==* BOYDEN PILTDOWN NEBRASKA_MAN
Public message 937 SCIENCE Area 09:39 Saturday 15-Jun-91
From: AARON BOYDEN
To: CHUCK MAIER
Re: paleoanthropology (7 day week)
First, on Piltdown man and Nebraska man; who caught the errors? Other
evolutionist scientists. Indeed, evolutionist scientist is a bit of a
redundancy, but that is another matter. Piltdown and Nebraska man were
discarded. When creationists are caught in errors, they dodge the issue, and
then bring up the same discredited evidence with the next audience which
hopefully doesn't know that the evidence has been discredited.
> Ramapithecus- again, was originally nothing more than
> portions of jawbone
> and teeth. Later discoveries of more complete
> remains led
> men like Allan Walker and David Pilbeam to assume
> that what they
> had was essentially and orangutan. As they had
> guesstimated the
> remains at roughly 17 my. years, the orangutan is
> supposedly a
> living fossil.
>
> Lucy and the Austrolopithecines -- a number of people have
> studied lucy- type creatures. Creationists would say
> they are an extinct form
> of ape, or maybe something like the pygmy chimp.
> Anyway, I've heard at several lectures, that someone
> asked Dr. Johansen (lucy
> discoverer) just where a certain bone in the
> knee-joint area was found ( 1987 lecture Johansen
> gave- I wasn't there). Johansen replied that he had
> found the bone in question a mile away and in strata
> 300 feet higher in the bed. His main evolutionary
> antagonist, Richard Leakey, says that Lucy is probably a
> composite
> of two or three creatures.
> Regardless, the issue of bipedal locomotion is more
> important. Evolutionists Charles Oxnard and Solly Zuckerman
> have studied creatures supposedly a million years younger
> than Lucy. His comment:
> "Multivariate studies of several anatomical regions,
> shoulder, pelvis, ankle, foot, elbow, and hand are now
> abailable for the austalopithecines. These suggest that the
> common view, that these fossils are similar to modern man or
> that on those occasions when they depart from a similarity to
> man they resemble the African geat apes, may be incorrect.
> Most of the fossil fragments are in fact uniquely different
> from both man and man's nearest living genetic relatives, the
> chimp and gorilla. ... To the extent that resemblances exist
> with living forms , they tend to be with the orangutan."
If I may quote Dr. Laurie Godfrey, referring to a creationist speaker with
much of the same evidence that you use:
"Distorting information in my own field, Beeber led the audience to believe
that Australopithecus was probably, according to anthropologist Charles
Oxnard, some kind of orangutan (or, at least, like an oranutan), that
anthropologist Clifford Jolly had demonstrated that fragmentary Ramapithecus
was probably some kind of baboon...
"Jolly cited dental parallelism between the baboon Theropithecus gelada (which
feeds on small hard objects such as grass corms and seeds) and early hominids
in an attempt to reconstruct the diet of the extinct forms. But neither Jolly
nor any anatomist would ever confuse the mouth of a baboon with that of a
hominid such as Ramapithecus (nor any other fossil genus with small front
teeth and large cheek teeth, such as the lemur Hadropithecus or hominid
Australopithecus). Nowhere did Jolly even remotely imply that Ramapithecus,
Australopithecus, Hadropithecus, or Homo are baboons.
"Oxnard similarly never implied that Australopithecus is unrelated to any
animal living today. Instead, Oxnard argued that late Pliocene and early
Pleistocene Australopithecus was not directly ancestral to Homo erectus but
shared a more remote common ancestor with an earlier variant of the genus
Homo. He further argued that Australopithecus, while facultatively bipedal,
probably engaged in climbing activities as well. His research question was
functional: Was Australopithecus a habitual bipedal? His analysis was based
entirely on some postcranial fragments. Oxnard readily acknowledged the
shared dental and cranial features of Australopithecus and Homo (signs of
their common ancestry). He explicitly argued that the postcranial
resemblances of Australopithecus to orangutans imply functional similarities,
not a closer relationship of Australopithecus to Pongo (the orang) than to
Homo."
Godfrey's comments on ER 1470 are omitted, as you didn't mention that fossil
and I am foolishly hoping that the reason is that you are aware of its
irrelevance to creationist claims.
--- TosScan(q) 1.00
* Origin: Telegraph Road BBS, Minneapolis, MN 612-332-5217 (1:282/50)
==!
==* BOYDEN THE_FLOOD
Public message 938 SCIENCE Area 09:48 Saturday 15-Jun-91
From: AARON BOYDEN
To: CHUCK MAIER
Re: Age of the Earth
> Read the " Genesis Flood " by Henry Morris. The flood is a
> bottom line issue. If the flood really happened, it was
> recent and would have been the dominating cause of most of
> the geologic column, obliterating what people suppose would
> have been there beforehand.
Unfortunately, the flood cannot explain the geologic column. The only
explanation I've heard for why more advanced animals are higher in the column
if it was caused by a flood is that they were more able to flee to high ground
and therefore were swept away later. However, plant remains are similarly
stratified from less to more complex. Did the rosebushes also run for the
hills when the flood began?
--- TosScan(q) 1.00
* Origin: Telegraph Road BBS, Minneapolis, MN 612-332-5217 (1:282/50)
==!
==* ELSBERRY
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry
DATE: 21 Jun 91 19:40:00
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: First things first
EID:0700 16d59d00
> However, I would also call
> Lenin, Mao-Tse Tung, and Daniel Ortega religious fanatics.
> The first thing the communists do when they take power is
> censor or kill all the Bible-believing Christians.
Really? I heard a reliable authority (Pres. of the NRA) state that the first thing all these folks do is round up firearms. ;-)
--- TPBoard 6.2
* Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (817-551-9363) (8:930/303)
SEEN-BY: 930/301 303
PATH: 930/303
==!
==* ELSBERRY
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry
DATE: 21 Jun 91 19:49:00
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Minister of Silly Walks
EID:dc3d 16d59e20
> The eucaryotes are subdivided into
> three distinct classes, yeasts, plants and animals; the
> animals can be subdivided into two further subclasses,
> insects and vertebrates.
For some reason, I am reminded of a Monty Python skit:
Doctor (pompously): The brain is like an enormous fish. It is flat and
slimy, and has gills through which it sees.
I must admit, for awhile I thought you were serious about the things
that you have been posting, but now I see that it is simply a
seriously skewed attempt at levity. I give it a C+.
--- TPBoard 6.2
* Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (817-551-9363) (8:930/303)
SEEN-BY: 930/301 303
PATH: 930/303
==!
==* LEIPZIG COMMON_ANCESTRY MAN_FROM_APE
Public message 1074 SCIENCE Area 06:42 Friday 26-Jul-91
From: MARTY LEIPZIG
To: CHUCK MAIER
Re: Evolution: Science, rightly called
-=> Quoting Chuck Maier to Marty Leipzig <=-
CM> If we really believe we came from apes, it
Chuck, repeat this 100 times: "Man did NOT come from apes..."
Then maybe you'll quit with this absurd notion. Genus Homo
shares A COMMAN ANCESTRY with the great apes.
CM> would be nice to see some population statistics to support this; it
CM> would be nice to have an open airing of the fraud and pseudoscience of
CM> paleoanthropology. But we never do. That's why there's an echo full
CM> of evolutionists here.
Oh, sort of a paleoanthropological witch hunt? I'm begining to
think that you really don't have a grasp of how science is
conducted . Why is paleoanthropology any
more psuedoscientific than archosaurian vertebrate
paleontology? Because it deals with human evolution? Hmm...I'm
really starting to wonder about your real hidden agenda.
ML> One really has to empathize with Dr. Sagan. All he did was
ML> attempt to present science in terms and illustrations
ML> understandable to the unscientifically trained. He tried to,
ML> (if I can be allowed the term) humanize science. For this, he
ML> is labeled an secular, atheistic baby-killer. The leap of
ML> illogic eludes me.
CM> Oh, poor Carl!!!!! This man has blatantly declared God does not
CM> exist outside of the cosmos itself in the very first line of his book.
Oh, yes, Chuck? And what book is that? He has authored a
number of them. Let's look at that little assertation....
"Cosmos" by Carl Sagan. Introduction..."In ancient times, in
everyday speech and custom, the most mundane happenings were
connected with the grandest cosmic events." So far, nothing
atheistic or anti-God there. Let's go to the main text..."The
cosmos is that is or ever was or ever will be." Evidently, you
disagree with Dr. Sagan that God is part of the cosmos. So?
Neither you nor Dr. Sagan can prove each other incorrect, so
what's the rub? The point is moot, at best.
CM> If he wanted to give us some
CM> real scientific insight, maybe he could undergo an abortion procedure
CM> and tell us what it feels like. He could don an aqualung and crawl
CM> into a cowtank of warm water to simulate a womb atmosphere. Then we
CM> could give someone a cornknife or a scythe to simulate a forceps.
CM> Then they could swing that device into the water and hack and yank
CM> Carl to pieces and throw his remains into a wood chipper.
CM> Unfortunately, Carl wouldn't be able to give us much feedback, but we
CM> could examine his DNA or his teeth and jaws and compare them with some
CM> animal. We might be able to decide that , in fact, he was not human,
CM> and aborting atheistic astronomers is a matter of personal choice. It
CM> might even save billions and billions of tax dollars being wasted
CM> looking for life that doesn't exist elsewhere in the cosmos. If
CM> this sounds crude, it isn't far from what is going on today with the
CM> unborn, and it's just about what has been done t to justify what has
CM> been done by racists in the past. The fact is, " science " is being
CM> used to justify these actions. chuck
Just how this evolution and abortion thread got connected is
the most fantastic crosslinking polymerization to take place
since my last frac job. Even you, Chuck, would agree in the
difference between a first trimester fetus and an adult human.
But it is amazing how you, in the space of 1 paragraph, go from
condemning Dr. Sagan, to deciding that "atheistic astronomers"
are worthless, decided that life doesn't exist elsewhere in the
Universe (prove it!), carp about the use of tax dollars, and end up
calling science racist and genocidal. Obviously, you're "Anti-choice"
when it comes to abortion, and vehemently so. I refuse to debate
this issue, especially in this forum. It is inappropriate, as it
is an emotion charged issue ruled by desires and beliefs rather
than reason and logic. But, it still amazes me how any subject
can be turned into an abortion argument....and it speaks volumes
regarding your true 'hidden agenda'.
... Creationists are fossils in their own time.
--- Blue Wave/Opus v2.00
* Origin: HST/DS/V32bis 713-589-0308 (1:106/500.0)
==!
==* KNAPP EVIDENCE
Public message 1655 SCIENCE Area 11:02 Saturday 27-Jul-91
From: DAVE KNAPP
To: CHUCK MAIER
Re: CREATION: WHAT QUALIFIES AS EVIDENCE?
>To see how the geochemical an astronomical data would be wrong would
>mean interpreting it from a catastrophic point of view (later).
You're going to have a tough time making SN1987A closer than
170,000 light-years away. Either the Universe is at least 1.7e5 y
old, or God made the light in transit. Which do you choose?
>a posteriori logic does not demand faith. I hope we agree on that.
>It is based on scientific observation. It is predictive, as Paley
>accurately predicted the inner workings of the cell to be a type of
>the visible world.
_A posteriori_ statistical arguments based on a sample size of 1
are ALWAYS fallacious. Period. This is Stat 1A, folks.
>Evolutionists often make ridiculous caricatures of what the
>creationists believe and what the bible teaches. Their number one
>argument in debates is not any evidence of any particular sort, it is
>ad hominem attacks on the creationists assumptions and beliefs, which
>they totally mischaracterize , and , I believe, don't really
>understand in the first place.
I have not made such ridiculous caricatures. I have, in fact,
made a considerable effort to understand exactly what creationists DO
say, so that I won't misrepresent it. And the most ridiculous things
creationists believe have not been posted here, although your
comments about the Second Law come close. If you want, I'll be glad
to describe some truly bizarre creationist beliefs. However, I'd be
appreciative if you would confine your remarks to me to what I have
or have not said, and do not bring in some mythical "typical
evolutionist."
That's enough for now. Since your main argument against evolution
has been that there is "insufficient evidence" and "lack of ability
to explain...," then by even minimal standards of consistency you
ought to be able to offer superior explanations for the above from a
young-Universe perspective. Since you claim to have arrived at your
creationist position from the physical evidence alone, I will have to
insist that your explanations be natural (by which I mean not
contrived), convincing, and reasonable. "Because God made it that
way" does not fit the above criteria; that is an argument that could
only be made by one who arrived at the creationist position by
faith. In principle, I can accept that view: if someone says "I
believe God created the world 6000 years ago and made it look older
to make the wise foolish and vice-versa," that is a position that at
least has an internal consistency. I don't hold that belief, but at
least I can understand it. Your position, on the other hand, seems
to be "God created the Universe 6000 years ago and left plenty of
evidence, but nearly everyone except me is too stupid (or sinful) to
see it." That position seems to me to be mostly contemptuous. Given
this, it doesn't surprise me that creationists meet ridicule:
ridicule on their part begets ridicule from others.
One last question before I finish: in what reference frame was
the world created < 10,000 years ago? From relativity, we know that
time depends upon reference frame: thus, from a reference frame
traveling near c, only a few seconds have passed since the Big Bang,
while in ours, billions of years have. The implication that there is
some absolute age of the Universe implies that God exists in time,
which in turn implies that He is a part of the Universe, not outside
it. I don't much care for the implications of that, though it is
certainly consistent with the creationist position that we can
prove the existence of God logically, which also implies that God is
a subset of the Universe. Please note that I am not accusing you of
this belief. It's just that I don't understand how you can evade
the consequence without rejecting relativity entirely.
-- Dave
--- TBBS v2.1/NM
* Origin: Records Department TBBS - Pleasanton, CA (415) 426-0470 (1:161/42)
==!
==* OTTO DENTON MOL_BIO DROSOPHILA
Public message 929 SCIENCE Area 21:28 Saturday 3-Aug-91
From: JEFF OTTO
To: CHUCK MAIER
Re: More Evolution
In a message to Jeff Otto <01 Aug 91 20:12> Chuck Maier wrote:
CM> (all: out of town 8-3 to 8-7; please time replies so I receive
CM> them no sooner than the 5th.)
> JO> thing one about genetics or its basis in evolution. Secondly, you
> JO> continually insist on quoting from a book whose author's credibility
> JO> is
> JO> suspect at best. Many people here in this forum have given several
> JO> different instances which question Denton as an authority on the
> JO> matter.
CM> There's nothing in Denton' book that I can't find in other
CM> evolutionist sources. He just flatly admits what others don't.
CM> Not that he has any answers, but he's hardly alone in wanting to
CM> junk Neo-Darwinism.
CM> I'm not at all convinced that data you find convincing for
CM> evolution isn't the same data Denton says contradicts the notion
CM> of continuity and common ancestry. I would like to see some
CM> percent sequence analysis from your perspective. Choose any DNA
CM> , RNA, protein, or whatever you like.
CM> Then compare them in the manner that Denton did. That is,
Chuck. Believe me, I have done these things. I did them quite a while
ago when I was first getting into this stuff. I am naturally
suspicious and critical of everything. I analyzed the data from the
papers that I read, and checked to see if my conclusions matched those
of the authors. To be perfectly honest, I did not agree in entirity
with every conclusion of every paper, but in not one single case did I
see evidence for gross mis interpretation of the data.
On the other hand, everytime I have answered your questions, you have
ignored my replies. In this case the message that you quote back says
nothing about my questions about your knowledge of this material. You
skirt this issue altogether. In reading through today's bag of mail, I
see that Maury has noticed this as well.
I have grown tired of responding to your questions, while you continue
to ignore ours. Ok, you say that Denton is correct and the rest of the
world is wrong. I would like you to prove that it at least once case
this is true. Here is a citation for probably the most important paper
in fly evolution that has come out in the last fifteen years or so.
Almost every paper that has come out since that performs comparitive
studies cites this paper. This is one of the first papers that I went
through and tested their conclusions. I challenge you to do the same.
Beverley SM, and Wilson AC. 1984. Molecular evolution in Drosophila and
the higher diptera. II. A time scale for fly evolution. Journal of
Molecular Evolution, volume 21 pages 1-13.
To be perfectly honest I will be very suprised if you accept this
challenge. I suspect that you will either ignore this post like all the
others or respond in some way and say that you will get on it, while we
will never see your post. This is also an offer to anyone else in this
echo. Read this paper critically, see if you agree with its premises
and its conclusions. Were the experiments valid? Why? Why not? Were
their conclusions valid? Why? Why not?
One other thing Chuck. In many instances in this echo, you have posted
messages which have used what I would consider questionable genetic
principles. I believe that a strong foundation in genetics is essential
for the understanding of basic evolutionary principles. Evolution may
be taught in schools before genetics is learned, but at no time can
evolution be understood without a foundation in basic genetic
principles. I would very much like to explore this area with you. If
you wish we can leave evolution completely out of the discussion since
evolution is not necessary for an understanding of genetics.
Jeff
--- XRS! 4.50+
* Origin: SciQuest BBS, Science is our Specialty (RAX 1:154/32.32)
==!
==* ELSBERRY MATH_CHALLENGES DENTON TRIAL_AND_ERROR
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry
DATE: 03 Aug 91 23:05:00
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Out of date data
EID:0441 1703b8a0
> Denton makes this comment on trial and error :
> "The inability o unguided trial and error to reach
> anything but the most trivial of ends in almost every
> field of interest obviously raises doubts as to its
> validity in the biological realm. Such doubts were
> recently raised by a number of mathematicians and
> engineers at an international symposium entitled "
> Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian
> Interpretation of Evolution ", a meeting which also
> included many leading evolutionary biologists. The major
> argument presented was that Darwiniam evolution by natural
> selection is MERELY A SPECIAL CASE OF THE GENERAL
> PROCEDURE OF PROBLEM SOLVING BY TRIAL AND ERROR.
> Unfortunately, as the mathematicians present at the
> symposium ... pointed out, trial and error is totallly
> inadequate as a problem solving technique WITHOUT THE
> GUIDANCE OF SPECIFIC ALGORITMS, WHICH HAS LED TO THE
> CONSEQUENT FAILURE TO SIMULATE dARWINIAM EVOLUTION BY
> COMPUTER ANALOGUES."
"Mathematical Challenges..." is not a recent reference. The whole
point made here is erroneous given the advances made in the two
decades since the "Mathematical Challenges..." conference. Denton is,
as usual, in error in his assertion.
Please reference:
Holland, J.H. 1975. Adaptation in natural and artificial systems.
University of Michigan Press.
This book sets forth most of the principles of the field of research
and application known as "genetic algorithms." These algorithms are
basically natural selection. Applications include difficult problems
in optimization, such as oil field pipeline layout and scheduling.
Far from being a substandard and unworkable scheme, genetics
algorithms have shown to be very good in comparison to conventional
techniques for complex or adaptive search.
There is also a very simple demo file, GENALG.ARJ, available on CNS.
BUGS is another genetic algorithm demo, and the GENESIS package is
also on line here.
Now that you have been informed of the state of the art, I expect you
to stop quoting this passage from Denton as if it carried any weight.
--- TPBoard 6.2
* Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (817-551-9363) (8:930/303)
SEEN-BY: 930/301 303
PATH: 930/303
==!
==* LEIPZIG PINATUBO CATASTROPHISM
Public message 1448 SCIENCE Area 11:49 Sunday 4-Aug-91
From: MARTY LEIPZIG
To: CHUCK MAIER
Re: Pinatubo ashfall and catastrophic canyon formation
-=> Quoting Chuck Maier to Marty Leipzig <=-
CM> And what do you think the earth would look like if Pinatubo
CM> really went off and set off a chain of such eruptions that wreak
CM> ecological havoc , earthquakes, tidal waves etc. . Could such a
CM> chain of events conceivably bring about the " end of all flesh ."
CM> chuck
Pinatubo is a general run of the mill sort of common garden
variety volcano. Why should it (or any other volcano) set off
a 'chain of eruptions'? They most certainly are not all
connected to the same magma chamber.
Surely, if (big if) it did (assumption #1), it would raise all
sorts of local ecological maladies. Of course, in the rock record,
there is ample evidence of catacylsmic volcanic eruptions.
These had very little impact (in a geologic sense) on the
biota over time.
P.S. The reason the Mt.St. Helens (Oh, BTW: it's the Toutle
River, not Tuttle) scenario is discarded (actually, never
seriously considered) for the Grand Canyon is (1.) it is
clearly volcanogenic (The Grand Canyon sequence is sandstones,
limestones, dolomites and shales...not volcanic sediments) and
(2.) there is no faunal succession such is seen the the Grand
Canyon Sequence. You are quite incorrect when you state there
are no fossils in the Paleozoic rocks that make up the Grand
Canyon. There is a rich assemblage, just like one would expect
in fertile marine waters. Check your facts.
You are correct in noting that there are no fossils in the
sediments cut by the Toutle. Why should there be? It was
deposited on a decade ago. Fossils take a bit longer than 10
years to form (in most ordinary instances). Actually, there
is finely macerated organics (mostly plant remains) in the tufa,
but precious few body remains. Indicative of rapid (and violent)
deposition, completly unlike anything seen in the Grand Canyon.
... Science is to religion as Hercules is to snakes.
--- Blue Wave/Opus v2.00
* Origin: HST/DS/V32bis 713-589-0308 (1:106/500.0)
==!
==* KNAPP QUESTIONS
Public message 1519 SCIENCE Area 15:28 Monday 5-Aug-91
From: DAVE KNAPP
To: JEFF OTTO
Re: MORE EVOLUTION
Jeff Otto write to Chuck Maier:
JO>I have grown tired of responding to your questions, while you
JO>continue to ignore ours.
Jeff, the same thing has been happening to me. I ask him a few
questions, and he just pretends he hasn't heard, whie still expecting
us to continue answering his (that we have generally already answered
several times).
This is a common technique for debate (as opposed to discussion)
because it keeps you on the offensive (in every sense of the term).
Here's what you do: every time you see a post by Chuck, enter a
post stating that he has ignored your questions, and re-stating the
questions. This technique, while somewhat obnoxious, will certainly
make the point that the creationists are willing to ask a lot of
questions, but not answer any pointed their way. I think that anyone
listening to the discussion will be able quickly to form their own
conclusions.
Here are my questions for creationists, which you can add to yours
and generate a good generic posting. Then just post it every day
until Chuck answers the questions.
1.) Please post a scientific (i.e. mathematically based) definition
of entropy.
2.) How can creationists explain the observed distance to SN1987A
(170,000 ly) obtained by angular measurement?
3.) How do creationists explain the cosmic microwave background
radiation?
4.) How do creationists explain the correlation of redshift to
oberved magnitude for all types of stars?
That's enough for now, though I have many more for when those are
satisfactorily answered. I think we've indulged Chuck enough -- it's
time he put up or shut up.
-- Dave
--- TBBS v2.1/NM
* Origin: Records Department TBBS - Pleasanton, CA (415) 426-0470 (1:161/42)
==!
==* MARKOWITZ POPULATION DIET
Public message 1531 SCIENCE Area 14:22 Tuesday 6-Aug-91
From: MAURY MARKOWITZ
To: CHUCK MAIER
Re: Age of Earth (Ape from man?)
CM> youth and Pentecostal ministers do not. Second, we are rediscovering
CM> the benefits of a high fiber, low-fat diet ( i.e. bananas, nuts, and
CM> leafy vegetables - or maybe just leaves). Third, chimp clans
Interesting, I'd like to see your diet sometime. Bananas have basically NO
fibre, ZERO. As do most nuts and leaves. In fact, the cerial grains are the
best source of dietary fibre (or perhaps you have been lucky enough to aviod
the oat-bran advertizing blitz and didn't know this) and none of the foods you
mention are very good sources at all.
CM> Who needs all these huge cities, email, and all the rat race of 20th
CM> century human existence.
I think that goes without answering, humans. We are rather rapidly
increasing our numbers in a way that no other life form has since the oxygen
producing bacteria wiped out most of the biomass a LONG time ago. We can live
in places where no other life form can natually (space for example) and
there's no natural disaster that could happen to seriously threaten the entire
human race. A comet apparently wiped out the dinosaurs, but such an event
would not wipe out the human race. Technology - with all it's drawbacks -
seems like a very good survival mechanism, not for anything else, or the world
in general, just us.
Maury
--- Maximus-CBCS v1.02
* Origin: I bought some powdered water, but I don't know what to add.
(1:250/712)
==!
==* OTTO QUESTIONS
Public message 1571 SCIENCE Area 14:48 Wednesday 7-Aug-91
From: JEFF OTTO
To: DAVE KNAPP
Re: MORE EVOLUTION
In a message to Jeff Otto <05 Aug 91 15:28> Dave Knapp wrote:
DK> Jeff Otto write to Chuck Maier:
> JO>I have grown tired of responding to your questions, while you
> JO>continue to ignore ours.
DK> Jeff, the same thing has been happening to me. I ask him a few
DK> questions, and he just pretends he hasn't heard, whie still expecting
DK> us to continue answering his (that we have generally already answered
DK> several times).
DK> This is a common technique for debate (as opposed to discussion)
DK> because it keeps you on the offensive (in every sense of the term).
DK> Here's what you do: every time you see a post by Chuck, enter a
DK> post stating that he has ignored your questions, and re-stating the
DK> questions. This technique, while somewhat obnoxious, will certainly
DK> make the point that the creationists are willing to ask a lot of
DK> questions, but not answer any pointed their way. I think that anyone
DK> listening to the discussion will be able quickly to form their own
DK> conclusions.
Actually, I have begun to do this already. I have also decided to
attack every bit of misinformation that I see him post, regardless of
how trivial. Initially, I let these things slide, but as this
discussion has grown uglier, my tolerance in the subject has grown
shorter.
DK> Here are my questions for creationists, which you can add to yours
DK> and generate a good generic posting. Then just post it every day
DK> until Chuck answers the questions.
DK> 1.) Please post a scientific (i.e. mathematically based) definition
DK> of entropy.
DK> 2.) How can creationists explain the observed distance to SN1987A
DK> (170,000 ly) obtained by angular measurement?
DK> 3.) How do creationists explain the cosmic microwave background
DK> radiation?
DK> 4.) How do creationists explain the correlation of redshift to
DK> oberved magnitude for all types of stars?
DK> That's enough for now, though I have many more for when those are
DK> satisfactorily answered. I think we've indulged Chuck enough -- it's
DK> time he put up or shut up.
To be fair, although I understand evolution from a biological
standpoint, I would not be able to answer any of the questions above -
from an evolutionists standpoint! Rather, my focus is more on genetics,
molecular biology, and to a lesser degree, biochemistry. In the past
Chuck has posted several messages which suggests that his understanding
of genetics is suspect. It seems clear to me that it would be very
difficult to argue well against the biology of evolution if you did not
have a decent understanding of genetics. Of course he has taken no
steps to pursue a regular discussion of genetics with me, which would
supply him with opportunity to demonstrate his command of the
principles.
I agree, it is time to put up or shut up.
--- XRS! 4.50+
* Origin: SciQuest BBS, Science is our Specialty (RAX 1:154/32.32)
==!
==* OTTO ABIOGENESIS
Public message 3450 SCIENCE Area 21:05 Monday 12-Aug-91
From: JEFF OTTO
To: CHUCK MAIER
Re: Abio Biochem 1 of 3
Chuck Maier has requested that I post a detailed message involving a
possible biochemistry of abiogenesis. The following messages contain my
comments on the matter.
The following are various organic/biochemical reactions that may have
occurred on primitive earth. The reactions are taken directly from the
text Biochemistry by Geoffrey Zubay, the second edition, 1988. To be
honest, I though this text was more comprehensive that it appears to be.
In order to address abiogenesis, one first must decide what would be
required for a primitive "living" system. Based on the studies of
Thomas Cech, Norman Pace, Sidney Altman, and Alan Weiner, I would
suggest that a membrane encapsulated system containing RNA or an RNA
like molecule would be sufficient. This is based upon experiments which
have demonstrated that RNA can perform the following:
1) act as a polymerase and direct template specific synthesis of RNA
2) act as a site specific nuclease to cleave RNA
3) act as polymerase and direct template independent synthesis of RNA
The result of these reactions is a molecule that under different ionic
conditions can replicate, and release the products of replication via
cleavage. To my way of thinking, in order to optimize the
concentrations, and allow for somewhat adequete conditions for a self
replicating system, it should be self contained, thus a membrane would
be important if not required for our first "living" organism. It is
quite possible that the earlies life forms performed these required
reactions by nucleating in pockets of salt water saturated clays.
Eventually however, a membrane is required. You should not from the
above discussion that proteins are not required for this most primitive
of scenarios.
Beyond this, there is circumstantial evidence that would support RNA's
role in primitive life. First of all, it is completely ubiquitous and
absolutely required for life of all known systems. No known biological
systems can survive without RNA. DNA viruses have to go through an RNA
intermediate. Not all RNA viruses require a DNA intermediate. This is
an important distinction. Secondly, increasing evidence has
demonstrated that it is the RNA in ribosomes that is critical for
protein synthesis, not the proteins. It appears that the proteins are
more of a scaffolding, while the RNA performs the catalytic function.
Thus we have evidence of yet another role for RNA - that for polypeptide
synthesis. Furthermore, RNA has been implicated in maintenance of
telomeres, which is important to prevent loss of genetic information in
each round of replication. Other groups have also implicated RNA as a
catalyst involved in carbohydrate metabolism. From these examples it is
clear that no other molecule is nearly as wide reaching in its
biological implications as RNA.
Now, what is required to form an RNA molecule, and is it reasonable to
expect that these molecules may have formed spontaneosly on primitive
earth?
To answer the first part, you need bases, a sugar and phosphates. To
answer the second part, the answer is yes, and no. Although the
arguments are certainly not definitive, they are currently the best ones
that I am aware of, although it is entirely possible that I have missed
important research in this area in the last few years. The next
message(s) will detail these reactions and my comments on them. Much to
my regret, the text that I have does not supply the reactions for lipid
synthesis or sugar synthesis. The lipid reactions I have completely
forgotten and will have to ignore. The sugar reactions, I remember a
bit more of, and will try to recount what I can.
--- XRS!% 4.50+
* Origin: SciQuest BBS, Science is our Specialty (RAX 1:154/32.32)
Public message 3451 SCIENCE Area 21:05 Monday 12-Aug-91
From: JEFF OTTO
To: CHUCK MAIER
Re: Abio Biochem 2 of 3
First, I will discuss the biochemistry required for synthesis of the
purine bases adenine and guanine. Under conditions postulated to have
occurred on primitive earth, all of these reactions have been shown to
occur, and the resulting end products are major products of the
precursors.
H2N CN This is diaminoaleonitrile, a
\ / relatively simple product, easily
HCN ---> C synthesized from hydrogen cyanide
||
C
/ \
H2N CN
|
| Now add a little ionizing radiation
| and another molecule of HCN and we
V get:
NC N
\ / \ \ A mess. Organic molecules do
C not lend themselves well to this
|| C media. Seriously though, you get
C / 5-aminoimidazole-4-carbonitrile
/ \ N which is a direct precursor of
H2N adenine. Just add HCN
|
| HCN
V
NH2
| N
| || C
\\ / \ /
N N
By adding H2O to 5-aminoinudazole-4 carbonitrile you get a
precursor of guanine
|
| H2O
V
O Is it my imagination or are
|| N my drawings getting better?
/ \ / \\ anyways, now just add a little
H2N || C cyanogen and voila!
/ \ /
H2N N
H
|
| (CN)2
|
V
O
|| N
HN/ \ / \\ Here is guanine. So the purines
| || C seem easy enough to make. Lets
/\\ / \ / try some pyrimidines now.
NH2 N N
H
--- XRS!% 4.50+
* Origin: SciQuest BBS, Science is our Specialty (RAX 1:154/32.32)
Public message 3452 SCIENCE Area 21:06 Monday 12-Aug-91
From: JEFF OTTO
To: CHUCK MAIER
Re: Abio Biochem 3 of 3
Fortunately at least one pathway for pyrimidine synthesis is a bit less
complicated than for the purines. For the sake of brevity I will post
it here, if you are genuinely curious, you can find all of this in the
text cited in the first message.
NH2 O
HC | ||
C ------> N C -----> HN C
C | || | ||
O N O N
H H
Cytosine Uracil
So now we have four bases. The next step is the sugar. To me, this is
the biggest problem of the whole thing. Not because sugars would not
form spontaneously under these circumstances, but because of the
exponential nature of stereoisomers that can form with each additional
carbon atom. The number of separate 5 carbon sugars is high enough to
make the selection of ribose seem prohibitive. Some researchers think
that glycerol or another similar sugar may have evolved first,
simulating the structure that would later be achieved through ribose.
Such a structure might look like:
O Base
\ |
C
H H / |
C - C H
OH OH
Where as ribose looks like:
*
HOCH O Base
\ / \ |
C C
/\ H H / |
H C - C H
OH OH
* **
* denotes carbons involved in forming nucleotide polymers
** denotes hydroxyl groups required for RNA catalytic activity.
As can be seen in the above diagrams glycerol supplies the critical
catalytic hydroxyl, but lacks the carbons required for polymerization.
To me, this is critical, and needs to be resolved, but until such a time
it is the most current thinking. As for the phosphates, suffice it to
say that they are added fairly easily. I will look for the lipid
reactions, and if I can find them, I will post them along with the
phosphate reactions. I hope everyone has found this interesting and
informitive.
Jeff
--- XRS!% 4.50+
* Origin: SciQuest BBS, Science is our Specialty (RAX 1:154/32.32)
==!
