FW: FW: Hello

Thu, 31 Aug 95 07:48:00 CDT

From: David McFadzean
Subject: Re: FW: Hello
Date: Wednesday, August 30, 1995 17:18PM

At 02:54 PM 8/30/95 CDT, you wrote:

>>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...

>Are you suggesting that maybe the earth does not orbit the sun after all?

No, mathematical calculations prove that it does. This theory always stands
up to every test.

>>"Origins" by Richard Leakey, and a small host of other sources. The above

>I very much doubt Richard Leakey claimed that evolution entailed linear
>rates of phenotypic development. Do you have a reference?

No, I was just telling you my version of evolution. The idea of non linear
developement make evolution even harder to believe. That is my point. I also
recall that some of the figures had little to do with linear development.

>Entropy is a measure of the disorder of a system. It does decrease
>for a closed system (including the universe) but doesn't apply to
>an open system like Earth. It is possible for a given system's entropy
>to decrease without bound until the rest of the universe has reached
>maximum entropy.

The earth is assosiated with the universe.

>Here's an analogy I just thought up: Say a country has a given
>amount of currency in circulation. Every year, it destroys some
>of the money without making any new money. Do you think it is
>mathematically impossible for anyone to get rich in this country?

No, but eventually, only one will have all the money, and eventually he will
become poor like everyone else. Yet evolution cannot explain how that money
came about!

>My point is that you were wrong about Hitler being an atheist. He was not.

He might have believed he was a Christian, but he was not! That is my point!

>>It also requires that new genes appear, which has also never been found to

>>be true. If it has send me a reference please.

>Actually new genes have appeared. There were no human genes 100 million
>ago and now there are.

Source? Big assumption! I could say a lot of things.

>>Notice the massive differences in age, tens of millions of years, would it

>The massive difference is only 3% of the age. That is well within
>error rates.

But! Mathamatical probability has shown evolution to be virtually nill as it
ever happening or the possibility of it happening. THese are not within
acceptable rates! And you have no explaination for anything else I mentioned
about it. Besides it makes things easier for you the more years that come to

>>(although not in those words). We have no time peice that actually has
>>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
>>younger and older than what they have been facticously deemed to be.

>Maybe the oldest thing you have is 5000 years old, but the oldest thing I
>have is this fossil which is approx. 380 million years old.

There is a lot lot lot more information stating the Bibles age, besides the
fact that it itself deems itself to be 5000 years old! This fossil has no
chronological record on it! My point!!!

>>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
>>not pass every test, and to my understanding math is one of those.
>>you are right, and it works mathematically, it does not work in
>>it is far tooo close to nill not to be considered zero, and it was an
>>evolutionist who told me that.

>The thing most people don't understand about evolution is that the
>variation is random but the selection is not. The chance of life
>evolving is not the same as a clock randomly coming together in
>a windstorm.

Then what is it. Besides, it is more like 747 not a clock, that is according
to probability.

>>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.

>That is debatable. I still don't believe there was a global flood.

That is the largest explaination for why you think fossils burried 69 feet
under are millions of years old. I am still researching this and will give
you my conclussions. As for debate: Debate away.

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

>I also know that nothing will convince you that it was otherwise.

Give me well documented scientific proof as to the contrary and, yep you are
probably right.

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

>OK, what percentage believes in evolution in your estimation?

I haven't really the foggiest. I know a lot of creation scientists, and few
evolutionary scientists but that doesn't mean anything. To say that 99.9%
accept it is absurd. THey might process it as a possibility, but then they
also haven't been taught the other side of the issue!

>>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)
>>had flipper like things instead of legs and feet.

>Sounds like a pleiossaur. Did you see it in the Weekly World News
>or National Enquirer?

First of all I am not a fellow to trust a word in the NE. I might check out
WWN, but what is your point? I don't think it was a pleiossaur, let me go
find it for you...

>>What type of masters? Is it in Computer Science? Wether it is or not
>>concern me, I also never said I did understand it incredibly well, I think

>Yes the Masters was in CS. I did on thesis on simulating evolution
>in the computer (genetic algorithms).

I suppose the only one to evaluate it was an evolutionist? Send it to ICR or
CRF and have one of the creationists there evaluate it for you. Or did you
come to your own conclusion that it was accurate?

>I agree that the 2nd law implies that everything will eventually stop.
>What does that have to do with evolution?

So how does nothing, explode (a destructive, not creative actione) into
something, that something start going uphill to create more and more and
become more complex, and then suddenly start going down hill and eventually
become nothing again? It is illogical, improbable, and absurd to try to
dethrone God in favor of forces we have a very limited clueless veiw about.

In Him,