 |
 |
Dear Ray, I don't really think your description of God is accurate. I am not trying to say you have to believe the Bible by any means. In my case believing in evolution would take a gigantic leap of faith. Evolution is in effect a religion or at least a faith. I just want to let it be known that there is real science behind the study of Intelligent Design, by real scientists who went to big universities. You can study it all and not open a Bible. The "facts" that ID people interpret as Intelligent Design fit the theory very well and we think a lot better than evolution. Since these facts actually agree with the Bible is great. Faith = religion not science goes for evolution as well as creation. Origins can not be tested or reproduced in the laboratory. They both have to be accepted and judged as to which fit the facts the best. Keep an opne mind Paula rayilynlee <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Paula, you seem to want us to believe that just because life and the cosmos are amazing and complicated, some white haired, bearded, jealous, angry old white guy with a penis is behind it all. After all the Bible says so, and that takes a gigantic leap of faith. The earth 6,000 years old - I think even Kierkegaard might have trouble with that one. Faith = religion, not science. You need to read Voltaire's essay where a gopher and a mole argue endlessly about the nature of God. They are both wrong, of course. Keep your faith, by all means, just keep it out of my life and public policy..Thank you, Ray ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paula Nixon" To: Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 1:39 AM Subject: Re: The Scientific Method and intelligent design >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. > > 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 l! > ogical. > 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. 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 > 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. > > 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! > 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. > > 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. > > Well, good night good people. I'll read your interesting comments later. > > Paula > > > . > > > Charles Meyer 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn