Re: FW: Hello

Wed, 30 Aug 95 14:54:00 CDT

>>I have often times given you references, documentations and other known
>>resources that strongly support creation as a theory. It was only 100
>>ago that evolution began to become mainstream, so that means the millions
>>years before, man was wrong? No. God revealed the truth to them. I will

>It was only 500 years ago that people found out the earth orbits the
>sun. So that means the millions of years before, man was wrong? No.
>God revealed the truth to them.

To my understanding there are very few things that are certain. I am
currently reading some outlines on the subject. Oh, and thousands of years
before man was wrong...

>I don't think you read what I wrote. Let me try again. Your math is
>based on a *wrong* interpretation of evolution. Even if the math is
>correct, it doesn't apply to evolution.

My math is based on what most advocates of evolution interpret for me. I
will give you more math tommorow if you'd like...?

>Go to the Creation Science WWW site
>( or CRS Net.

>I've read this whole web site. They do a really good job at attacking
>an evolution-like theory (like you) but they don't talk about
>the real theory of evolution at all. Quite sad.

Then what is your theory of evolution? The views I get are from books like
"Origins" by Richard Leakey, and a small host of other sources. The above
TWO web sites actually do refer to evolution and it's methods, at least to
the degree of my understanding, and the authors who write the books I read.

>>Entropy alone provides an incredible argument against evolution, and
>>evolution cannot stand without many devised excuses. I have provided

>That just proves that you don't know what entropy is either.

What is your version of entropy?

>At the time of the alleged flood the grand canyon was only a few
>feet shallower than it is now so the evidence for the flood must
>be very close to the top of the walls, right?

If in the case that God had origionally created the Grand Canyon, right. Or
you are working on the assumption that the Grand Canyon was carved out over
millions of years. My assumption is that it was carved out during the flood.
As for water taking millions of years to carve something out is
unreasonable. Many models in nature show that canyons can be carved out in a
matter of days, they might not be as large as the GC, but then evolutionists
like to use micro evolution to explain macro evolution.

>>They wren't children, they were teen-agers, and quite accountable for
>>actions. Isn't it great how God takes care of his chosen...? Besides, I
>>thought you said you weren't up against religion!?!

>>Hitler was an atheist and an evolutionist, and he executed millions of
>>Explain his actions. So now it is a cruel God against a Cruel humanity. I
>>prefer God, because humainty has saved no one.

>Unfortunately for you, Hitler believed he was a Christian. It is a
>well-know and well-documented fact.

It is also a well known fact that he was not acting in the Christian faith.
If he were he would have elevated the Jews and not eleveated them. He was
also an evolutionist, which in terms brings us to the point that he could
not have actually been a Christian, as evolution and Christianity are almost
synonimously conflicting terms. Therefore what he believed and what he
really was, are not the same, he might have believed he was a Christian but
he certainly was not. So what is your point?

>>>If you took Biology 101, then you would remember that people have a
>>>maximum of one recessive gene at any particular site on the chromosome.
>>>Adam and Eve together can have a maximum of 4 alleles between them.
>>>Unfortunately for Christians, there are more than that for eye colour

>>Have you not learned that we a have strands of apparently unused DNA?

>Yes, I know about the unused DNA. Are you suggesting that people
>get different coloured eyes from that? If you are, then that just
>shows you don't know the first thing about genetics either.

Actually, you are right, I don't know much about genetics, but the rusty
genetics I do know are enough that I can understand things. No, I am not
suggesting that, and I will be honest, it was a bad point and not really the
message I was trying to convey. I will give you a follow up later as I
research this.

>>Evolutionary speciation requires that eventually a recessive gene
>>disappears, never has this been found to be true, and in all cases the

>No it doesn't. You must be reading some really poorly written
>book about evolution.

It also requires that new genes appear, which has also never been found to
be true. If it has send me a reference please.

>Yes it was really. None of the dates agreed exactly but all the dates
>were withing a few tens of million years. The fossil is certainly much
>older than 6000 years by a few orders of magnitude.

Notice the massive differences in age, tens of millions of years, would it
not be wise to rely on dating methods that are known for being more absolute
than that? Finally, how do we know that our theoretical dating methods are
reliable, linear math? You said yourself linear math is not always reliable
(although not in those words). We have no time peice that actually has some
sort of reference to being ten million years old, the oldest things we do
have are 5000 years old, and some dating methods have said those items to be
younger and older than what they have been facticously deemed to be.

>>Nope, not empiricle science. In order for it to be an acceptable theory it

>>must pass every test. It does not pass the tests of mathematics or

>Unfortunately for you, evolution does pass the tests of mathematics
>and probability. You should really find some good books of evolution.
>I recommend the one by Mayr.