==* OTTO CYTOCHROME_C PHYLOGENY
Public message 3067 SCIENCE Area 19:16 Monday 19-Aug-91
From: JEFF OTTO
To: CHUCK MAIER
Re: Cytochrome C 1 of 2
After all I have seen posted here of what I consider suspect data, I
decided that I would perform some analysis of my own. The following
data was generated using the NRBF protein database and the UWGCG
resource. The analysises were performed using the FASTA program for
sequence comparisons. Before I present the data, I would like to make
it clear that amino acid comparisons in proteins allows for the most
stringent analysis regarding the lattitude within which a protein may
evolve. For this reason, such analyses are less than ideal. I
attempted to repeat the study I present here using the genomic DNA
sequences but, to be honest, I could not figure out how to make the
program compare one entire gene to another. Rather, what it does is
look for the region of highest homology. For instance comparing the
sequence of say the cytochrome C gene of Saccharomyces cerrivisiae with
that of Drosophila melanogaster, I might find a region of 780 bp that
shows 65% homology. This would be fine if the gene was 780 bps in
length, unfortunately the cytochrome C gene is on the order of 2 Kbs.
Regardless of what I tried, I could not find a way to compare the entire
2kbs from the different organisms. I could do this manually, but
considering the number of analysises invovled I decline.
I encourage all of you to look at this data critically. I have done
nothing to doctor it, or to throw out data because it didn't seem to fit
with what I might like. Chuck Maier in quoting Denton, has posted
similar data, but whose analyses differ entirely from what I am posting
here. The conclusions that Chuck has drawn are that there is no
evidence for any evolutionary relatedeness of any organisms. When you
look at what I post here, I encourage you to see if you reach the same
conclusions. In order to avoid coloring the data in any way, I will
refrain from discussing the data as its presented. I will be more than
happy to do so at a later date.
In order to keep things to a minimum, I have established a code, which
will be used for the grid. It is as follows:
A - Human B - Chimpanzee C - Horse D - Donkey
E - Mouse F - Carp G - Lamprey H - Maize
I - Neurospora J - S. pombe K - Euglena M - Tetrahymena
The table will be presented in the following message. If anyone would
like to have the raw data that was used to generate this table. It is
available upon request.
Jeff
--- XRS!% 4.50+
* Origin: SciQuest BBS, Science is our Specialty (RAX 1:154/32.32)
Public message 3068 SCIENCE Area 19:17 Monday 19-Aug-91
From: JEFF OTTO
To: CHUCK MAIER
Re: Cytochrome C 2 of 2
| A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L |
-+-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A|XXXXX| 100 | 88.5| 89.4| 91.3| 78.6| 80.8| 66.7| 63.7| 67.3|56.6|47.5|
-+-----------------------------------------------------------------------
B| 100 |XXXXX| 88.5| 89.4| 91.3| 78.6| 80.8| 66.7| 63.7| 67.3|56.6|47.5|
-+-----------------------------------------------------------------------
C| 88.5|88.5 |XXXXX| 99.0| 94.2| 81.6| 84.6| 63.7| 65.7| 71.2|58.6|46.5|
-+-----------------------------------------------------------------------
D| 89.4|89.4 | 99.0|XXXXX| 95.2| 82.5| 85.6| 64.7| 65.7| 72.1|58.6|46.5|
-+-----------------------------------------------------------------------
E| 91.3|91.3 | 94.2|95.2 |XXXXX| 83.5| 84.6| 66.7| 65.7| 71.2|56.6|48.5|
-+-----------------------------------------------------------------------
F| 78.6|78.6 | 81.6|82.5 | 83.5|XXXXX| 81.6| 59.2| 57.3| 64.1|52.0|44.0|
-+-----------------------------------------------------------------------
G| 80.8|80.8 | 84.6|85.6 |84.6 |81.6 |XXXXX| 59.2| 59.2| 68.3|55.6|48.5|
-+-----------------------------------------------------------------------
H|66.7 |66.7 | 63.7|64.7 |66.7 |59.2 |59.2 |XXXXX| 58.1| 57.1|51.5|42.6|
-+-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I|63.7 |63.7 | 65.7|65.7 |65.7 |57.3 |59.2 | 58.1|XXXXX|70.8 |57.6|45.5|
-+-----------------------------------------------------------------------
J|67.3 |67.3 | 71.2|72.1 |71.2 |64.1 |68.3 | 57.1| 70.8|XXXXX|54.5|48.5|
-+-----------------------------------------------------------------------
K|56.6 |56.6 |58.6 |58.6 |56.6 |52.0 |55.6 |51.5 |57.6 |54.5 |XXXX|48.0|
-+-----------------------------------------------------------------------
L|47.5 |47.5 |46.5 |47.5 |48.5 |44.0 |48.5 |42.6 |45.5 |48.5 |48.0|XXXX|
-+-----------------------------------------------------------------------
All of the above data is presented in terms of percent homology, and
compares amino acid sequence of the cytochrome C protein of the various
organisms.
--- XRS!% 4.50+
* Origin: SciQuest BBS, Science is our Specialty (RAX 1:154/32.32)
==!
==* OTTO MACROEVOLUTION QUESTIONS PARITY SPECIATION REFS
Public message 3260 SCIENCE Area 17:28 Sunday 25-Aug-91
From: JEFF OTTO
To: MAURY MARKOWITZ
Re: Macroevolution - put up or shut up :)
In a message to Michael Lutas <22 Aug 91 14:29> Maury Markowitz wrote:
> ML> Could you please name a few speciation events. I don't think I am
> ML> familiar
> ML> with any real ones.
MM> Here's what we'll have to do. Jeff, post some. I'll post too.
MM> I'llk take them all (with refs please) and put them into a file.
MM> I can cut and paste from Word into this term (it is a Mac after
MM> all...) and I'll collect them and post them once every two weeks
MM> henseforth. This should stop these
MM> questions and save my fingers some work.
MM> Maury
Ok Maury, I am most familiar with the speciation of the Hawaiian group
of Drosopholids:
D. heteroneura
D. silvestris 2
D. silvestris 3
D. sproati
D. pilimana
D. disjuncta
D. affindisjuncta
D. mmica
D. stigma
D. clavisetae
D. funebris
The citation of this particular work is:
DeSalle, R., Freedman, T., Prager, E.M., and Wilson A.C. 1987. Tempo
and mode of sequence evolution in mitochondrial DNA of Hawaiian
Drosophila. Journal of Molecular Evolution. Volume 26. Pages 157-164.
Further references on the Hawaiian Drosophilids can be found as follows:
Beverley, SM., and Wilson AC. 1985. Ancient origin for Hawaiian
Drosophilinae inferred from protein comparisons. Proceedings National
Academy of Sciences USA. Volume 82. pages 4753-4757
Journal of Molecular Evolution.
Carlson HL. 1982. Evolution of Drosophila on the newer Hawaiian
volcanoes. Heredity. Volume 48. Pages 3-25
Desalle, R. and Giddings LV. 1986. Discordance of nuclear and
mitochondrial DNA phylogenies in Hawaiian Drosophila. Proceedings
National Academ of Sciences USA. Volume 83. Pages 6902-6906
Desalle, R et al., 1986a. Mitochondrial DNA variability in natural
populations of Hawaiian Drosophila. I. Methods and levels of variability
in D. silvertis and D. heteroneura populations. Heredity. Volume 56.
Pages 75-85.
DeSalle, R. et al., 1986b. Mitochondrial DNA variability in natural
populations of Hawaiian Drosophila II. Genetic and phylogenetic
relationships of natural populations of D. silvertis and D. heteroneura.
Heredity. Volume 56. Pages 86-96.
If you need more references let me know, this has been fairly well
documented and rather thoroughly studied.
Jeff
--- XRS!% 4.50+
* Origin: SciQuest BBS, Science is our Specialty (RAX 1:154/32.32)
==!
==* OTTO M_DENTON THEORY_IN_CRISIS CRITIQUE
Public message 2764 SCIENCE Area 14:33 Wednesday 4-Sep-91
From: JEFF OTTO
To: ALL
Re: Denton
Well, I finally got a hold of a copy of Michael Denton's book,
"Evolution: A theory in Crisis", published in 1983. Much of the text
dealt with the fossil record and geology and such, of which I am not
familiar with and am unqualified to comment on. I did read with great
interest however, four chapters that dealt with molecular biology, and
interpretations of molecular data. For those of you who would like to
cut to the chase, and skip my reasons I will supply them here.
Regardless of what may or may not be said on the dust cover (the copy I
have does not have one), Michael Denton is certainly no molecular
biologist, and has little grasp of the information that he attempts to
handle. Perhaps even more troublesome is lack of discussion of current
biochemical theories, and complete lack of discussion regarding genetic
principles. To be fair to Chuck, the quotes that have been posted here
are typical of what Denton has to say.
Ok now on with the specifics. Denton dedicates an entire chapter to
origins, supposedly debunking current thinking regarding abiogenesis.
What I find interesting is that he completely ignores and in no way
addresses any theory in particular to show how it is wrong. What I find
most disturbing about this is that two of the most important
hypothesises which do have problems (the RNA world and the Genomic Tag)
were not addressed at all. It would seem that someone who was aware of
these theories and their inherrent problems would be more than willing
to bash them - especially since that is what this book is supposed to
do. I could not help but wonder the following: 1) Was Denton
completely unaware of these hypothesises even though they were around in
1983, and were quite entrenched by 1985? or 2) Was he aware of these
hypothesises, but lacked the fundamental understanding of the
biochemistry involved to point out their flaws? In either case, his
credibility is seriously damaged for not addressing either of these two
models - especially since they represent the forefront of scientific
thought on the matter.
Another chapter is dedicated almost entirely to protein comparisons of
cytochrome C among various creatures. His choice of organisms I found
very disturbing. First, if any of you recall my posting of comparisons,
I compared several vertebrates, from which a marginally useful tree
could be generated. The comparisons unequivocally demostrated that
chimps and humans were more closely related to each other (100%
identity) that they were to mice, and a horse and donkey were more
closely related to each other than to a chimp or human etc). Denton
completely failed to choose any such animals. To perform such an
ommission is to deprive such an analysis of what limited worth it has.
Denton goes on to claim that similar comparisons which show equidistant
similarities are found at the RNA and DNA level as well. No such data
is supplied though. He does give examples of rRNA, and presumambly this
can be extrapolated to DNA. This type of analysis has the same problems
as the protein comparisons because the rRNA molecule is a functional
unit unto itself - it is not translated, and therefore is not
significantly different at all from the protein analyses that he
supplies. He gives no specific examples and supplies no data regarding
any actual sequence alignments. To omit such data is to ignore the
source of the most valuable information regarding such analyses as he
presents. For example, he argues against a molecular clock (by
completely misunderstanding the principle and in effect arguing quite
well against a strawman), and completely disregards an arguments
regarding functional constraints of proteins. What I find amazing
about this is that the entire chapter he dedicates almost entirely to
comparisons of cytochrome C. If he were to actually look at the aligned
sequences he could not help but notice that some parts of the protein
are completely invariant throughout all species - showing 100%
conservation while others show decreasing homology the further away you
go. IF you are going to completely disregard functional constraints,
how can that information - the percent homolgy diagrams from data he
must have - or should have looked at, be reconciled with his arguments.
Finally, I am very disturbed because at no time did he address any of
the genetic principles that drive evolution. To show that evolution is
in trouble, it would be necessary to also show that the genetics from
which evolution is based is also flawed. He completely ignores this,
and makes no mention of it. To read this book would be to suggest
evolution has absolutely nothing to do with genetics. Is this because
he does not understand genetics, or because he does understand the
principles and does not want to present any information that completely
supports evolution?
From all of this, I conclude that Denton is either ignorant of a great
deal of information that he should be aware of for making such an
argument, or he is aware of these things, but refuses to address them
because they do not support his posistion. His analysis of molecular
data shows a sophmoric understanding of the principles of molecular
biology, and I am entirely suspect of his competence as a molecular
biologist. I don't know who it is that claimed that he is a molecular
biologist, but my guess is that it was not another molecular biologist!
Finally, I would like to know how a theory can be discredited without
addressing the cornerstone upon which that theory rests - namely
genetics. If for no other reason than this, the book can be
discredited. I have no idea if the other chapters are handled as poorly
as these, but if they are, it is no small wonder that this book ever got
published. It certainly could not have been peer reviewed, this is
acutally also acknowledged by omission in his acknowledgements in the
front of the book. It would make some sense to have a text such as this
to be sent out to others familiar in the field that you are adressing to
make sure that you do not make a fool of yourself. Denton, I guess was
not concerned about this, and guess what? IMHO, he made a fool of
himself!
Jeff
--- XRS!% 4.50+
* Origin: SciQuest BBS, Science is our Specialty (RAX 1:154/32.32)
==!
==* OTTO SPECIATION REFS
Public message 3225 SCIENCE Area 10:40 Thursday 5-Sep-91
From: JEFF OTTO
To: MAURY MARKOWITZ
Re: species
Maury -
Here is another citation to add to your list of speciation events. This
regards the speciation of laboratory strains of mice from the wildtype
natural population from which they were originally taken. The full
citation and abstract follow:
Matsuda Y., Hirobe, T., and Chapman VM. 1991. Genetic basis of X-Y
chromsome dissociation and male sterility in interspecific hybrids.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 88:4850-4
Abstract:
A high frequency of X-Y chromosome dissociation (95%) was found at first
meiotic metaphase (MI) in spermatocytes of interspecific hybrids between
laboratory mice, C57BL/6J (BL/6) and Mus spretus, compared with an X-Y
dissociation frequency of ony 3-5% in parental mice. The X-Y
dissociation in F1 hybrids occurred before diakinesis rather than as a
precocious spermatogeneic breakdown after MI, resulting in male
sterility. All F1 males were sterile and approximately half of the
backcross males from fertile F1 females corssed with either BL/6 or M.
spretus males were sterile. Male sterility was highly correlated with
X-Y dissociation in both backcrosses. All of the mice with hight X-Y
dissociation were sterile and all of the males with low X-Y dissociation
were fertile or subfertile. This correlation suggested that genetic
divergence of the X-Y pairing region could contribute to the male
sterile phenotype such that BL/6 X chromosome would not pair with the
M. spretus Y chromosome. The segregation of species-type alleles of
amelogenin (Amelb and Amels), a distal X chromosome locus adjacent to
the X-Y pairing region, ws followed in backcross males that were
analyzed for X-Y dissociation and sterility (we have used Amel as the
designation for the mouse amelgoenein locus; the current designation for
this locus is Amg). A 95% concordance between Amelb with fertility and
Amels with sterility was observed in backcrosses with BL/6, whereas the
converse was observed in the backcross to M. spretus. These results
imply that X-Y pairing plays an important role in male fertility and
suggest that genetic divergence in X-Y pairingregions between Mus
species can contribute to the reproductive barriers between species and
the process of speciation.
Ok, back to me now. As far as I am aware, this represents the first
case of analysis of a speciation event that has occurred by artificial
separation of populations. The experiments above use genetics to
explain and test the speciation event, which to my way of thinking, adds
further evidence that one cannot address the validity of evolution
without addressing the genetics that is involved.
Jeff
--- XRS!% 4.50+
* Origin: SciQuest BBS, Science is our Specialty (RAX 1:154/32.32)
==!
==* MARKOWITZ CYTOCHROME_C
Public message 3237 SCIENCE Area 12:27 Thursday 5-Sep-91
From: MAURY MARKOWITZ
To: CHUCK MAIER
Re: CYTOCHROME C 1 OF 2
CM> Denton has looked at the data the way a scientist should.
CM> Rather than immediately overlaying the numbers with his evolutionary
CM> preconceived ideas and go looking for any hint of homology, he simply
CM> grouped them and didn't go drawing misleading trees.
This statement serves only to show us all where you're comming from again.
Chuck, NO ONE "immediately overlaying the numbers with his evolutionary
preconceived ideas and go looking for any hint of homology" in the field, and
I'd like to see you present an example. However, this shows very well that
you assume this to be true, again pointing out how out of touch you are with
science and research, or so it seems.
CM> Denton made no assumptions about genetic processes. He has
CM> simply looked at the data, and then critiqued the genetic mechanisms
CM> that people so calmly cite (uniform rates of evolution, functional
CM> constraints, drift,selection ) as fact. The point I've been making
But that's not at all the point I was trying to get across. It seem to me,
from your quotes of his work, that he seems to believe that similar features
require similar genetics. I, and everyone else on the echo, take exception to
this fact. Eyes (at least in my admittedly limited knowledge of the field)
developed at least 3 different ways in history, all from different ancestors.
Thus, we have a similar feature that has wildly differing genetics to pass the
trait on.
However, from the quoted material, it seems that what you are trying to get
across is that is is "weird" that simial animal have different genes, while
different animals have simialr genes. I disagree strongly with this
statement, as has most of the echo.
By the way, I have long complained that creationists take quotes out of
context, and you recently provided me with an excellent example. You quoted
Darwin as stating that the eye could not have evolved naturally. In order to
show just how devious the field seems to be lately, I'll requote a portion...
