See comments below
Congratulations on your knowledge of the arguments against evolutionary 
theory- CTM.

Paula Nixon wrote:

>I support scientific method.  They don't have any "simple" cells.  Wouldn't you think there would still be some simple cells today.  Paramecium, amoeba, any you see are very complex, even from the Cambrian layer.
>  
>

I doubt that the simple cells would leave a fossil record . CTM

>Gaps in knowledge are understandable and forgivable.  Darwin said that "geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain and this, perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.  The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record." Charles Darwin, 'On the imperfection of the geological record', Chapter X, The Origin of Species.  However 120 years later it isn't any better.  We have a quarter of a million fossil species, but no intermediates.  Steven Jay Gould could see there was a real problem and came up with Punctuated Equilibrium, quick changes between species, the reptile egg hatches into a bird. But how did the bird developer hollow bones, a different number of chambers in heart, and on and on.  How could an incompletely changed bird survive with only partial changes?  How could a bombardier beetle develop his two chemical chambers that mix and eject them through a
> strategically positioned at the rear of the beetles body where it explodes in a noxious 212 degree steam in his predators face.  It has to let the gases out at just the correct time so they explode outside his body.  How many of them blew themselves up because they only had one chamber while trying to develop this? Or didn't have the strategically placed tube?  Where did the idea to develop the fireworks come from?  Where are the ancestors?  He seems to be the only one like him.  When you have a simple, snap mousetrap that is missing any one of it's parts, it won't work.  This is true of almost everything alive.  Everything is so beautifully designed.  One part is dependent on 6 if not 20 others and vice versa.  How about butterflies.  Why in the world would they have evolved going through all those steps to become a butterfly? The thing is, the more you know about the earth and flora and fauna, it just couldn't have just happened, even in 4.5 billion years.  Its just not logical.
> Time doesn't make things better, things are just running down.  Mutations are almost always bad, if not fatal.  Where did the "information" in DNA come from?  Energy and matter don't make information.  Mathematicians say that 4 1/2 billion years isn't long enough to develop the earth.
>
>I understand that 6,000 years sounds ridiculous to someone who has been only taught evolution.   If the earth were as old as they say, all the continents on earth would be worn down to sea level in just 14 million years, and the oceans would have accumulated at least 30 times more sediment than there actually is.  Geologists know the rate that Niagara Falls is eroding back.
>

Off the top of my head the river probably changed course.

>  It has only taken 5,000 years to erode from its original precipice.  The short period comets should have been gone in 10,000 years.  They are still here, so the scientists made up Oort clouds as nests of new comets.  Never saw one, but must be.  The earth's magnetic field is decaying rapidly.  Only 8,000 years ago the earth's magnetic strength would have been equal that of a magnetic star, and a million years ago it would have been impossibly high. Meteoric dust is falling constantly.  If this had been going on for 5 million years, huge deposits would be found.  They don't exist.  The amount of nickel in!
>  the
> oceans from the dust measures out to be several thousand years not million.  N.A.S.A. was so worried about it on the first moon landing, they figured that the dust would be so deep the lunar ship would sink into it, so they spent millions of dollars putting big pontoons on the ship .  Turned out only a centimeter or two of dust was found as you would expect of a young earth.  Helium is continuously being formed in the earth's crust. But there isn't enough helium in the atmosphere to correspond to the old age, It has been calculated that the absolute maximum age of the earth on the basis of helium production would be 26 million years, not 4.5 billion.  Salt in the sea, not enough for for the claimed age.  I could go on.  According to the Big Bang, all the planets are moving apart.
>
>  How come we can still see the moon that is moving away from us?  How come the sun didn't incinerate us when we were closer?   The oldest living thing, the bristle cone pine, is only 4000 years old!
>

The planets are not moving away from each other only the stars and their systems  are expanding.  I don't know where you are
getting the challenges to the theory of Evolution but some of them
appear to be legitimate questions  and others appear to be easily refutable with the training that I have

>The
> great barrier reef is only 4,000 years. These would fit with the flood.
>
>Because evolution doesn't know everything yet, is still a theory, and still has lots of problems, why can't they show just the scientific parts of Intelligent Design in the schools along side of it.  Let the students see what sounds logical.  No mention of the Bible.  And any other religious theory of development of the earth that has science behind it also could be included, but there aren't any.
>  
>
The so-called  scientific parts of intelligent design should be taught 
as problems with the theory of evolution not as a theory unto itself.  
God and a supreme being have no place in our school science curriculum.  
You must take a leap of faith to accept  the Bible and a supreme being 
to accept intelligent design. Who or what created the Creator?  You are 
imply that you have the one true faith and all others including 
evolutionary science are wrong.  I think that is dangerous and leads to 
fanaticism  and lack of tolerance and misunderstanding between people 
just because we grow up in different traditions and beliefs,.  What 
about a comparative religions class  which teaches all traditions and 
beliefs without favoring one over another?  

>Bush and I don't mistrust science, we mistrust scientists that are trying to hang onto their theory,(many times just to avoid God,) and hold back any other theories.  As I said before, science is very political in its own realm.  There are lots of scientists that don't believe in global warming, and say that any warming we are seeing is just because we are in a cycle.  I remember 20 or 30 years ago they said we were headed for an ice age.    I read in a nature magazine last week that we are causing global warming by fertilizing our lawns, for heaven sake!
>  
>
It runs off and pollutes our Lakes with  an overgrowth of lake weeds. 
That is the reason for not fertilizing lawns.

