Subject:
|
Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 25 Jan 2001 00:47:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1941 times
|
| |
|
|
Jennifer Clark wrote:
>
> "Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process that:
>
> 1. Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing. "
>
> This is not the case. The theory most generally taught for this at school level
> is the Big Bang theory, which has nothing to do with Darwin's theory of
> evolution.
What?????????? Your big bang theory must not be the same as any other
big bang theory. AS far as I know the big bang theory teaches EXACTLY
that time, space, and matter where brought into existence from nothing.
> "2. Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine planets
> around
> the sun. (This process is often referred to as cosmic
> evolution.) "
>
> Wrong. I'm a better cosmeticist than cosmologist, but even I know that gravity
> and other fundamental forces (chemical, nuclear, subatomic) are generally taught
> as being part of the process responsible for the above. Referring to this as
> cosmic evolution is sophistry; the term evolution can be applied to any
> changing, directed process - for example, "The Evolution of Lego as a Creative
> Medium in the 20th Century". Saying so does not mean that Lego Marketing
> Strategies are taught in schools under the banner of Evolution.
Ahem....that's why the subject header specifies MACRO Evolution. To set
the record straight, I fully believe and realise that MICRO evolution
happens every day.
> "3. Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from nonliving
>
> matter (chemical evolution). "
>
> Wrong. No-one claims evolution is responsible for creating life from non-life.
> Evolution is cited as the process that happens once life is established.
Wrong. Many people claim exactly that.
If what you say is true, then how did life become established in the
first place?
> "5. Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different forms
> of
> living things, such as the plants and animals on the earth
> today (biological
> evolution)."
>
> Finally some sense, although I fear he uses the term "spontaneous" to play
> things for laughs somewhat. When I think of large changes due to evolution, I'm
> thinking in terms of aeons rather than the snap of fingers.
Of course he uses it for laughs. His point (at least in some sense from
what I gather) is that (FOR THIS PARTICULAR POINT) it doesn't matter
whether you think it happened at the snap of the fingers or ove massive
amounts of time. Large quantities of time is Evolution's way of
explaining why we can't observe life forms diversifying into different
forms and why there is no historical record of it.
> So, one point out of his five actually pertains to evolution - and you don't get
> any cash for proving that one right.
Read again what he is providing cash for:
If you are convinced that evolution is an indisputable fact, may I
suggest that you offer $250,000 for any empirical or historical evidence
against the general theory of evolution. This might include the
following:
1. The earth is not billions of years old (thus
destroying the
possibility of evolution having happened as it is
being taught).
2. No animal has ever been observed changing into any
fundamentally different kind of animal.
3. No one has ever observed life spontaneously arising
from
nonliving matter.
4. Matter cannot make itself out of nothing.
Dr. Kent Hovind does not claim that it is impossible to find evidence of
evolution, he brings to light the fact that BASED _ON THE EVIDENCE,
creation is much more likely.
--
-TiM
NB, CA
http://echofx.itgo.com
t_c_c@yahoo.com
3ch0fx
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
78 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
