RE: Hello

Mon, 28 Aug 95 14:35:00 CDT

>>>Of course it is a theory. Everything is science is a theory. Newton's
>>>laws of motion, gravity, evolution, quantum mechanics... they are all
>>>theories. Facts are just observable phenomena, data. Theories are
>>>stories made up to explain the data. There is no understanding in facts,
>>>that why we make up theories. I take it you don't understand science at

>>Nope, not at all.

>Then, by your own admission, you don't know what you are up against.

Please, don't make me laugh, I am hardly afraid of anything I come up
against, and I believe I know more about the situation than you ever will
hiding behind your security blanket. I was trying to use a little bit of
sarcasm. I understand that for any law or theory or fact or blah, in science
must not fail one test to be dubbed truth!?! Am I right! And unfortunately
for you, not one of evolutions "proving evidences" has passed every test!

>>Fine, he presents no laws based on empirical evidence.

>He is an anthropologist. Anthopology doesn't have any laws.
>Theories are explanations, not laws.

So why base your faith on his fairy tales?

>>>Actually I know they are biases. Every publication, scientific journals
>>>included, have biases. Otherwise they would publish everything that fits
>>>regardless of its merits. I wouldn't look at scientific journals if
>>>they were not biased towards logically consistent, interesting,
>>>explanatory articles with merit.

>>Who defines logic?

>People. Logicians and mathematicians, mostly.

Ah then you will love the math that I have provided:
If life began 60,000,000 years ago and the human race 2,000,000 years ago,
how much sub-normal should have been the brain and mind at the time? The
answer 96.66 % of normal, or 1450 cc, counting 1500 cc as normal. More
normal than many persons now. At 500,000 years ago, man would have had a
brain of 1494 cc, larger than most people can claim.
If man at 58,000,000 years ago developed only the same skull capacity as
others of the simian family ( not over 600 cc) How much must he have gained
in 2 million years? 900 cc, a developement 43.5 time faster than in the
previous 58 my. How? If life began 500 my ago, the developemnet would be
373.5 times as great. How?
If life began 60,000,000 years ago then pithecanthropus man ( brain capacity
1000 cc), how long ago must he have lived? 20,000,000 years ago. Life at
500,000,000 ago, he would be 166,666,666 years old. Piltdown man (1070 cc)
at 143,333,333 years ago. Neanderthal (1408 cc) 30,666,666.
If pithecanthropus really lived 750,000 years ago, with normal developement,
should have a skull capacity of 1481 cc if life megan at 60 myrs. Or 1497.77
cc if life began 500 myrs ago. This is 99.85% of normal. Enough to call it
normal. Test this on the other few specimen offered as proof. Do the math
If there are 1.5 million species around today, and they all stemmed from a
single primordial "germ" or cell, which existed around 60,000,000 years ago,
how many species should have arisen or matured in the last 6,000 years?
3000. one every two years. If life existed 500,000,000 years ago, 360 new
species were due in the last 6000 years. Evolutionists declare that they
have n't a single new species that has arisen in the last 6000 years. Darwin
even proposed this as a test for his ideas.

Want more?

>>>>Why couldn't I say that the pulishings I read aren't peer-reviewed
>>>>journals, independent of their respective religious beliefs?

>>>You can, and it wouldn't surprise me a bit.

>>Would you read them?

>Not unless I had reason to believe that it would be worthwhile to read

Would it not be wise to educate yourself one what you are up against?

>>You state that evolution just might not be true. If you have logically
>>evaluated it, and find no contradictions, and all the evidence is
>>then why would you even propose a thing?

>Scientific theories are never verified because evidence is always
>incomplete. Theories are always provisional, they change or are
>thrown out when the evidence is against them. That is science.

So why do you keep saying you have facts?

>>>Because I can do elementary math. To cover the mountains the sea level
>>>would have to rise 30,000 feet, or approx. 10,000m. That is
>>>cubic meters of water. From the clouds? The rain would have to fall at
>>>a rate of 375 inches/hour. 3 inches/hour is a severe downpour.

>>How do you know that all that water does not exist in our solar system?

>I suppose it could. Maybe God melted Io, the moon around Jupiter, and
>sent it to earth. But that would be silly if he could just create the
>water and make it disappear after the flood.

I will gladly give credit to God, though I doubt He melted a moon. He could
have easily flooded the earth then receded the waters.

>>The mountains ranges could have been vastly different, not so tall. Also,
>>there was a canopy of water around the earth. Where is it now? Simple
>>geology, under the crust of the earth, in the oceans, in the clouds, etc.

>If the water was still above the crust, then we would still be under
>30000 ft of water. If it is now under the crust, then the crust in now
>30000 ft above where it used to be before the water.

My purpose is not to prove or disprove the flood, I could do more research
in that area if that was my current area of study. The fact that it happened
is undoubtable, and undeniable, and if it took God to pour out all of that
water and then dry it up, so be it! The word did say He sent a wind, maybe
this wind lifted the waters into space, I am not concerned with that at the
moment. Could you give me a reference for any of your proposed attacks on
the flood?

>>Your math is based on the assumption that the earth was the same then as
>>is now. Yes, it was a severe downpour, it is my theory on why all of the
>>rock layers are out of whack. Or do you have a better suggestion?

>My better suggestion is that the flood never happened. Where is the
>evidence for it?

I will get references if you would like. Oh, check out the Grand Canyon...

>>>>>Do you believe the story where God sent bears to kill a group of
>>>>>children that were mocking His prophet?

>>>>Yes. Then God is very cruel right?

>>>No, insane.

>>Insane huh?

>Insane by human standards. If I killed a bunch of children for mocking
>my friend I would be locked up. When God does it, that's OK. That seems
>more than a little strange to me.

They were hardly innocent children, and I believe that God can do as He
pleases. Besides, He might be insane by your standards but not human
standards. I think that you think you have more support than you actually
do. Well, the Bible does say that men are wicked and cling to darkness...

>>>No it's ridiculous.

>>Less rediculous and easeir to prve than evolution...

>What is ridiculous about evolution? I've simulated it myself in
>a computer. It works, I've done it.

Lot's of simulations have been done, but they require inteligent
intervention. Your computer is no more capable of putting those thing s to
real life as it is of holding a conversation of its own with you. You have
created evolution? Now try it in your bathtub? Doesn't work does it!?!
Besides a cartoonist can do it on TV, but that doesn't make it real does it?

>>>You can't get a healthy population from 2 ancestors. The recessive genes
>>>would kill them.

>>An old argument...

>>God made Adam and Eve with a perfect pair of Levi's.

>If we all came from Adam and Eve we wouldn't have different races
>of humans. Would you count that as evidence?

No. I suggest that you take Biology 101 over again. You have forgotten about
recessive genes, God implanted many of them as to ensure individuality! He
loves us so much that He designed us to be individuals! You will also find
that adaptation ( what evolutionists love to call "micro evolution" so that
they can confuse people) is another part of God's intelligent design. God
made the ability for people to adapt and other creatures adapt. Don't try to
use the natural selection thing on me either, the guy who did the DNA RNA
genetics and all of that stuff, proved that the recessive genes will always
appear again, and that no gene has ever become extinct!

>>What proof do you have for the universe being billions of years old. Stop
>>doing circles with me and just come out and give me the evidence! Or is
>>there any?

>I have a fossil on my shelf of a creature that has lot lived for hundreds
>of millions of years. Would you like to see it?

Actually yes I would like to see it! But how do you know that it is millions
of years old?

>What can I possibly show you? If the answer is nothing, than why are
>you asking?

I am trying to find out what evidence that evolutionists can stand on to say
that they know it is real. I thought i mentioned that a long time ago...

>>People have, walked, flown and driven to China. No scientist has gone to a

>>star, so I think my question is quite relevant. You bring up two different


>Our own galaxy has 100 billion stars. There are 100 billion galaxies.
>Even if each star was touching its nearest neighbor and each galaxy
>was touching, then the farthest stars would be millions of miles away.
>Do you dispute any of these facts?

How do we know this as fact? Besides I don't see how this disproves creation
and supports evolution...

>>>Why would he show off?

>>Why not.

>I imagined God to be more mature than that. My mistake.