>Man doesn't cause an nth of global warming compared to one little volcano.  Notice the lack of comments about the cancer problems in some areas because of the ozone hole nowadays. It's turned out not to be a problem.
>  
>
It still is .!!

>As to Bush's cronies, wouldn't you put people around you that you trusted and didn't think they were off the deep end with unproven theories? Any other way would be stupid.
>  
>
<>Regarding George Bush's choice  of cronies it is more stupid for him 
to appoint  a former head of the Arabian Horse Association as Head of 
FEMA who has no experience with managing disasters or a woman without 
Judicial experience to the supreme court. than scientists who have the 
respect of  their peers and who are in the mainstream of scientific 
thinking  in the FDA. 

He,  according to recent published reports feels he has a direct line to 
god who has told him to invade Iraq.  There may or may not have been 
reasons to invade Iraq and that he has been chosen by god to complete 
this mission. but I as a psychiatrist am dubious as that for a reason.   
The mission sounds too much like Bin Laden's mission to rid the word of 
infidels and 9-11 for me.

Charlie

Well, good night good people. I'll read your interesting comments later.

Paula

Regarding

Charles Meyer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
PAULA, Ray and KF

I support Ray and KF. Just because a single cell is complex that
does not mean that the progenitors of that single cell were nearly as
complex. as the single cell organism of today

How old is the Earth and the universe? Is it as the Bible says 5-6000
yrs old or is it the millions of years old evolutionists say it is?
Steven Jay Gould is probably rolling over in his grave now with you
using his words that to justify the teaching of intelligent design. He
was a strong supporter of evolution and in fact is one of my heroes in
that regard. Because there are gaps in the evidence does not mean the
theory is not true only that we don't know everything yet.

Intelligent design may well be important but it belongs in a class where
religion is taught not in a science class. Because different religions
teach different origins of the the universe and all of them should be
taught to be "fair and balanced" .Maybe a history of religion
curriculum should be devised that puts equal emphasis on all of them, -
or would that be too threatening to the religious Right. An
understanding of evolution is crucial in an understanding of much of
medicine. Any attempt to dilute it with Intelligent design as opposed
to challenge it with rational scientific facts is an abomination..

Let us look at our president and his failure to weigh evidence..Rather
than use science and the scientific method. Rather, like you. has a
mistrust of science. Rather than using it to help him understand the
world he counts on god, intuition and cronies to make decisions and
then when they are proven wrong he fails (with the exception of Katrina)
to change directions. He certainly should use prayer if it works for
him, and intuition but scientific method allows for mid course
corrections based on evidence.
CHARLES T MEYER MD

CHARLIE

K . F. Etzold wrote:

>>Paula Nixon wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Dear Ray
>>>When Darwin first started talking about Evolution, it sounded very
>>>rational that life evolved from the simple cell which was thought to
>>>be a jelly like mass of protoplasm with a nucleus. I remember
>>>drawing those in school. Now we know there is no such thing as a
>>>simple cell, it is a single cell. In 1963 Dr. George Palade of the
>>>Rockerfeller Institute in NY, discovered it was an amazingly
>>>intricate system of incredibly fine tubes and chain of minute bags
>>>that totally permeate the entire cell. To summary your 10 pages of
>>>the "simple cell" It has structural design, energy generators,
>>>invasion guards , transport systems, food factories, waste disposal
>>>systems, protective barriers, communication links within and without
>>>the cell city that it is. Just the "skin" of the cell is amazing.
>>>It controls the entry and exit of everything for the cell, almost as
>>>if it had a chemical sense of taste as it grabs or rejects the needed
>>>nutrients into the cell by forming a little "finger"!
>>>      
>>>
>>!
>>
>>    
>>
>>>that
>>>reaches out and pulls the needed nutrient inside. Then there is the
>>>DNA and RNA! Science hasn't a clue how this could have just
>>>happened, but they don't say that in the schools or in science books,
>>>or if they do it is very low keyed. It couldn't have just happened.
>>>
>>>There was a quote I read once, that I can't find when I need it, that
>>>said, "Evolution expects us to believe the unbelievable, but to do
>>>otherwise is to believe in a Creator and that is unacceptable."
>>>Paula
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Paula:
>>
>>Just because the scientific community does not know everything does not
>>imply or force us to speculate on intelligent design. Any scientist
>>worth his salt will readily "admit" that his/her knowledge is limited.
>>The leap from this is unjustified and illogic. Had scientists made that
>>leap all scientific progress would have stopped, because there is no
>>more knowledge to obtain.
>>A basic tenet is that our understanding of nature is always incomplete
>>and that we must strive for further knowledge. If we had accepted the
>>scientific knowledge of say 200 years ago
>>there would be a faith based understanding of, for instance, the cell
>>but no modern medicine no modern biology. Indeed our present society is
>>inconceivable had we accepted the '"final" knowledge of 200 years ago.
>>
>>The details of the construction of the cell is just what I described in
>>my article on science: The knowledge was refined but that does not
>>change our basic understanding. Just because something is complicated
>>does not imply intelligent design. The little finger you describe has
>>some man made analogs. Chemistry can now construct molecules at will
>>with specific properties (such as a little finger). But I would argue
>>that these molecules were not created by God. Most pharmacological
>>products were designed that way and in fact the latest Nobel prize nin
>>Chemistry rewards such a new process. If one did not know how this was
>>arrived at one could readily argue it was intelligent design.
>>
>>K. F.
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to:
>>mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
>In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
>In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn
>
>
>  
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn