bull. Ain't no such thing. All
animals are equally evolved into their current ecological niches.  And you
also are wrong about no recordings of speciation or at the very least
evolutionary change. Before making such sweeping statements make sure of
your facts. There is no doubt about the mechanism of evolution, it is as
doubtful as the Theory of Gravitation.


>years, man has not observed such a transition.  Evolution is an unbacked
>claim.   If animals are in transition all the time, where is the
>evidence?  All we see are animals dying off, going extinct, as if
>the cosmic clock began at point T and is winding down.
>This also would concur with Genesis and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
>I also learned from a neurobiologist friend of mine that there is new
>biological evidence in the human genome, for a great bottleneck in the
>human species which happened some thousands of years ago.   (Perhaps

This is interesting (though far from conclusive evidence for creation myth),
could you please post the citation for this article.

>Noah.)  There should actually be far more variations within the human
>species than we see today.   Also, there is new biological female-traceable

Evidence please.

>genome data that suggests we all originated from a single woman, the
>so-called Eve of humanity.

Bloody incredible the ignorance of people in this world today. Look go read
some elementary biology texts, then read some current annual reviews of
biology say the past 5 years. Then I think you will be so embarrassed by
some of the things you have said here you will not show your face on a.a
again.

>     If it comes to a shooting match between Darwin's Evolution and
>God's Genesis chapter 1, to me, Jeff, it would take me more faith
>to believe in Evolution than to believe that God created the whole
>thing.  I see design in the universe.  I see design in the intricacies
>of living things.  Evolution implies randomness.  Randomness begats
>randomness.  To me, I have to commit intellectual suicide to believe

You already have committed intellectual suicide. You know almost none of the
relevant facts. You know lots of musings and falsehoods which you have taken
to be facts.  Evolution does not imply randomness, creation implies
randomness, evolution implies order. look if you want to know I'll post you
an excellent article on evolution which I picked up from sci.biology a
couple of months ago. It has a laymans version of evolution and explains the
fallacies which are ever present in our ignorant society regarding it,
unfortunately you have spouted a number of them.

>that we were all a soup of atoms without a plan.  I would have to
>believe that a computer program could simply make itself and
>design itself to work better and better without human intervention
>despite power outages, disk failures, circuit rust, etc.
'
Moannnnnn!  Man I hate self-confidence combined with ignorance. If you don't
know shut up. If you do know you would not post such gfarbage.


>    What also adds to my faith in the Genesis creation, is the
>reliability of the rest of Genesis and the Bible.  Starting with the time
>just after Noah (Genesis 6), the people and places recorded in the Bible
>become historically and archaeologically provable.  The Smithsonian and the
>National Geographic Society back that up.  My archaeologist professor,
>some ten years ago, Dr. Machinist, simply stated the Bible has never
>missed in its observable historical record.  Anthropology and archaeology
>pursue the factual level of the Bible.  These sciences are in the Bible's wake
>and are playing catch up.

The Koran also has much historically verified fact in it.

>
>   To conclude, if it came to a decision betwen man's theory of creation,
>or that of the Bible's, I would go with the Bible's any day.  Man has been
>known to be wrong.  As far as I my understanding goes, I am confident that
>God's word to man, the Bible, is never wrong.  If something in the Bible seems
>contradictory, then it has always turned out to be something I have failed
>to understand myself or had a false presumption about.  Never has the Bible
>let me down by its lack of authenticity or veracity.

It's man's word that the Bible is God's word. Or is it that God came down
and personally told you that the Bible you held in your hand is His word,
but then again even if He did, it may have been Satan pretending to be God.

Brian, the majority of atheists on this group know so much more about the
relevant facts than you do that I really feel that you should do some
serious reading before posting here. You must ask yourself why you are
posting here. If you do not think it is worth the public humiliation you
have just heaped upon yourself with this post, then do some reading, if it
is not worth the reading, do not post. However, if you don't mind showing us
you know about as much about evolution as your average 12 year old and from
such a position have decided that it has no basis in fact, and then have
decided that the only alternative is creation, then post away, we all enjoy
a good hearty laugh.

Jeff.