Tell God that. He made this universe for us to enjoy, don't you think the
stars are bueatiful? That was nice of God wasn't it? He knew that one day we
would be looking through telescopes to see space, so why not make it
interesting and magnificent? Besides how can you claim that as immature?
Have you read Job lately?

>>>Ignorance about one thing doesn't preclude knowledge about something
>>>If you want to find out how scientists know how far away stars are,
>>>don't take my word for it, read a textbook on astronomy.

>>I have. But this could mean scientists are ignorant of a lot of things. It

>>is all speculation, no truth yet.

>Yes, it is all speculation. If you need more than that you should stick
>to religion. Personally I would rather believe something that might be
>true, than something that certainly is false.

How can you say that your text book might be true, and the Word of God be
false? The Word of God has been around for thousands of years, and has had
time to be proven trustworthy to all men, and has never ever failed a test.
Amazing being that it was writen by unenlightened men...?

>>>Geologists believe the earth is over 4 billion years old.

>>Not all geologists, nor do they have any facts or "laws" to prove it.

>I meant virtually all geologists and they have plenty of facts.
>But you can easily ignore them. If they show you a canyon that
>took hundreds of thousands of years to create, you can easily
>say that god created it perfectly formed 4000 years ago. You can
>also say that god created it 10 minutes ago and no one can prove
>you wrong.

Virtually all geologists that you read about.

>In any case, the bible contradicts geology.

Where? Or is it a few geologists that contradict biology. Besides, there are
many cases where the minority has been right and the majority have been

>>>Astronomers believe the universe is around 10 billion years old.

>>Some believe the universe is 300 billion years old, some believe a few

>Virtually all astronomers believe the universe is around 10 billion years

A majority might but not all! Hmmm... Stop trying to use exagerations

>The bible contradicts this belief.

Good! But it does not go against astronomy!

>>>Physicists believe miracles are impossible.

>>Not all physicists. God can defy physics, he made them.

>Virtually all physicists believe miracles are impossible.

Your physicists maybe, but there are a lot of things that they cannot

>If god can defy physics, than the bible contradicts physics.

God designed the laws of physics. Oh wait no, I take that back, they just
happened out of chance right?

>>>Paleontologists believe dinosaurs lived 100 millions years ago.

>>Not all palentologists. Some people can be wrong.

>Almost all paleontologists believe dinosaurs lived 100 millions years ago.
>The bible contradicts them.

So what? Most of the paleo's I know and have read about are uncertain or
believe thay walked with man. What do you say about the fossils that have
been found where mans footprints have been seen walking along side of a
dinosaur? Explain the dinosaur dredged up by the Japanese in 1977? In great
condition, couldn't have died to long ago. Or the fish that are on the
evolutionary chain that fishherman are fishing up alive!?!

>>>Chemists believe that water cannot be transmuted into wine.

>>Not all of them. Besides this is what makes the power of God seem more
>>powerful, that He can defy the laws of chemistry.

>If he does, then he contradicts most chemists.

But He does not go against chemistry. He designed the laws.

>>>Biologists believe that humans, like all animals, were not created, but
>>>evolved from earlier lifeforms.

>>Not all biologists.

>Almost all biologists. The bible contradicts them too.

Oooh, most biologists teach what they are told to teach but they don't
believe what tye are teaching. Most biologists try to remain out of the
situation. If the Bible goes against what they say so be it! The bible is
older and more authorotative ad stands unscathed, as where theories and
ideas come and go!

>>>All of these contradict the Bible. Now if you say I haven't shown
>>>you how science contradicts the bible, then I might as well write
>>>mail to someone who will read it.

>>Notice that you said "believe", therefore they don't know, which means
>>are taking leaps of faith.

>I realize I don't know for sure. I have faith in the evidence, not
>despite the evidence. See the difference?

Is the evidence the truth? No. Scientists may go againsts the Bible, but
science itself does not. Do you really understand what science is?

>>Read some articles that show you where science contradicts evolution.

>Do you think the 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts evolution?
>It doesn't because the earth is not a closed system. It gets energy
>from the sun.

And the sun is dying so YES...

In Him,