Tell me what Mayr's book called and I will go get it from the library. I
will have some more figures for you tommorow concerning math. it still does
not pass every test, and to my understanding math is one of those. Assuming
you are right, and it works mathematically, it does not work in probability,
it is far tooo close to nill not to be considered zero, and it was an
evolutionist who told me that.

>>Wrong. Christianity is 2000 years old, the bible began over 4000 years

>As if an extra 2000 years adds to the bible's credibility.

It does, 2000 more years that every truth in it has gone unscathed! One of
if not the oldest compiled and active liturature known to man.

>Actually I believe that. If you experienced something that you think
>must be a miracle, then that would explain your behaviour.

I have experienced things that medical, highly educated, doctors cannot
explain. There is so much more to it than just explaining and not explaining
it though. If you were willing to understand, and only would open your eyes,
you would understand what I am talking about. I know it was a miracle.

>>So the Word of God has the answers that you lack. No contradiction. The
>>disagreement is between the Bible and the OPINIONS of certain scientists,
>>not science.

>So you must think science is independent from scientists? 99.9% of
>scientists are wrong but science is right?

Not at all, I especially don't think that 99.9% of scientists believe in

>>Therefore you have no foundation to stand on when it comes to explaining
>>impossible. "Through God all things are made possible." Even if it doesn't

>>suit your logic.

>You're right, science cannot explain the impossible.

Then it cannot explain and never will explain evolution.

>>>Those footprints have been revealed as a hoax. I don't know of any

>>Give me a reference on the hoax if you wouldn't mind.

>I don't have one handy, but if I find it I will forward it to you.

It would be greatly appreciated.

>>I am surprised an intelligent independantly stuying evolutionist like you
>>doesn't know about the dinosaur (one of the water ones, I forget the name
>>all the time) they dredged up, especially since they made a stamp
>>comemorating it. Look it up. I have given you a reference that will give
>>more references to start with, Mysteries of Creation...

>Maybe you are referring to the coelecanth. It isn't a dinosaur, it is
>a species of fish that has survived unchanged for millions of years
>even though it was previously thought to be extinct. There is nothing
>about that fact that goes against the theory of evolution.

Actually I remember it began with a P, and looks like a bronto (I think, I
need to take a refresher course on what the latest names for dino's are) and
had flipper like things instead of legs and feet.

>>>All fish are on the evolutionary chain.

>>Then how do they prove evolution!?! If they existed way back when, then
>>didn't they die out? There are occurences where fish will dissapear and
>>reappear on different rock formations... Who knows...

>Contemporary animals do not prove or disprove the theory of evolution.
>If you understood the theory, you would know that.

Your right, it disproves the notion of natural selection.

>>So does the oil that is made in four years off of the coast of New
>>Oh well, the texts are always right, right?

>No, the texts are not always right. Except for the bible, of course.

Now your getting it. There is a lot of math to prove it's accuracy, I give
you a whole bunch tommorow. As I have little time today, I have been buzzing
around here trying to get everything working, oh, well....

>>>I didn't say the evidence was the truth. I think I understand science
>>>a great deal more than you do.

>>I have faith according to the evidence that Christ is real in my life, and

>>then the evidence that science has given. Do you really understand
>>science or do undersatand psuedo science? Evolution as a crumbling
>>hypothesis, or evolution as the only right answer, of which you have never

>>personally experienced!?!

>I understand empirical science quite well. I have a degree in engineering
>and a masters degree in science. Have you taken any science courses since
>high school?

What type of masters? Is it in Computer Science? Wether it is or not doesn't
concern me, I also never said I did understand it incredibly well, I think I
mentioned something to that effect at the beggining of our conversation. The
only science courses I have had since High School are computer related, if
that so, honestly no credited courses. I have attended seminars and done
some independent research though, which might not be as acclaimed as a
collegiate degree but relevant enough to point me in the proper direction.
And eventually, I am hoping, I will hold one soon, and would actually be
appreciative if you could give me some advice on which field to enter, I
have thought of geology, cosmology, or maybe biology.

>>>The fact that the sun is dying is irrelevant to the question.

>>On the contrary, the law of thermodynamics says that everything is lossing

>>order and energy, and that the universe will eventually come to a halt. So

>>if everything is breaking DOWN, how can anything naturalisticly go UP?

>A system can gain energy by extracting it from its environment.
>Have you ever taken in a course in thermodynamics?

In turn the system that is giving up the energy loses energy and pulls it
from another place. Everything will eventually come to a halt. If you have
taken a class in thermodynamics then you could easily evaluate what I am
saying concerning the second law. Everything will eventually stop!

No, I haven't.

In Him,

Oh, I just saw Waterworld the other day, it was actually pretty good, I
recommend it, it had some unnecissary scenes, but otherwise it was pretty
good. Kostner did an alright job...