"To suppose the eye...could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I
freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
A great quote, works fine on people like yourself that want to believe it.
Too bad your source didn't quote the rest of the same statement...
"... the difficulty ceases to be very great in believing that natural
selection may have converted the simple apperatus of an optic nerve, coated
with pigment and invested by transparent membrane, into an optical instrument
as perfect as is possesed by any member of the Articulate Class."
Nice of you to ignore the rest of the quote like that Chuck. Keep up the
good work!
Maury
--- Maximus-CBCS v1.02
* Origin: I bought some powdered water, but I don't know what to add.
(1:250/712)
==!
==* RHORER QUESTIONS
Public message 2465 SCIENCE Area 09:36 Thursday 19-Sep-91
From: LESLIE RHORER
To: CHUCK MAIER
Re: Human race: population fragility, characteristics
Chuck, we have told you before that we are tired of continually
answering your questions while you refuse tyo answer ours. Until you do so, I
refuse to converse further with you. Here are the questions/qualifications:
Define exactly and unambiguously the term "kinds". This definition
MUST address some fundamental difference at the genetic and microscopic level.
Show by what mechanism these "kinds" are separated CHEMICALLY, at the
cellular and genetic level, and exactly what mechanism prevents genetic drift
from crossing this boundary.
Explain the 3K background radiation of the universe as a whole.
If the Earth is only 6000 years old, explain the findings relevant to
SN1989A, which prove by purely geometric means that our measurements of the
distance to the event indicate that it is over 137,000 years old are fully
accurate, and that the speed of light at that time was within a fraction of a
percent of the currently accepted value. This being the case, the rest of the
universe must be at LEAST that old, and all indications are that it is over 15
BY old.
Explain the complete lack of geological evidence of any global flood
5000 years ago.
Explain how the Earth could have been completely depopulated in every
corner, but then completely and diversely populated in less than 4000 years
from a stock of a few thousand pairs (hint: it can't be done).
Explain the complete lack of modern fossils in strata containing
fossils which radiometric dating and general taxonomy both indicate to be the
older strata. Also explain the fact that those strata's age can be accurately
measured to be several billion years old.
Until such time as you fully answer these statements, I have nothing
more to answer as regards your statements. And show your math, BTW. No hand
waving, no "I don't believe that". We frankly could not care less what you do
or do not believe.
Les
If a man calls you a horse, he's a fool. If 3 men do, buy a saddle.
--- EZPoint V2.1
* Origin: GUI? Ptui!!! --- Last Chance Pt 4 (1:387/822.4)
==!
==* NICHOLLS EMBRYOLOGY TRANSITIONS FOSSILS REFS
Public message 3084 SCIENCE Area 09:55 Saturday 21-Sep-91
From: PHIL NICHOLLS
To: CHUCK MAIER
Re: Amphibians
CM> Possibly John t. might tell relate the embryological
CM> development of the pentadactyl limb in vertebrates. Does
CM> the limb suddenly appear loosely embedded in muscle and grow
CM> toward the vertebral column and then glue itself on? No ,
CM> the pelvis and leg develop from the vertebral column and are
CM> inextricably associated with it.
Not up on embryology either I see. In amphibians and in reptiles
the limbs form unattached and attach to the axial skeleton during
development at a much latter stage than in mammals.
CM> So what evolutionists are doing here is the same thing John
CM> tried to pull the wool over my eyes with in that " chicken
CM> teeth " example. You're looking at secondary
CM> characteristics which are common to vertebrates ( and fossil
CM> birds had teeth anyway - all vertebrates need a skull and a
CM> backbone ). You ignore the real problems and hope nobody
CM> will notice. Ah, but I noticed.
Yes, I witnessed your little exchange a few messages upline.
What you don't seem to realize is that by admitting that earlier
birds had teeth you have shot your design argument all to hell.
You see, Chuck, modern birds do not have teeth. Archeopteryx has
teeth and a skeleton that is almost identical to theropod
dinosaurs and lacking many of the specializations found in modern
birds.
The reason modern birds have genes to produce teeth, Chuck, is
that they evolved from toothed reptiles. Why, chuck, would an an
omnipotent creator create birds and give them genes for teeth if
they will never need teeth?
Yes, all vertebrates have a skull and a backbone (actually that
is not true, but let's not pick nits just now). That's what
makes them good structures to compare.
CM> Thus, there are no ancestors and no descendants for the
CM> fishes. They just suddenly appear, fully formed. How could
CM> this be possible? I mean, we have literally 10's of
CM> millions of fossil fishes on our museum shelves. Certainly
CM> no one can claim the poverty of the fossil record anymore.
CM> And you evolutionists, if you claim to be scientists, and are
CM> going to go based on the haaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrdddd scientific
CM> evidence, you'd have to give up your theory of
CM> macroevolution.
If you had any knowledge of the fossil record you would never
have gone after the fish/amphibian transition because you would
have realized that this is a rather well documented transitional
sequence. Don't take my word for it, though. Here are some
references. I don't expect you will bother, but the "lurkers"
out there might be interested and it will convince them that you
haven't the slightest idea of what you are talking about.
Carroll, R. 1989 Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, New
York: Freedman Press.
Colbert, 1969 Evolution of the Vertebrates, New York: Wiley
Press. p.71-78
Edwards, J. 1977 "The evolution of terrestrial locomotion," IN
M. hecht, et. al., eds Major Patterns in Vertebrate
Evolution, New York: Plenum Press.
Panchen, A. 1980 The Terrestrial Environment and the Origin of
Land Vertebrates, New York: Academic Press.
Radinsky, L. 1988 The Evolution of Vertebrate Design, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press., pp. 77-94.
Romer,A. 1966 Vertebrate Paleontology, Chicago, University of
Chicago Press., p. 72-74, 86-88, 90.
Romer, 1968 Notes and Comments on Vertebrate Paleontology,
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.,p.71-72
If that isn't enough for you, try one of the major museums in the
country. See if you can get a pass to the collections. If you
are close to New York City, the American Museum of Natural
History has a splendid collection of vertebrate fossils.
There is plenty of hard evidence, Chuck. You've just never
bothered to look at it.
CM> But just think of what POWERFUL, POSITIVE evidence this is
CM> for creation theory. Creationists didn't know 150 years ago
CM> that this would turn out to be the case. Almost all dead
CM> things which have been found have been dug up since Darwin.
CM> So whose theory is being substantiated by the
CM> hhhhaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrdddddd scientific evidence.
CM> Creationists, of course.
Only if you don't bother to examine the evidence yourself. Only
if you rely on people like Duane Gish for your paleontological
needs.
In fact, transitional fossils exists for most vertebrate groups,
documenting rather impressively the course of macroevolutionary
change.
Creationism cannot account for the existence and distribution of
fossils through time. It cannot account for the various
"mistakes" in the design of numerous organisms nor can it account
for much of the recent evidence from comparative biochemistry.
Again, folks, don't take my word for it. Examine the evidence
for yourselves.
Phil Nicholls
Your Friendly Neighborhood Anthropologist
PS By the way Chuck, exactly what DO you base you rather odd
notions of the fossil record on?
--- Echodor 3.09b
* Origin: COMNET Headquarters [Albany, NY] - (1:267/113.0)
==!
==* FORD M_DENTON THEORY_IN_CRISIS
Public message 3003 UT_ORIGINS Area 20:45 Monday 23-Sep-91
From: DAN FORD
To: ALL
Re: Need help on a book review
A distraught relative (hoping to convert me back to creationism) recently sent
me a book entitled "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" by Michael Denton. I
haven't finished reading it, but I'm planning to send this relative my reaction
to the book. The purpose of this post is to ask for ideas and commentary that
I can add to my book review. I was hoping that some of you more articulate and
knowledgeable t.o.'ers could share some of your arguments with me.
At first glance, it appeared that the author was going to attempt to
be objective in his approach. The author claims that there is indeed much
evidence to support the idea that natural selection has worked to bring about
variation at the species level; that is, natural selection has produced new
species. However, it appears that the author is attempting to show that
there are physical and informational boundaries which natural selection (and
other mechanisms of evolution) cannot cross, and that these boundaries ocurr
between the major groups (such as between classes and orders, and of course
between phyla).
I have not finished reading the book yet, and I have not gotten to the point
where he makes the main argument for his thesis. However, there are a few
items in the first few chapters which bother me a great deal. They bother me
because they imply that either he is being willfully dishonest, or he has some
serious misconceptions about the mechanisms of evolution. (The front flyleaf
of the book claims that his "field of study" is molecular biology, however, the
back flyleaf has a biographical sketch that states he is a physician living and
working in Sydney Australia. It says nothing about any formal degrees in
molecular biology or any other degrees besides medicine)
The issues that bother me most (so far) in Michael Denton's book are:
1. He constantly refers to evolution and natural selection (the two
concepts seem to be synonimous in Denton's mind) as a totally random process,
with no other components besides chance. He frequently refers to "blind
chance", or "purely random process", or "problem solving by random trial and
error". It is difficult to read more than two or three paragraphs in his book
without coming across some statement characterizing evolution as nothing more
than "blind chance".
Now I have read some nice refutations of this common misconception (such as in
Richard Dawkin's _The Blind Watchmaker_), but I'm looking for a simple way to
discuss this fallacy in a few paragraphs, without having to reproduce an entire
chapter from a book (such as _The Blind Watchmaker_). Any help you can give me
will be appreciated. BTW, I believe that he (Denton) is so intent on making
the "pure chance" argument because it will probably turn out to be the key to
his "uncrossable boundaries" thesis.
2. He makes much of the idea that Darwin makes two claims in his
_Origin of Species_, namely: 1) a "special" theory of evolution (that
variability is sufficient to produce different species; and 2) a "general"
theory of evolution that claims that all life has descended from a single
primitive form. Denton goes to great lengths to try to show that Darwin didn't
have any evidence for the latter, and that it is/was an unjustified
extrapolation.
3. This objection closely related to #2 above. Denton frequently
states that Darwin's ideas were "highly theoretical". He frequently alludes
to Darwin's supposed inability to produce evidence to support his theory. He
claims that Darwin is not able to produce a single case of hard evidence that
supports his theory. He calls it "speculative", "highly theoretical", and so
forth.
Now its been a long time since I read _The Origin of Species_, but as I
remember it, most of the book was nothing more than detailed documentation of
various species and their relationships to others. Some of the chapters were
dedicated to showing how "difficult" structures could arise, including social
structures as those that exist in bees and ants. It was my understanding that
the reason Darwin's ideas succeeded so well was precisely because he DID have
lots and lots of accumulated evidence. It is my understanding that there were
numerous "theories of evolution" in the air around and about 1860, but none of
the others could back up their claims with evidence. Can any of you elaborate
on this for me?
4. The next problem I have is that Denton uses Darwin and only Darwin
to characterize what the theory of evolution is all about. He has an entire
chapter whose purpose is to establish what the theory of evolution is all
about. The entire chapter is about Darwin's ideas and writings. Hasn't
anything worth mentioning happened in the last 100+ years? (He does mention
Mendelian genetics in passing, but does not elaborate on how well it confirms
evolution. In fact Denton mentions it as a negative, stating that since Darwin
did not know about Mendelian genetics, his ideas about inheritance were
unjustified and weak.) Can some of you help me out here, what are some of the
most important developments since Darwin that I should focus on? Thanks.
5. Denton claims that in the last few years many new problems have
arisen for evolution which make it more and more unlikely to be true. He does
say that most biologists "take the conservative position" and hold that
solutions will be found in the current framework, but that the time has arrived
when the theory should be scrapped and a new put in its place (presumably the
new "theory" would be creation theory whatever that is). In this way he
attempts to take the high moral ground, painting current biologists as
conservative, inflexible, and stubborn. Does anyone know what he is
talking about?
6. Finally. Is anyone out there familiar with his argument about the
existence of boundaries to variability. That there are physical limits which
natural selection in ANY AMOUNT OF TIME cannot cross. For example, gives the
example of a simple sentence
HE SAT ON A MAT
and correctly claims that there is no sequence of changes that you can go
through to transform that simple sentence into another allied sentence such as
HE STOOD ON A MAT
without having nonsensical intermediaries. He defines a change as either
adding, deleting or changing a single letter, and requires the newly created
sentence after the change to make sense. This, he claims is the kind of
boundary that exists between higher levels of life. I would appreciate your
comments on this one in particular.
Sorry this is so long. You can email your responses if you like.
Thanks alot,
Dan Ford
McMinnville, OR
email: ford@mcm.hp.com
--- Fred-Uf 1.8h(L)[BETA]
* Origin: Dallas/Ft-Worth Usenet Gateway (1:124/2206.0)
==!
==* MARKOWITZ MACROEVOLUTION SPECIATION TRANSITIONS
Public message 3481 SCIENCE Area 13:36 Wednesday 25-Sep-91
From: MAURY MARKOWITZ
To: CHUCK MAIER
Re: Macroevolution = speciation
CM> You can form all the new species you like, but your are still
CM> at the same taxonomic level. Macroevolution implies the formation of
CM> whole new higher taxa, such as family to order, order to class and
CM> this sort of thing. Speciation is reproductive isolation , which may
CM> involve very little morphologic change, and certainly is no evidence
CM> for macroevolution.
And in stating this you simply ignore the entire thread that you are
currently active in attempting to refute the transitional forms that have been
posted. Do you have even a SLIGHT idea how infuriating it is to see you do
this?
The evolution of the crocodile (as I have repeatedly posted and you have
repeatedly ignored) took place when certain members of a population were
selected for when the new enviornment opened up to them (the water). The
result was a speciation event, one that DID result in LOTS of morphologic
change.
All there is in the world is species, there is nothing else. you admint
that speciation takes place, and yet ignore this latter fact! When I attempt
to pin you down on this, first you state that there are no kinds, and then
when you realize that this won't work, you instead attempt to revive the
definition. However, instead of actually defining the term, you simply state
that macroevolution (no, SciCreMacroEvolution) is evolution across a kind
boundary, and then say there "certainly is no evidence for macroevolution."!
Well how would we know, you haven't told us what it is!
CM> If macroevolution were a sure fact of science, our museum
CM> shelves should be full of undoubted transitional forms. There would
CM> be absolutely no doubt about it, there would be no Creation Research
CM> Society, there would be no such thing as a creationist scientist, and
CM> we would not be having this discussion.
But out museum shelves ARE full of such undoubted transitional forms! The
fact that they are doubted in SciCreEvolution is besides the point. The
Creations Science Society would still exist and always will. Psuedoscience is
like that, one of the classic flags is refusal to update in the face of new
data, and you're certainly doing a good job of that!
We've flooded this echo with examples of everything you ask for, and when it
doesn't go you're way, you just ignore it. You used to say that no speciation
event had ever been observed. So I post several, as do other people, and your
reply is that you "don't care about Maury's examples". Then you post that no
transitionals are known, and when we post examples of that, you make a
half-hearted attempt to refute them.
This "claim it doesn't exist, attempt to refute, fail to refute, then
ignore" procedure is in at least it's third cycle now. And yet when you
freely admited that there were no kinds no more than a few months ago, here
you are dragging it back out again! ARRRGGGGG!!!!
CM> Why do you not give a precise scientific explanation of the
CM> process of speciation? Because no one else can, either. Nobody
Because, as we have pointed out to you AGAIN AND AGAIN, speciation has
NOTHING to do with genetics of an individual. There ARE NO genetic changes in
a speciation event, so I'm not at all suprised to find this statement that...
CM> "We know nothing of the genetic changes that occur in species
CM> formation."
Maury
--- Maximus-CBCS v1.02
* Origin: I bought some powdered water, but I don't know what to add.
(1:250/712)
==!
==* LEIPZIG POPULATION GROWTH
Public message 3506 SCIENCE Area 14:13 Thursday 26-Sep-91
From: MARTY LEIPZIG
To: CHUCK MAIER
Re: Human evol'n: Population scenario requested
...Chuck Maier spontaneously combusts to All evolutionists:
CM> I would like to some someone in the evolution crowd post a
CM> scenario for human population in the millenia before Christ.
Sure, Chuck. I'll post one, but I don't think you'll especially
like it: From Morris and Whitcomb (I'm sure you'll recognize
those names; late of ICR fame).
Viz: starting with 2 people back in 3300 BC (5300 YBP), midway
between the Creation and the Flood, they choose a static
(unchanging) doubling rate for population growth; which is 175
years. They also calculate the number of doublings to
approximate 1950 population (hey, it's their data and scenario);
that is approximately 30 doublings (2^30). Multiplying 175 *
30 = 5250 years, which takes us back to the year 3300 BC. "...we
cannot say that this calculation is rigorous, but it certainly
is reasonable." endquote.
Morris slightly amends this set of calculations in 1974, but
retains the same assumptions. So, armed with this, let us take
a look at world population circa 2500 BC: By Morris'
calculation, that number is 750 individuals. If Egypt, with 1%
of the Earths surface area also had 1% of its' population, then
8 people lived in Egypt at this time. But, the Great Pyramid of
Cheops was built around 2500 BC. Therefore, if the creationists
are correct, 8 people built the pyramid. Suppose the ENTIRE
population of the Earth lived in Egypt at that time. Half of
them were women (probably not active pyramid builders); half
the males were children (ditto) and assorted others were the
ruling class who may have supervised pyramid building, but
probably drew the line at hauling Tura Limestone blocks. That
leaves 150 men to quarry, haul and set some 2,300,000 blocks
(which weighed between 1/2 to 50 tons).
World history prior to all this, in Morris' scenario, is even
more, well, remarkable. 6 pyramids were built in the 2
centuries before the erection of the Great Pyramid of Cheops.
The parents and grandparents of the 750 people that built the
Great Pyramid must have built the previous 6 (including all the
causeways, temples, etc.), at the rate of one every 33 years.
Their numbers were fewer then (remember, were still assuming
ALL of the Earths humans lived in Egypt), only 300-400 bodies.
They had to take a break from all this and sidestep over to
Mesopotamia to build (and abandon) numerous fortified cities
that appeared at this time. Things were even more hectic in the
centuries before all this: world population (by Morris'
calculations) was 20 people in 3600 BC. In 3700 BC, it was 14
people. So, slightly over a dozen folks rushed back and forth
between Crete, Mesopotamia, the Indus River Valley and other
sites, building and abandoning enough cities, irrigation works,
monuments and artifacts to leave us with the mistaken
impression that millions of people populated the ancient world.
I wish I could hire a couple of these tireless Egyptians
today...I could retire.
... Creationism is a fig-leaf of their imagination.
--- Blue Wave/Opus v2.01
* Origin: HST/DS/V32bis 713-589-0308 (1:106/500.0)
==!
==* ELSBERRY QUOTATIONS VON_BAER HAECKEL
Public message 108 SCIENCE Area 07:09 Saturday 19-Oct-91
From: WESLEY R. ELSBERRY
To: ALL
Re: Epiquotation: The heart of SciCre
In a message of 17-Oct-91, CHUCK MAIER tells us:
> He's a big fan of old Von Baer ( the originator of 'ontogeny recaps.
> phylogeny').
Haeckel coined the phrase, "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny".
For someone who insists on reviewing the facts, Chuck seems to be horribly
sloppy at following his own dictum. The fallacious tidbit above is simply the
latest in a long line of whoppers from Chuck. These have included such
Twainian "exaggerations" as mistaking differences in relationships at the
kingdom level to be at the class level instead, insisting that Denton had a
background in molecular biology, and the continued equating of natural
selection with "pure chance". All of these, and more, have been thoroughly
debunked.
I propose to keep a running tally of Chuck's whoppers in a database
here. If you have saved any text of one of these with the appropriate
rebuttal, I would appreciate it if you would append a very brief
synopsis of the incident under the heading "For the Chuck Whopper
D.B.:" at the end of an Evolution vs. SciCre post that you were
already making. I'll post the accumulated database on a monthly basis
so that the folks new to the echo will understand that Chuck Maier
doesn't get responded to because Chuck Maier is unreliable. This will
help out in the Chuck Information Boycott. Don't include personal
commentary in an entry, and try to keep the entire entry scrupulously
correct. Try to only advance prevarications with simple rebuttals of
fact, rather than interpretation.
Sample entry:
For the Chuck Whopper D.B.:
On 17-Oct-91, Chuck Maier said:
> He's a big fan of old Von Baer ( the originator of 'ontogeny recaps.
> phylogeny').
Haeckel coined the phrase, "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny".
Reference: Gould, S.J. 198?. Ontogeny And Phylogeny. W.W. Norton.
End of entry.
Note the question mark in the copyright date field. I don't have the book in
front of me, so I can't verify the last digit.
==!
==* ELSBERRY VON_BAER HAECKEL QUOTATIONS
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry
DATE: 19 Oct 91 07:09
TO: All
SUBJ: Epiquotation: The heart of SciCre
EID:68cf 1753b5b1
In a message of 17-Oct-91, CHUCK MAIER tells us:
> He's a big fan of old Von Baer ( the originator of 'ontogeny recaps.
> phylogeny').
Haeckel coined the phrase, "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny".
For someone who insists on reviewing the facts, Chuck seems to be horribly sloppy at following his own dictum. The fallacious tidbit above is simply the latest in a long line of whoppers from Chuck. These have included such Twainian "exaggerations" as mistaking differences in relationships at the kingdom level to be at the class level instead, insisting that Denton had a background in molecular biology, and the continued equating of natural selection with "pure chance". All of these, and more, have been thoroughly debunked.
I propose to keep a running tally of Chuck's whoppers in a database here. If you have saved any text of one of these with the appropriate rebuttal, I would appreciate it if you would append a very brief synopsis of the incident under the heading "For the Chuck Whopper D.B.:" at the end of an Evolution vs. SciCre post that you were already making. I'll post the accumulated database on a monthly basis so that the folks new to the echo will understand that Chuck Maier doesn't get responded to because Chuck Maier is unreliable. This will help out in the Chuck Information Boycott. Don't include personal commentary in an entry, and try to keep the entire entry scrupulously correct. Try to only advance prevarications with simple rebuttals of fact, rather than interpretation.
Sample entry:
For the Chuck Whopper D.B.:
On 17-Oct-91, Chuck Maier said:
> He's a big fan of old Von Baer ( the originator of 'ontogeny recaps.
> phylogeny').
Haeckel coined the phrase, "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny".
Reference: Gould, S.J. 198?. Ontogeny And Phylogeny. W.W. Norton.
End of entry.
Note the question mark in the copyright date field. I don't have the book in front of me, so I can't verify the last digit.
--- TPBoard 6.1
* Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (817-551-9363) (1:347/303)
SEEN-BY: 347/8 303
==!
==* ELSBERRY CORRESPONDENCE
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry
DATE: 23 Oct 91 07:30
TO: John Thompson
SUBJ: Epiquotation: The heart of SciCre
EID:f8a8 17573c52
> WR> the appropriate rebuttal, I would appreciate it if you would
> WR> append a very brief synopsis of the incident under the heading
> WR> "For the Chuck Whopper D.B.:" at the end of an
> Evolution vs.
> WR> SciCre post that you were already making. I'll post the
>
> I have several months of my correspondence with Chuck (and
> others) archived on disk, but I'm not sure that it would
> be appropriate to send it to you over this echo. If you
> leave me an address, I can send you a copy for the database.
Sure thing.
Wesley R. Elsberry
P.O. Box 1187
Richland, WA 99352
Thanks!
--- TPBoard 6.1
* Origin: C.N.S.: ftp me.uta.edu:/pub/neural (817-551-9363) (1:347/303)
SEEN-BY: 347/8 303
==!
==* ELSBERRY GOULD BOOKS
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry
DATE: 25 Oct 91 19:18
TO: Maury Markowitz
SUBJ: Ontogeny etc.
EID:1d2b 175a1755
> WRE> Reference: Gould, S.J. 198?. Ontogeny And Phylogeny. W.W. Norton.
> WRE>
> WRE> End of entry.
> WRE>
> WRE> Note the question mark in the copyright date field. I don't have
> WRE> the book in front of me, so I can't verify the last digit.
>
> ... The book you
> mention (and other such as The Panda's Thumb, The
> Mismeasure of Man etc.) are from a series of papers that
> had been collected. A rather good series IMHO.
"The Mismeasure of Man" and "Ontogeny And Phylogeny" are single-topic
books, not collections from the "This View of Life" articles in
Natural History.
The essay collections include "Ever Since Darwin", "The Panda's
Thumb", "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes" (well worth the purchase price
for the essay, "Phyletic size decrease in Hershey's bars"), "The
Flamingo's Smile", and "An Urchin in the Storm".
I agree on the worth of Gould's books.
--- TPBoard 6.1
* Origin: C.N.S.: ftp me.uta.edu:/pub/neural (817-551-9363) (1:347/303)
SEEN-BY: 347/8 303
==!
==* LEIPZIG GRAND_CANYON SHALE
Public message 2110 SCIENCE Area 05:38 Saturday 26-Oct-91
From: MARTY LEIPZIG
To: CHUCK MAIER
Re: Formation of the Grand Canyon
-=> Quoting Chuck Maier to Marty Leipzig <=-
CM>
CM> Marty sez :
CM>
ML> CM> The fossil sequence is statistical, and not absolute...
ML> HS>
ML> HS> What in the world do you mean by this staqtement?
ML>
ML> Only Chuck knows, and he's not letting on...
CM> Simply that there is no such thing as the geologic column
CM> anywhere in the world (although it comes close on less than 0.5% of
CM> the land surface ). And that we often find repeated layers, missing
CM> layers, older layers on top of younger layers - and that often people
CM> have no idea that this is the case. But, that is a generalization.
Chuck, you make Straw Men so well, I'll bet your name is listed
in the credits for the "Wizard of Oz". Of course, there is
nowhere in the world where the entire gologic column exists
unbroken from core to recent. Geology has never claimed that.
(where you came up with that 0.5% figure, and what point you're
trying to make is entirely lost). Chuck, what you have just
demonstrated is the total lack of understanding of geology,
correlation and stratigraphy. It seems rather futile to try and
debate you on this subject since what you must be doing (as I
have pointed out before) is merely taking selected bits and
pieces from Creationist works and posting them here as your
arguments. Even the sequence of arguments is the same as
presented in Creationist tome, as is the terminology. Chuck,
do you really have the faintest idea of what you're trying to
say or is it mere plagarization?
As for above: repeated layers: they're called cyclothems
missing layers: those are unconformities
older above younger layers: thrust faults.
You say that "often people have no idea that this is the case";
and that's is true. Very few people, yourself included, really
have any concept of the science of geology.
CM> Let's talk GC for a little focus.
ML> Or, if that task seems too provincial, let's take an example
ML> from the Creationist beloved Grand Canyon of the Colorado
ML> Plateau. Please explain the sedimentology and depositional
ML> environments of the sequence from the Redwall Limestone upward
ML> through the Supai and Hermit Shales, the Coconino Sandstone;
ML> terminating with the Toroweap and Kaibab Limestones. Here's a
ML> quick sequence from marine limestone to deltaic sands and
ML> shales to aeolian DESERT sands (complete with a very diverse
ML> terrestrial vertebrate ichnofauna) back to marine limestones.
CM> Note - I will try to keep the diagram in the previous message
CM> floating along if this thread continues, and will refer to it.
CM> Also, you might take some pains to define terms, for me as well
CM> as others.
CM> As I understand it, there is a 600 foot thick sequence (Snebley
CM> Hill formation of Colorado ) between the Hermit Shale and the Coconino
CM> Sandstone in Colorado, but not in the G.C., where the Hermit Shale and
CM> Coconino sandstone are conformable layers. I would interpret this as
CM> a huge catastrophe which laid down the shale, during or shortly after
CM> the year of the flood,
Error! Shale is a fine grained sedimentary deposit, deposited
in slow moving or static water, not a "catastrophe", as you put
it. Wrong.
CM> followed by a less extensive catastrophe which
CM> laid down the Snebley Hill formation,
Chuck, you can't even follow your own stream of illogic. Above
you say a huge catastrophe laid down the shale, then you say it
was a less extensive catastrophe. Well, Chuck, which is it? It
can't be both.
CM> followed by an another
CM> catastrophe which laid down the coconino sandstone as an underwater
CM> dune, not a desert dune.
ROFLMAO! Hah! The Coconino is an aeolian deposit AS EVIDENCED
BY the extensive terrestrial vertebrate ichnofauna and
vertebrate fauna. Absolutely NO MARINE FOSSILS, TRACK OR TRAILS
are found in the Coconino. Also, the clay mineralogy of the
Coconino is consistent with that found in modern aeolian sands
and no-where are there marine crossbedded sands with amplitudes
of the magnitude found in the Coconino. You are wrong.
CM> Sediments were probably carried down from
CM> Utah or Wyoming.
CM> That's a very general picture. How long do you suppose it took
CM> to lay down the 600 feet of strata (snebley hill) over the Hermit
CM> Shale? Millions of years? Are we then talking about millions of years
CM> of geologic history missing between the Hermit Shale and the Coconino
CM> sandstone in the Grand Canyon?.
Time to deposit 600' shale. Probably a good long time. Probably
a few million years.
Yep. I'm talking about millions of years of missing geologic
time. So, what's your point?
Oh, I see, this is supposed to be either (1) some new, latest
theory of geology or (2) us secular scientists want to hush up
the fact that in places, rock has been removed and therefore,
part of the geologic record is missing.
Chuck, let me take you to mid central Wisconsin where
Pleistocene glacial material sits directly upon Precambrian
basement rocks. Here, BILLIONS of years of the geologic record
are missing.
Big deal. Most people who have taken as little science as
Geology 101 know all about unconformities. Says something about
your background, doesn't it....
... Science is a verb.
--- Blue Wave/Opus v2.00
* Origin: HST/DS/V32bis 713-589-0308 (1:106/500.0)
==!
==* LEIPZIG GRAND_CANYON
Public message 2111 SCIENCE Area 05:49 Saturday 26-Oct-91
From: MARTY LEIPZIG
To: CHUCK MAIER
Re: Formation of the Grand Canyon, corrections
-=> Quoting Chuck Maier to Marty Leipzig <=-
CM> Shale and Coconino sandstone are conformable layers. I would
CM> ML> environments of the sequence from the Redwall Limestone
CM> upward
CM> ML> through the Supai and Hermit Shales, the Coconino Sandstone;
CM> ML> terminating with the Toroweap and Kaibab Limestones. Here's
CM> a
CM> ML> quick sequence from marine limestone to deltaic sands and
CM> ML> shales to aeolian DESERT sands (complete with a very diverse
CM> ML> terrestrial vertebrate ichnofauna) back to marine
CM> Let's see, if I'm reading this right, you are calling the Supai
CM> group a river delta? Note the Supai is runs the whole length of the
CM> GC, 217 miles, and is a blanket-like layer, and not a wedge-shaped
CM> deltaic type formation.
Absolutely 100%, pure USDA Grade-A wrong! Chuck, according to
you, the Supai must extend the world over, with no beginning
nor end, a 'blanket like' (a totally useless geologic term)
deposit. Perhaps I'm being a little harsh...Nahh...so the Supai
extends over 217 miles. Does that have to make it ONE single
delta? Or, maybe it was a deltaic complex, bifurcating and
anastomosing laterally over time? Chuck, I'm a petroleum
geologist, so I don't expect you to know about isopach and
structural maps and paleoenvironmental reconstructions; as
integrated from outcrop study to wellbore logs. The Supai is a
deltaic clastic wedge, it's just that your scope of
investigation is too limited to see it. Get the big picture,
Chuck...
CM> Also, I am told there are marine fossils
CM> associated with the Supai. Due to the extent of the bed, shape,
CM> fossils, and other factors, we conclude that a catastrophic agent
CM> washed in these sediments from regional to continental distances. cm.
No, Chuck; you may conclude that, but all the evidence (as I
have cited above and before) support the classic interpretation
of a deltaic complex deposited over a lengthy span of geologic
time. Catastrophic events leave telltale evidence. Such is
lacking completely to support your argument.
... Paleontologists shell inherit the earth.
--- Blue Wave/Opus v2.00
* Origin: HST/DS/V32bis 713-589-0308 (1:106/500.0)
==!
==* LEIPZIG SPIRIT_LAKE COAL
Public message 2112 SCIENCE Area 06:04 Saturday 26-Oct-91
From: MARTY LEIPZIG
To: CHUCK MAIER
Re: Coal, Yellowstone, and upright logs in Spirit Lake
-=> Quoting Chuck Maier to Marty Leipzig <=-
CM> Marty brought up the subject of coal. He didn't even ask if I
CM> wanted one lump or two ...
Well, you seem to be taking some lumps here scientifically, so
I though you didn't want any more,. Oh, well...net me your
address, I'll send you some really nifty (keen scientific
nomenclature, for sure) Pennsylvanian coals with beautifully
preserved carbonized fern fronds.
ML> Well, Chuck. I've answered your queries. Now, I still am awaiting
CM> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
CM> Not so fast, there, pre-Cambrian breath. I want to see if I can
CM> stump you on one of these items.
O.K., you of the Holocene Halitosis, give it your best shot. So
far, you've missed each time...(oh, yes, I'm still waiting for
an explanation of Gulf Coast Geology...or isn't that covered in
your Creationist literature?)
ML> CM> here is also a clear model of how the
ML> CM> Yellowstone " petrified log jams " (formerly known as petrified
ML> CM> forests) developed. Trees are now sinking there in an upright
ML> fashion
ML>
ML> Sure they are. References, please? That is, other than the ICR
ML> 'scientists' who spend their time floating horsetails in aquaria.
CM>
CM> Marty, go jump in a lake - Spirit Lake, in particular.
I already have. I was on the team of geoscientists that was the
first allowed into the Mt. St. Helens area after the eruption.
I've been there and seen the evidence first hand...can you
claim likewise?
CM> Take
CM> some sonar and video equipment with you as well as did the team of Dr.
CM> Harold Coffin, Geoscience Research Institute. Here is the conclusion
CM> from this paper : "In recent years, question concerning the origin of
CM> the Yellowstone Petrified Forests have arisen (other papers cited).
CM> Fritz ... has shown that the Toutle Rive flood produced by the
CM> eruption of Mt. St. Helens deposited ERECT STUMPS on the devastated
CM> valley floor.
These stumps were not deposited, Chuck. They were already there
as parts of trees. It's just that the top part of the tree was
sheared off by the eruptive nuee.
CM> These stumps and the surrounding sediments resembled
CM> certain areas in the Yellowstone Petrified Forests [logjam].
CM> Observations of numerous erect floating stumps with roots in Spirit
CM> Lake reveal another mechanism that could account for buried upright
CM> trees in volcanic areas such as Yellowstone(1)."
CM> 1. H. G. Coffin, 1983, "Erect Floating Stumps in Spirit Lake,
CM> Washington", Geology, Vol. 11, pp.298-9. other relevant papers cited
CM> in this one.
CM> 2. W. J. Fritz, 1980, :reinterpretation of the Depositional
CM> Environment of the Yellowstone Fossil Forests" , Geology, Vol. 8 ) ,
CM> pp. 309-313.
CM> close your eyes now ... I'm going to cite Austin ...
I don't have to...I've seen all this before....
CM>
CM> 3. S. A. Austin, 1984, "Rapid Erosion at Mount St. Helens", Origins,
CM> Vol. 11, No. 2, pp.90-98.
CM> and just for kicks , his thesis, regarded as "one of the finest
CM> written " on the subject:
CM> 4. S. A. Austin , 1979, Depostional Environment of the Kentuck No. 12
CM> Coal Bed ( Middle Pennsylvanian ) of Western Kentucky, with Special
CM> Reference to the Origin of Coal Lithotypes ( Penn. State Univ.,
CM> Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation) 411 p. < -- (it was long , if nothing
CM> else!
CM> I will give a depiction ( yes, I know you've all been anxiously
CM> awaiting more of my scientific artistry ) of this depositional
CM> environment in a message in a day or two.
So, tell me Chuck, with all this verbiage above, what is the
point you are trying to make? All coals are the result of
volcanic eruptions? Or, are you setting me up for the grand
illusion?
ML> 4C (Carbon County Coal Company). Please explain how, in a year
ML> long flood of cataclysmic proportions, you generate stillstands
ML> enough to generate 80 separate coal beds of widely varying
ML> thicknesses. Suprising thing, each of the coals that I mapped
ML> (and
ML> others, I tend to read the geological literature) all have rooted
ML> horizons. These coals were generated in situ, that is, they were
ML> autochthonous. Some other coals do show evidence of transport,
ML> these
ML> are allochthonous. But, the evidences of transport are clearly
ML> defined
ML> and easily recognized.
CM> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ . You might expand on these. As for
CM> the autochtonous evidence, the Spirit Lake site is also generating
CM> rooted horizons, which, I believe demonstrate that catastrophic
CM> deposition is the correct interpretation of such evidence.
Yes. 1 rooted horizon completly awash in evidence of a volcanic
event. You really have to deprovincialize yourself, Chuck, and
quit laboring under the misapprehension that geology (and
science in general) today operate under the stoicism of
classical uniformitarianism. Hell, we've discarded that notion
a century ago. Why is it that the Creation Scientists can't do
likewise?
CM> In
CM> the flood, which, I reiterate, as a geologic event, was longer (much
CM> longer in terms of climate, etc.) than a year. Different parts of the
CM> earth blew at different times.
"Different parts....blew at different times"? What do you mean by
this? Blew what? Winds? Please, try and clarify.
CM> Different orogenies uplifted at times;
CM> mudslides occurred sporadically , etc. More to come soon . cm.
Sounds awfully like what mainstream science says, Chuck.
Different orogenies occured at vastly different times.
Mudslides are a sporadic event, although the poeple that live
in California might beg to differ.
Sounds like you might just be absorbing some real science
there, Chuck. Although, I fear, this is only a temporary
condition....
Chuck, I've added a few well intentioned barbs (well, OK,
flames) in the last series of messages, and done so
intentionally. Please, it's really not addressed to you personally,
but rather to those who promote this type of misrepresentation
and balderdash as science. I know that what you are posting is
not really (come on, fess up) generated from your own research
and experiences; but rather from the creationist literature.
Fine. Just remember, it has YOUR name on it, so the refutations
have to be sent to you.
On with the show!
... If you don't like Geology....Upper Jurassic!
--- Blue Wave/Opus v2.00
* Origin: HST/DS/V32bis 713-589-0308 (1:106/500.0)
==!
==* LEIPZIG COAL SPIRIT_LAKE
Public message 2593 SCIENCE Area 15:54 Saturday 26-Oct-91
From: MARTY LEIPZIG
To: CHUCK MAIER
Re: Coal, Yellowstone, Upright stumps at Spirit Lake
-=> Quoting Chuck Maier to Marty Leipzig <=-
CM> ... sooner than I thought ...
CM>
CM> Here's what is going on at Spirit Lake, and what happened at
CM> Yellowstone about 5 k years ago.
And what, pray tell, do you base YOUR chronology on?
CM> ----
CM> : :
CM> : :
CM> : :
CM> ----- : :
CM> ----- : : --------------------: :---------
CM> : : :__:
CM> ------: : ____________________________:---:
CM> : : : :
CM> : : : :
CM> ------: : ----------------------------: :
CM> : : : :
CM> :____: : :
CM> : :
CM> :
CM> base
CM> of
CM> lake
CM>
CM> horizontal lines
CM> show flows of mud which washed in at different times
CM> Vertical figures are trees which settle vertically at
CM> different times and lodge in the sediments and debris
CM> , giving the false appearance of a " forest " .
CM>
Yep. Sure does. As do the 27 other layers. So tell me, Chuck,
about the 27 other great floods...BTW, those stumps are
ROOTED, they grew in situ; they were not transported.
ML> CM>There is empirical evidence for this cycle occurring at
ML> CM> Spirit Lake by Mt. St. Helens. T
ML>
ML> Excuse me. But this is an example of an extraordinary event. I
ML> know. I was there. Such events do not occur everyday. Nor, is
ML> there any indication of volcanogenic sediments in the coals of
ML> the Illinois Basin.
CM>
CM> Yes, and we maintain that extraordinary , that is , catostrophic
CM> events are responsible for the bulk of geology. It also happens to be
CM> an event we can SCIENTIFICALLY document, unlike all the storytelling
CM> of historical geology, which assumes the fact of biological evolution.
CM> There need be no evidence of volcanoes in any one particular area in
Wrong again, Chuck. How about the deposition of the Solnhofen
Lithographic Limestone? Or the 2000 m. of the Lewis Shale? Or
the entirety of Gulf Coast Geology? Catastrophic events DO
occur in the history of the Earth. No geologist would deny that
fact. But, just the same, no geologist would deny that (1.)
catastrophic events leave catastrophic evidence, and (2.) not
all (nary any) formations show evidence of catastrophic
deposition. To ascribe all the sedimentary formations of the
Earth to a single year long Noachian Deluge is beyond reason.
There is simply no evidence for that happening. To ascribe the
Earths' sedimentary cover to processes which operate over spans
of geologic time is just what science does. This is how science
operates.
... And to think, he's the product of 3,800,000,000 years of evolution.
--- Blue Wave/Opus v2.00
* Origin: HST/DS/V32bis 713-589-0308 (1:106/500.0)
==!
==* THOMPSON STUMPS
Public message 2597 SCIENCE Area 21:36 Saturday 26-Oct-91
From: JOHN THOMPSON
To: CHUCK MAIER
Re: Coal, Yellowstone, Upright stumps at Spirit Lake
* Replying to message originally to Marty Leipzig on 24-Oct-91
CM> Yes, and we maintain that extraordinary , that is ,
CM> catostrophic events are responsible for the bulk of geology.
CM> It also happens to be an event we can SCIENTIFICALLY document,
CM> unlike all the storytelling of historical geology, which
CM> assumes the fact of biological evolution. There need be no
CM> evidence of volcanoes in any one particular area in a world
CM> flood cm.
But you have yet to present that evidence. Where is it? It certainly isn't
in the Bible, which makes *NO* mention of vulcanism during the Noachian
deluge. It would appear that you "creation scientists" have taken it upon
yourselves to augment the sacred scriptures with fantasies of your own
creation.
--- SuperBBS 1.13 Beta-1 (Reg)
* Origin: APPLEGATE - Home Alone in Appleton, WI. (COM2) (1:139/630)
==!
==* LEIPZIG GRAND_CANYON
Public message 2109 SCIENCE Area 05:12 Saturday 26-Oct-91
From: MARTY LEIPZIG
To: CHUCK MAIER
Re: Grand Canyon features
-=> Quoting Chuck Maier to Marty Leipzig <=-
CM> Here is a representation of the Grand
CM> Canyon (GC) sediments to be used in
CM> upcoming messages. Please note any
CM> corrections or additional features
CM> which might be added
And so I will....
CM> ,--volcano on rim <= Only in one locality (Vulcans Throne);
CM> --------------------- sequence is capped by the Moenkopi,
CM> kaibab limestone Shinarump and Chinle; of Mesozoic age.
CM> ----------------------- ML
CM> toroweap limestone
CM> -----------------------
CM> coconino sandstone
CM> ----------- "unconformity"
CM> hermit shale
CM> _____________
CM> supai group (heterogeneous)
CM> four groups -sandstone ,
CM> limestone, shale.
CM> ----------------
CM> redwall limestone
CM> -----------"unconformity" <= You left out the Temple Butte.
CM> muav limestone ML
CM> ------------------
CM> bright angel shale
CM> ------------------
CM> tapeat sandstone (cambrian)
CM> -----------great unconformity
CM> : : <=You conviently forgot the
CM> \/ \/ angular unconformity and the
CM> various crystalline basement entire sedimentary Pre-
CM> rocks (creation rock ) and Cambrian Grand Canyon series.
CM> cardenas basalts (lava flow) ML
CM> and diabase sills (lava flow) <=I don't know where you're
CM> These layers are tilted, getting your information,
CM> whereas the sedimentary layers but sills are not flows.
CM> are flat. They are intrusive rather
than extrusive.
CM> Also, the volcano on the rim ML
CM> flowed over into the gorge.
Also, you forgot to name the Precambrian crystalline series: The
Vishnu Schist, Brahmah metamorphic complex and Zoroaster
Granite.
Chuck, if you were taking my Geology 120 (Historical Geology)
course, and handed that in, you would receive a D. But, you are
taking this from published sources, are you not? (I seem to
recall you saying that you have no formal geological training).
Is it that you purposely omitted some salient facts, or is the
quality of your references really that shoddy?
CM> The layers are also deformed
CM> and uplifted several thousand feet
Yep. They have been uplifted. All of the Colorado Plateau has.
Above you say the layers are flat lying, here you say they're
deformed, which is it?
CM> at one point, and then flatten
CM> out again. something like ---------
CM> / --------
CM> / /
CM> -------- /
CM> -----------/
I think he's alluding to an angular unconformity. I can't tell
for sure, Chuck is no artist.
CM> There are a number of features worth
CM> looking at including:
CM> 1)nature and character of the landscape
CM> relic vs. equilibrium
CM> 2)formation of the canyon
CM> dam breech vs. river or gulley erosion
CM> 3)extent of sedimentary strata
CM> regional or continental
CM> (sheet flooding, turbidites etc.)
CM> vs.
CM> beach, delta, or placid marine
CM> deposition
CM> 4) rate of sedimentation
CM> catastrophic vs. millions of years
CM> 5) deformation style of the strata
CM> plastic vs. brittle
CM> 6) radiometric data
CM> due to geologic processes
CM> or
CM> radioactive decay over b.o.ys
CM> 7) fossil sequence
CM> abrupt appearance of complex forms
CM> with no intermediates, catastrophically
CM> buried with some order relative to
CM> ecological zones vs.
CM> evolutionary progression over b.o.ys.
This should be good...
Oh, Chuck, you can save some typing by using either GA or BYA
for billions of years ago. Or, use BY or GY to represent
billions of years.
... DINOTECH! Evolution yesterday for a better tomorrow.
--- Blue Wave/Opus v2.00
* Origin: HST/DS/V32bis 713-589-0308 (1:106/500.0)
==!
==* ELSBERRY MACROEVOLUTION SCICRE THRESHOLD
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry
DATE: 26 Oct 91 08:00
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: SciCre vs. cre
EID:efcc 175b4739
> Recently Wesley wrote this to me regarding a definition of macroevolution:
>
> >I've seen the SciCreMacroEvolution taxon threshold creep occur within
> > the last five years from species to genus. I predict that the ...
> > threshold will creep again within twenty years.
>
> Now I had already addressed this matter to JOhn thompson
> sep-09-91 after John had claimed Linnaeus, who everyone
> should recognize (but don't), as a doctrinaire
> creationist, essentially recognized the continuity of
> nature in his classification scheme:
>
> cm >"Linnaeu, in 1735, tried to identify the species as
> a natural,
> > stable interbreeding unit, which he assumed to be
> identical with >the Genesis kind. Many years later ,
> after much further research, > he decided that this
> was too narrow a definition, so he then
> > defined the genus as more or less equivalent of
> the kind.
>
> that was from a 10 year old creationist book, quoting a
> 250 year old creationist position. cm.
If you can't discriminate between "creationist" and "scientific
creationist", Chuck, you are worse off than even I suspected. There
are no 250 y.o. SciCre books. And what do "kinds" have to do with the
definition of "macroevolution", a biological phrase? Surely you don't
expect biologists to base one of their concepts on your terminology.
In my experience, the SciCre'ers I've encountered were using the
species level transition as the starting point for "macroevolution"...
since they didn't realize that there were speciation events recorded.
I'm not talking about Linnaeus, I'm talking about folks like Norman
Geisler (who gave a talk at UTA in 1987 where he mentioned
macroevolution with the taxon threshold at species, and who was one of
the SciCre star witnesses in Alabama back in 1982), David Worthington
(a very dedicated quoter, like yourself, of the SciCre literature who
hung out on the Crystal Cavern BBS in Fort Worth back in 1988), and
others who have gotten in my face concerning SciCre.
It was my experience, and I don't think I can quote from a book of my
experiences to "prove" it to you. You, of course, don't have to
believe me... but I do know what I have had stated to me as fact on
the SciCre stand. Why don't you go teach Geisler, Worthington, et
alia to "get it right" and stop pestering me about it? But please do
let me know when the SciCreMacroevolution (tm) does go through its
next upward creep.
----
Golly, Chuck, what do you do all day? There were over ten messages
(with some fodder for the DB, I note) by you in the Echo today. Sure
wish I had that much spare time.
Or do you get funded by the ICR? If you don't, maybe you should
suggest it to them.
--- TPBoard 6.1
* Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (817-551-9363) (1:347/303)
SEEN-BY: 347/8 303
==!
==* ELSBERRY QUOTATIONS LOVTRUP VON_BAER O_R_P
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry
DATE: 26 Oct 91 07:40
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Epiquotation: The heart of SciCre
EID:36b7 175b4739
> Wesley writes:
>
> WRE> In a message of 17-Oct-91, CHUCK MAIER tells us:
> WRE>
> WRE> > He's a big fan of old Von Baer ( the originator of 'ontogeny
> WRE> recaps.
> WRE> > phylogeny').
> WRE>
> WRE> Haeckel coined the phrase, "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny".
>
> Note carefully, that I did not say " coined the phrase
> " , you and thompson correctly pointed out the Haeckel
> gets credit for coining the phrase. However, Von Baer was
> a promoter of this idea before Haeckel as evolutionary
> embryologist Lovtrup points out:
... but we're not interested in the discredited opinions of Lovtrup, Chuck.
If you wished to credit Von Baer, you should have said he was the
"originator of the concept that is summarized by Haeckel's phrase,
'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny'". Instead, you put quotes around
the phrase, indicating that you were referencing the phrase "O.R.P."
to Von Baer. No dice, Chuck, and no weaseling out of it. This is a
classic set of events: you state something as fact, have it pointed
out that either it isn't fact or your original statement was too
sloppy to be considered accurate, you plead that you should be given
the benefit of the doubt, then turn around and hold that everyone on
the opposite side of the fence should be held to standards that you
can't approach yourself. This, my friend, is the end of the one-way
extension of trust.
The reliability and accuracy of a source of information is an issue in
scientific contexts. We are well on the way to demonstrating that you
are not accurate and that you will not learn from your errors. "Will
not learn" is, of course, the more serious of the two charges.
qI and others have had enough of your tactics. Expect the Release 1.0
version of the Chuck Maier Whopper Database to premiere in the next
few days. Your misattribution of Haeckel's phrase to Von Baer remains
in it. If the reader finds your explanation plausible, so be it...
but the decision can be made by the reader only when the evidence is
put forward. That's what the database is for.
Other C.M. data: I'm collecting detailed rebuttals and requests for
information to Chuck in the file R2CHUCK.ARJ, and Chuck's postings for
those who wish to develop entries for the CMWDB into CHUCK.ARJ, both
available on Central Neural System BBS, 509-946-1267, 1:347/303.
--- TPBoard 6.1
* Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (817-551-9363) (1:347/303)
SEEN-BY: 347/8 303
PATH: 347/303
==!
==* PARRINELLO QUESTIONS
Public message 2615 SCIENCE Area 10:33 Sunday 27-Oct-91
From: PAT PARRINELLO
To: CHUCK MAIER
Re: questions - I think we've indulged you enough ...
CM> ... and then complain because I have decided to enjoy myself and
CM> pay no heed to these attacks. pppplllllllll !
CM> Jeff still hasn't answered the basic question of the pattern of
CM> difference based on mutation rates of various organisms. That's all
CM> I really ever asked.
Chuck, Let me be the first to tell you, What I know about geology &
animals could easly pass through the eye on a needle with a whole herd
of camels. But I have a question more in line with geometry which relates
to all life. The pentagram. Why is it that all lifeforms equate to it?
Note that all proportions of construction follow the variations nature.
Life in nature is not abstract. Forms which do not conform to the geometric
principal of the pentagram do not survive. Why is this? And why does the
christian reguard the pentagram evil & not of God?
-Pat-
--- MacWoof Eval:24Sep91
* Origin: Earth... Water hole of the solar system. (1:3812/40.10)
==!
==* THOMPSON GRAND_CANYON
Public message 2620 SCIENCE Area 12:48 Sunday 27-Oct-91
From: JOHN THOMPSON
To: MARTY LEIPZIG
Re: Formation of the Grand Canyon
* Replying to message originally to Chuck Maier on 26-Oct-91
ML> Chuck, let me take you to mid central Wisconsin where
ML> Pleistocene glacial material sits directly upon
ML> Precambrian basement rocks. Here, BILLIONS of years of the
ML> geologic record are missing.
Whoa! That's a little too close for comfort! :-)
Still, if you can drag him up here, there certainly are enough interesting
glacial features to look at, none of which are easily reconciled with the
notion of a "Noachian deluge". It's virtually impossible to dig any kind of
deep hole around here without exposing buried ice-age forests, consistently
radiocarbon dated at ~12,000 BP. Beneath that, as you say, are very ancient
rocks indeed; how anyone could hope to come up with an explanation of their
formation that packs them into a 1 year world-wide flood and the subsequent
4000 post flood era is beyond me!
--- SuperBBS 1.13 Beta-1 (Reg)
* Origin: APPLEGATE - Home Alone in Appleton, WI. (COM2) (1:139/630)
==!
==* PARRINELLO
Public message 2614 SCIENCE Area 10:01 Sunday 27-Oct-91
From: PAT PARRINELLO
To: CHUCK MAIER
Re: Maligning science
CM> Having read a lot of the ridiculous caricatures of creationist
CM> arguments and repeated accusations that creationists are nothing
CM> but a bunch of stupid liars, I can say that no one in this echo really
CM> understands the creationist scientific arguments.
Stupid liars? No not at all. You are obviously brillant. What is missing
is a step by step presentation of creationist argument using scientific
method devoid of dogma. I challange you this; If God created the universe
then it was a totally random event! If it evolved from nothing it was a
totally random event! The only argument I have seen is how it got here.
Missing is WHY it got here. Can you explain this?
-Pat-
--- MacWoof Eval:24Sep91
* Origin: Earth... Water hole of the solar system. (1:3812/40.10)
==!
==* HORN
Public message 2630 SCIENCE Area 10:54 Monday 28-Oct-91
From: DAVE HORN
To: JOHN THOMPSON
Re: Coal, Yellowstone, Upright Stumps At Spirit Lake
* In a message originally to Chuck Maier, John Thompson said:
JT> * Replying to message originally to Marty Leipzig on
JT> 24-Oct-91
JT>
JT> CM> Yes, and we maintain that extraordinary , that is ,
JT> CM> catostrophic events are responsible for the bulk of geology.
JT> CM> It also happens to be an event we can SCIENTIFICALLY document,
JT> CM> unlike all the storytelling of historical geology, which
JT> CM> assumes the fact of biological evolution. There need be no
JT> CM> evidence of volcanoes in any one particular area in a world
JT> CM> flood cm.
JT>
JT> But you have yet to present that evidence. Where is it?
JT> It certainly isn't in the Bible, which makes *NO* mention
JT> of vulcanism during the Noachian deluge. It would appear
JT> that you "creation scientists" have taken it upon
JT> yourselves to augment the sacred scriptures with fantasies
JT> of your own creation.
Bingo, John. That's exactly the opinion of many born-agains that I know
whom disavow creationism and creationists.
---
* Origin: WestWind "The Voice of the Rockies" (303) 758-7589 (1:104/429.0)
==!
==* ELSBERRY AMES_TEST
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry
DATE: 3 Nov 91 10:41
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Response to the odd ad hominem
EID:400b 1763566a
First, a little "substantive" commentary concerning mutation.
The Ames test for mutagenic properties of chemicals relies upon the
expression of a new, advantageous mutation in a population of
bacteria. The original culture does not contain a gene for the
production of an essential amino acid. Bacteria are exposed to the
chemical being studied, then cultured on media which contain all
necessary amino acids save the one the original culture can't
synthesize. Growth of bacteria in this media only occurs where the
advantageous mutation of a gene for amino acid synthesis occurs, and
the number of colonies indicates the level of mutagenic properties of
the chemical being tested. This is a standard test, in use for quite
some time. It is a direct spinoff of evolutionary theory. Not too
shabby a demonstration, eh?
Since I am working from memory, I could be wrong on some of the
details, so if anyone wishes to give a detailed description of the
Ames test, I'd be happy to update my source files.
Now, on to the subject topic:
> WRE> Golly, Chuck, what do you do all day? There were over ten messages
> WRE> (with some fodder for the DB, I note) by you in the Echo today.
> WRE> Sure wish I had that much spare time.
>
> Yes, I realize this is almost a complete waste of my
> time, especially talking to people like you whose main
> contribution here is to occasionally pollute the echo with
> that long list of the skeptic's top 10 book list.
It's interesting that you don't recall that I have been the person who
has done the most to demonstrate that you are all wet on interpreting
what biologists mean when _they_ say "macroevolution", who provided
many examples of observed speciation when you wanted references, who
has unflaggingly tried to keep you on topic rather than digressing.
Good of you to remind me about the bibliography, I need to post that
again soon for the newcomers.
> I try to keep up my end with the knowledge I have, but
> your comments here and deliberate attempts to avoid any
> substantive discussion and make an issue out of my
> citations says plenty.
Now you say that your citations aren't substantive. Why do you make
them, then? It would have been simpler if you had stated your lack of
confidence in your sources to begin with.
> Furthermore, look at how many of you ask " how come
> there's no evidence that 5000 years ago there was a
> worldwide flood?" That shows how well you understand
> flood catastrophists now doesn't it?
So now you wish to put words in my mouth, Chuck? Don't you get a bit
upset when someone does that to you? I think it's obvious that you're
getting desperate when you resort to this strategy.
> You also made some comments on a diagram I put in
> here from Denton's book, which was taken right from the
> book. I looked at it afterward . There was nothing wrong
> with it. If you have so little integrity as to do nothing
> but spend what little time you do here in these ridiculous charades
> , why bother? There are plenty of people here to catch my
> substantive errors, who are worth talking to.
Nice of you to put me in my place like that, Chuck. The problem comes
when I try to locate where I've made a comment upon any diagram that
Denton has produced. My BBS software saves all the messages
originating here, and a text search of those has turned up nada to
support your complaint. Before I accuse you of yet another
prevarication, though, I'll admit the possibility that my memory and
software aren't up to the task at hand, and request that you quote me
the offensive message. Of course, if you can't manage that, then it
seems that the point is arguable about _who_ is engaging in
meaningless charades.
While you may disagree with the method, pointing out the little,
seemingly insignificant points where you are totally off-base does
have a bearing on your credibility as a "scientific" commentator.
Otherwise, why would you be so upset over these "ridiculous charades"?
It seems that, in your own estimation, I am a threat. I know a
compliment when I see one. Thanks, Chuck.
> And it can be said with the utmost
> rigor that there is not a stitch of evidence for the
> notion of general evolution (that make you happier?)
Yes, given that that "rigor" is the rigor mortis of the fully closed
mind. It demonstrates handily why you seem to get so little respect
here, since you won't trouble yourself to understand the theories you
critique.
--- TPBoard 6.1
* Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (817-551-9363) (1:347/303)
SEEN-BY: 347/8 303
==!
==* ELSBERRY AMES_TEST MACROEVOLUTION SPECIATION
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry
DATE: 7 Nov 91 07:09
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Ames test? Where?
EID:ffad 176739ab
No reference to the Ames test from Chuck in his reply. Maybe that's coming later. Stay tuned...
> WRE> It's interesting that you don't recall that I have been the person
> WRE> who has done the most to demonstrate that you are all wet on
> WRE> interpreting what biologists mean when _they_ say "macroevolution",
>
> ... If evolutionists insist on
> calling the formation of isolated noninterbreeding
> populations - speciation - macroevolution, instead of just
> speciation, I can't help it.
You could, however, recognize it and use the term the way it ought to
be used -- that is, as the biologists use it.
> We're looking for a mechanism to build whole new
> novel structures into organisms - crossopterygian fish to
> Dr. Duane Gish sorts of things. Evolutionist Schwabe whom
> I've cited says this mechanism is a problem for all
> theories of evolution. Wolfgang Schmidt says there is not
> a shred of objective evidence in the support of the thesis
> that " macroevolution " has ever occurred.
There are lot's of eminent folks who have offered up evidence that
differs with Schmidt. Ho-hum, so evolutionary biologists are engaged
in science, what else is new?
> And , again, to take your few experiences with
> 3rd-graders or whomever you're citing as creationists - if
> you're accurately citing them-and make it sound as though
> mainstream creationist are backing away from the
> centuries-old position on kinds is not particularly
> accurate.
You still don't get it. There is a difference between "creationist"
and "scientific creationist".
> Mostly a pest ... most people sending me your type
> of gadfly remarks or insults I can ignore. Or if I'm in
> an ongoing discussion, I can deal with corrections
> directly.
Really? You're ready to use "macroevolution" in the manner which
biologists have defined it, going to stop referring to mechanisms of
evolution as "pure chance", going to stop making reference to "kinds"
without providing a definition, etc.? You shown no inclination to
correct yourself in the past, which makes a collection of your
delusions a valuable benchmark.
> And if I do make mistakes (Euglena, hip
> embryological development , etc.), I will admit them.
The last message I recall seeing from you on hip displacement made
comments about the ethics of the person performing the limb bud
research. Didn't sound like an admission of error there. You more
often simply ignore your own errors, while holding that any error by
the other side is simply fatal.
> However, you are parading around collecting comments
> outside of well-developed and direct discussion. Seems
> very cheap to me.
Kind of like your quotation of Darwin on eye development, eh? Does it
surprise you that more than one person can quote?
> If you really want me to have more spare time, as I
> would, you could end this foolishness and nit-picking and
> answer Denton's arguments on the pattern of difference in biomolecules.
I don't happen to feel that I need to answer that, for 1) Denton isn't
worth responding to and 2) Jeff Otto has already done a great job on
the topic. Just like you referred someone here recently to my posts
on macroevolution.
BTW, Tom Ray has released his Tierra simulation source code. This is
a genetic algorithm package that has been written up in Science News
and various other publications. I would suggest you get your hands on
it and run it.
It rather handily demonstrates that natural selection is a lot better
than "pure chance".
--- TPBoard 6.1
* Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (817-551-9363) (1:347/303)
SEEN-BY: 347/8 303
==!
==* ELSBERRY AMES_TEST
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry
DATE: 9 Nov 91 20:15
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Ames test
EID:b147 1769bf7b
> Wesley enters the Ames
> test, which is right up there with penicillin, resistance,
> as remarkable evidence for general evolution:
Chuck then recaps my exposition on the Ames test, quotes a textbook
confirming my description (thanks for the reference, it will come in
handy in the future debating other third-graders), and basically
admits that evolutionary theory actually has a predictive result and
that mutations can have positive effects. Then Chuck goes off into
the weeds raging about how this doesn't explain transitions between
higher taxa. Wow. I don't recall claiming that the Ames test would
shed light on those topics. I simply put it forward as a positive
result of evolutionary theory and a neat demonstration that positive
effects from mutations are possible, no more. So, ignoring the
non-sequiturs and straw-men, it appears that the description of the
Ames test has been illuminating.
It's so nice to be substantive, after all.
--- TPBoard 6.1
* Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (817-551-9363) (1:347/303)
SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
PATH: 347/303
==!
==* ELSBERRY
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry
DATE: 9 Nov 91 19:33
TO: Marty Leipzig
SUBJ: Minor nit
EID:7b63 1769bf74
At the end of a really well-done debunking of Chuck Maier, Marty Leipzig said:
> ML> anastomosing laterally over time? Chuck, I'm a petroleum
> CM> ^^^^^^^^^^^
> ML> geologist, so I don't expect you to know about isopach and
> CM>
> CM> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Are you familiar with the creationist insults of
> CM> petroleum geolgists' batting average when it comes to striking oil :)
>
> Are they as good as Creationists' batting averages in the
> courts of this land? Nahhh...we occasionally find oil
> and gas.
> Creationists have a perfect score. They have LOST
> EVERY TIME!
> And you're still batting .000
Unfortunately, this is not the case (concerning the creationists. You
have accurately stated Chuck's personal batting average.). The forces
of regimented ignorance won in Dayton, Tennessee in 1926. The Scopes
trial was intended by the defense to bring the anti-science law to
higher courts, where it would hopefully be overturned. The judge,
however, fined Scopes $100 for the violation of the law, and the
conviction was automatically overturned since the amount of the fine
exceeded the limitations of the law's enforcement. Thus, no appeal of
Scope's conviction was possible, and the law in Tennessee prohibiting
the teaching of evolutionary theories remained on the books until it
was repealed in 1968. Popular culture indicates that reason won in
Dayton, but it just isn't so. However, the SciCre crowd haven't
managed to follow up on that auspicious start, and are performing as
well as Chuck. I've got a transcript of the Scopes trial. It makes
fascinating reading. If I had two copies, I might forward one to
Chuck and then make comments about successive sections. Perhaps in a
year or so, we would then have a machine transcription to work with.
Of course, the non-sequiturs and side commentary would be really
wearing thin by then.
--- TPBoard 6.1
* Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (817-551-9363) (1:347/303)
SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
==!
==* ELSBERRY AMES_TEST
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry
DATE: 14 Nov 91 07:35
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Ames test
EID:7d81 176ebf7a
> Wesley, who has never
> attented the Henry Shaw school of honest presentation of
> data , says:
Let's see, I made some statements. You confirmed them, but claimed a
different context. I rejected your attempt to maneuver the context
around (a poor argumentative device on your part, Chuck). And you
have the chutzpah to claim I am not honestly presenting these
concepts? Nice bit of irony there.
> WRE> shed light on those topics. I simply put it forward as a positive
> WRE> result of evolutionary theory and a neat demonstration that positive
> WRE> effects from mutations are possible, no more. So, ignoring the
> WRE> non-sequiturs and straw-men, it appears that the description of the
> WRE> Ames test has been illuminating.
>
> It certainly has. It shows how utterly desperate
> evolutionists are to come up with anything.
You mean like reliable clinical means of evaluating chemicals through
a mechanism other than looking up references in Genesis?
Why don't you post some positive clinical results of laboratory
processes derived from SciCre concepts?
Is it because those don't exist? That could put a crimp in your day.
--- TPBoard 6.1
* Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (509-WIN-1CNS) (1:347/303)
SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
==!
==* ELSBERRY ENTROPY INFORMATION_THEORY
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry
DATE: 15 Nov 91 20:13
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Information theory
EID:684e 1770281a
Having raised the issue of entropy in information, I'd like to pose a
question to assess your astuteness concerning this bit of theory.
I'll even make it so that you have a 50% chance of being correct.
Suppose that I take two bit strings derived from English text and
perform an approximation to H, the entropy of the bit strings, of both
of them using the principles outlined by the acknowledged founder of
the field, whose initials are C.E.S.
H = limit(F sub n, n -> infinity)
F sub n = - sum (over i, j) ( p(b sub i, j) log2 (p sub b sub i (j)) )
= - sum (over i, j) ( p(b sub i, j) log2 p(b sub i, j) +
sum (over i) ( p(b sub i) log2 p(b sub i)
Let us postulate that we determine different values of H for these bit
strings. One of these bit strings has higher information content than
the other bit string. Is it the one with the higher H (entropy), or
the one with the lower H (entropy) that has the greater information
content?
For extra credit, you could attempt to explain your answer, as well.
I've got the answer and the reference awaiting your reply.
--- TPBoard 6.1
* Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (509-WIN-1CNS) (1:347/303)
SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
==!
==* ELSBERRY
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry
DATE: 19 Nov 91 06:54
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: More pseudo-factoids?
EID:f238 17742824
> My comment is to point out the fact that the
> half-dozen or so of you who continually hound me are
> essentially committed to atheism/skepticism.
Pointing out your errors is not hounding you. It is being responsible
to those reading who may not know better than to take you seriously.
Additionally, you are way off-base with your pronouncement of "fact"
if you are including myself and at least one other regular
correspondent in your "half-dozen".
Besides which, your entire assertion is perhaps an archetype of ad
hominem response.
> If anyone had the scientific evidence to prove God didn't
> exist, surely Asimov would be the man. Therefore, to
> claim that you can only do science based on naturalistic
> presuppositions regarding origins, is simply a statement
> based on *EMOTION* , on faith, not any evidence of
> science.
No, it is based on the definition of science. Science cannot consider
supernatural mechanisms. It is just part of the basic assumptions one
accepts in order to do science. This doesn't mean that science
invalidates fields of study where supernatural mechanisms are assumed
to be active; it just means that science can't comment upon them.
> And to demand that God had to use naturalistic ,
> continuing processes to get this all going and bring about
> man is , again, just an opinion.
But who has been stating this opinion? It certainly wasn't me. (Can
you say "straw man"? I thought you could.)
--- TPBoard 6.1
* Origin: C.N.S.: ftp me.uta.edu:/pub/neural (509-WIN-1CNS) (1:347/303)
SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
==!
==* ELSBERRY INFORMATION_THEORY
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry
DATE: 22 Nov 91 20:52
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Information theory
EID:84b0 1776a8c4
> WRE> Let us postulate that we determine different values of H for these
> WRE> bit strings. One of these bit strings has higher information
> WRE> content than the other bit string. Is it the one with the higher H
> WRE> (entropy), or the one with the lower H (entropy) that has the
> WRE> greater information content?
> the one w/higher entropy.
So far, so good.
Why don't you explain to us now why one would expect a higher entropy
bit string to contain more information? What relationship does
information entropy have to thermodynamic entropy?
--- TPBoard 6.1
* Origin: C.N.S.: ftp me.uta.edu:/pub/neural (509-WIN-1CNS) (1:347/303)
SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
==!
==* ELSBERRY CMWDB
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry
DATE: 23 Nov 91 23:35
TO: All
SUBJ: Chuck Maier Whopper DB
EID:0900 1777bf74
I have just finished updating the CMWDB through November 11th's posts,
and it now stands at about 32 kilobytes. My thanks to Marty Leipzig,
Maury Markowitz, Dave Knapp, Dave Horn, and everyone else who has
helped contribute to the database.
However, it seems a little large to dump on the echo all at once. It
is available for download from CNS BBS as CHUCK.DB (or File Request,
or diskette transfer) currently. Should I post selections from the DB
from time to time, or simply split it into six to ten chunks and post
it that way? Give me some suggestions...
[Yeah, Chuck, right... anyone else have a suggestion?]
--- TPBoard 6.1
* Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (509-WIN-1CNS) (1:347/303)
SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
==!
==* ELSBERRY STRAWMAN
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry
DATE: 26 Nov 91 04:24
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Context? CM doesn't believe in it.
EID:ee95 177a246d
WRE> (Can you say "straw man"? I thought you could.)
CM> Yes, and I think ...
WRE> No, it is based on the definition of science. Science cannot
WRE> consider supernatural mechanisms. It is just part of the basic
CM> ... I see one here. Creationists are not trying to comment
CM> on any supernatural mechanisms anymore than evolutionists.
It is now time for a reality check. Let's see what Chuck said on 11/17,
which led to the response Chuck claims is flaxen:
CM> Therefore, to claim that you can only do science based on
CM> naturalistic presuppositions regarding origins, is simply a
CM> statement based on *EMOTION* , on faith, not any evidence of
CM> science.
Contradiction alert! Well, Chuck, which stance do you _really_ take:
SciCre'ers want to incorporate supernatural mechanisms into science
(as you indicate in the quote just previous) or SciCre'ers don't need
to incorporate supernatural mechanisms into science (as in quote from
your more recent post of 11/24)? Please pick one or the other.
Since you haven't bothered to attempt to refute how science is defined
(a wise choice, since Kuhn, Ruse, and Popper would likely disagree
with you), instead inserting non-sequitur comments about the history
of science, and the quote I was responding to at least strongly
implies that SciCre involves the inclusion of supernatural mechanisms,
I conclude that my response was not a straw man at all, though your
charge of such is one.
And, just to give everyone a nice bit of context, here's where you got
the first line you quoted, right from the bottom of my post:
CM> And to demand that God had to use naturalistic , continuing
CM> processes to get this all going and bring about man is ,
CM> again, just an opinion.
WRE> But who has been stating this opinion? It certainly wasn't
WRE> me. (Can you say "straw man"? I thought you could.)
Looks like I was right on target.
When are you going to substantiate your claim that I hold the various
opinions you gave there, or stop using ad hominem polemics, straw men, and
non-sequiturs? That's what I thought. (Can you say "cheap,
empty, unsubstantiated rhetoric"? Yeah, I thought so.)
[Yes, Chuck, I can and will provide context where you refuse to. You
might bear that in mind as you make future responses. Someone has to
take the moral high ground in this exchange, and you don't seem the
likely candidate when considering your past behavior. Looks like this
whole post is an eminent candidate for inclusion in the CMWDB.]
--- TPBoard 6.1
* Origin: C.N.S.: ftp me.uta.edu:/pub/neural (509-WIN-1CNS) (1:347/303)
SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
==!
==* ELSBERRY NON_SEQUITUR
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry
DATE: 26 Nov 91 02:45
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Non-sequiturs: Your basic Maierism
EID:5b4b 177a2466
CM> that in no way means that creationist ... have
CM> never made any contribution to science.
Please substantiate your claim that I have stated that "creationists
have never contributed to science". Until such time as you can do
that, I consider your synopses to be non-sequitur.
Since I haven't made such a statement, that means that the topic is
closed.
--- TPBoard 6.1
* Origin: C.N.S.: ftp me.uta.edu:/pub/neural (509-WIN-1CNS) (1:347/303)
SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
==!
==* STOCKTON
FROM: Lon Stockton
DATE: 09 Dec 91 01:28:44
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: Evidence for Creation Science
Being both a religionist and a scientist (well, in deference to the
other scientists here, I should say that I'm a "wannabe" scientist.
), I am constantly confused by this creationism vs. evolution
debate. For the life of me, I cannot see the basis for argument.
Barring a *literal* intrepretation of the Bible, what exactly is wrong
with the view that evolution is/was the *technique* which God used in
his creative adventure?
Maybe it's just me, but I see no basis for any argument between
science and religion. Science is designed to answer questions which
begin with "How", while religion is designed to provide answers to the
questions which begin with "Why". Two totally separate types of
questions.
--- msged 1.99L MSC
* Origin: MoonStar (1:276/222)
==!
==* ENGLISH
FROM: Lawson English
DATE: 12 Dec 91 10:09:14
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: Chucks Bones And dialog munchies
Chuck Maier writes in a message to Pat Parrinello
CM> We have well over 20,000 N.T. documents from the early centuries
^^^^^^
CM> in existence.
Most of those are textual fragments not much larger than this entire
message...
Some are even bits of pottery, as I recall.
If I'm allowed to rip my Bible into eetle beety shreds, I can come up
with thousands of documents too.
Lawson
--- COUNTERPoint Silver 1.02
* Origin: Sith Happens... (1:300/7.88)
==!
==* SPEISER
FROM: Jim Speiser
DATE: 12 Dec 91 19:25:37
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Chucks Bones And dialog munchies
In a message to Pat Parrinello <10 Dec 91 17:41> Chuck Maier wrote:
CM> More correctly, 'by nature' was innocent and made perfect by
CM> obedience. Christ was purportedly not of the blood line of Adam.
CM> Thus, his walk is not a disproof of the fall because he was not from
CM> the same 'sample' . He was a 'limited edition' human model, in theextreme
So Mary's blood was not in him? Or doesn't she count?
---
* Origin: XRS/REMOTRON/PARANETsm/SCOTTSDALE, AZ (Quick 1:114/37.666)
==!
==* THOMPSON
FROM: John Thompson
DATE: 13 Dec 91 09:21:00
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Thick Skulls, Odds And En
Chuck Maier, Lord High Master of the Non Sequitur wrote:
CM> Don't let me interrupt your fun , but really , look at what
CM> you talk about when you get realistic about mutations and
CM> all these remarkable genetic changes ...
CM>
CM> JT> JO> I remember correctly, all monosomys are lethal.
CM> ^^^^^^^^
CM> JT>
CM> JT> Almost. Monosomy 23 (Turner's syndrome) is not lethal,
CM> JT> although the possessors do have an undue number of
CM> JT> congenital abnormalities, eg heart defects, growth
CM> JT> problems. They are also all sterile females.
CM>
CM> .... look at this ... disease , death ...
That some, or even most, genetic variations are detrimental when
expressed does not mean that *ALL* genetic variations are
detrimental when expressed. You should know that. Really, it's
not that difficult of a concept to grasp.
Detrimental variations will be kept to a minimal level in a
population by *NATURAL SELECTION* (I hope you remember
that term from somewhere?); the same principle of *NATURAL
SELECTION* will operate to increase the proportion of any
(however few, and probability considerations alone insist that
this value be above zero) beneficial mutations that occur. All
this is amenable to mathematical modeling and experimental
observation; and, needless to say, has been amply confirmed in
both ways.
CM> IF you're so sold on Archaeopteryx as a transitional , why
CM> does Gould tell us that such a " curious mosaic like
CM> Archaeopteryx does not count ."
Doesn't count as what? Context, please!
CM> Or that Chattergee has discounted Archaeopteryx as an
CM> evolutionary dead end (Science News Nov. (?) 1988) ?
Being "an evolutionary dead-end" does not disqualify
Archaeopteryx as a transitional form between reptiles and birds;
it just means that that particular branch of the "evolutionary
tree" has become extinct. Big deal. Other branches have
persisted.
A transistional form is, very simply, one that shows major
features of two taxonomic groups and therefore cannot be clearly
placed into one group or the other -- it occupies an intemediate
position and illustrates the evolutionary relationship between
the two groups involved. Since taxonomists dislike this
untidiness, they arbitrarily decide which group to place the
transitional form into, recognizing that their decision may
change as more information becomes available. Scientific
knowledge is not like your vision of the Bible; we CAN and DO
change things when we need to. I'm sorry if that has confused
you in the past.
CM> Or that other paper where the authors believe archae
CM> was equipped to be a high-flyer?
From what I've seen it would appear the more recent work has
determined that Archaeopteryx was NOT a good flier; without a
good literature reference from you it is impossible for me to do
more than speculate on what you have offered.
CM> Or all the internal features that might
CM> have been totally Avian and would be even more evidence
CM> against this creature as being intermediate. Of course,
CM> when you don't have the evidence , you can
CM> tell stories ...
Now, are you trying to argue that the internal anatomy of
Archaeoteryx may have been avian and use that in supoort that it
was "fully a bird?" Considering that there is no real evidence
one way or the other concerning Archaeopteryx' internal anatomy,
it would appear that you are the one flying off into idle
speculation by "telling stories" "when you don't have the
evidence"!
* KingQWK 0.08b # 39 * ERROR -- Target Mind Not Open? bort, etry, gnore?
--- SuperQWK 1.15 Gamma-3 (Reg)
* Origin: APPLEGATE - Home Alone in Appleton, WI. (COM2) (1:139/630)
==!
==* SPEISER
FROM: Jim Speiser
DATE: 13 Dec 91 07:27:49
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Evidence for Creation Science
In a message to Jim Speiser <11 Dec 91 16:53> Chuck Maier wrote:
> JS> All the above questions have been answered in the past on this echo,
> JS> just in the brief time I've been monitoring. Why do you insist on
> JS> re-posting them as if they haven't been?
CM> To your satisfaction, possibly, if you already believe
CM> evolution in the first place. If that is what you believe and
CM> want to believe then that is your prerogative. However, to me,
I want to believe nothing but that which comes closest to the truth. I
was taught Creation long before I was taught Evolution. If I want to
believe in Evolution, it is because it has always made more sense to
me, even as a layman.
CM> Brock, 1985 p.63 .... This is an outrageous
CM> hypothesis any way you look at it. It certainly isn't " change
CM> of an allele frequency in a population." Essentially , it is
CM> pantheism. Someone suggested a book by Margulis , who happens to
Remember now, I'm not a scientist, but aren't you confusing a
definition based on observation with a proposed process that explains
the observation? And I don't understand the reference to
"pantheism"...do you perhaps mean "panspermia"?
Jim
---
* Origin: XRS/REMOTRON/PARANETsm/SCOTTSDALE, AZ (Quick 1:114/37.666)
==!
==* HANSEN
FROM: Greg Hansen
DATE: 13 Dec 91 12:46:29
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Evidence for Creation
Chuck, I just picked up a fragment from John Thompson to you
concerning a reply you made to me from a previous message. I don't
know why it didn't get through to me. I'm deleting John's
contributions and quoting what parts of the original there are.
(Thanks for keeping the message alive, John.)
GH> 2) Someone dug up a dinosaur in his back yard, and had it
GH> radiocarbon dated to some recent date. As I mentioned, dinosaurs
GH> living today is not a problem for evolution, and a fossil cannot
GH> be carbon-dated. What kind of dinosaur was it?
CM> A fossil can be mineralized, carbonized, or just frozen...
CM>
CM> Explain it any way you want, call him a liar, a fraud , or attribute
CM> the carbon to another source, but fossilization in general is not a
CM> problem for getting a carbon date.
A fossil is formed by replacing the original material with
new material. It is not the same carbon (if carbon is involved
at all; it probably is, I don't know, but the fossil could be
some kind of silicon compound). If you don't have the original
carbon ratios, you can't get an accurate date. The fossil can
be dated by other direct or indirect, absolute or relative
methods. But carbon dating the fossil directly will not work.
(And I don't intend to call anyone a liar, fraud, or anything else.)
But supposing the dinosaur died yesterday, so what?
GH> The Flood. I would like to know how you've ruled out falling into
GH> the water or being buried under the snow as a cause for being
CM> Silly hypothesis you dreamed up off the cuff. Some were ripped up and CM> torn to pieces and strewn all over the ground, deposited very densely
CM> in some locations. I don't think this would fly with anyone.
Dreamed up off the cuff, maybe, but hardly silly. Suppose the
ice broke beneath the mammoth. It would lose heat very quickly in
the cold water. The mammoth could have been covered by an avalanche
of snow. Since that has probably happened a lot, and doesn't
require any undemonstrated catastrophic processes, by Occam's Razor
that hypothesis should be tested first. Since you reject any
possible kind of natural explanation for frozen mammoths, HOW HAVE
YOU RULED OUT THE POSSIBILITY? Don't tell me it's a silly hypothesis,
tell me WHY it couldn't have happened.
CM> And we suspect that mammoths may have been warm-weathered creatures
CM> like modern elephants.
With the warm, furry coat a "woolly" mammoth has? What is the
evidence that they were warm-weathered creatures? (Now I'm getting
away from my original questions; evidence for creation. But I'd
really like to know what mammoth information you have that I don't.)
CM> I've seen fun facts secular newspapers where early trappers in this
CM> country had Indians telling them of mammoth-like creatures.
Maybe buffalo? Maybe mammoths did exist until the 1600's. That
would certainly be interesting! But, so what?
--- Opus-CBCS 1.12
* Origin: Nick's Nest (612) 490-3415 - (612) 490-0341 HST (1:282/3.0)
==!
==* PARRINELLO
FROM: Pat Parrinello
DATE: 14 Dec 91 21:53:44
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: Chucks Bones And dialog munchies
CM> For all your complaining about the number of messages w/ Chuck M. on
CM> them, your behavior is strange, indeed.
I have no problem with substance but the quoting has been ENORMIOUS.
My behavior has been strange sence 67-68 when I had agent orange as
as a steady diet.
CM> Christ was purportedly not of the blood line of Adam. Thus,
CM> his walk is not a disproof of the fall because he was not from
CM> the same 'sample' .
Only 1/2 true Chuck. Mary was indeed of Adam. Or are you saying He had
a mother but was not of her blood?
CM> What will be YOUR VERDICT, Pat? cm.
My verdict is that you should read Collisians(sp?) chapter 2 verse 8.
Then you will see why I feel it not important to abue so much time on
the C/E issue. I in fact see no conflict with evolution as the God made
machine of change for everything in the universe. Not just man or animals
or plants, but everything from elementary particles & forces to the now
that we know. I think God is laid back & in no hurry at all. Why should He
be? Change & motion are what allow us to precieve the universe. If everything
were instant & static we would have no being at all.
-Pat-
--- MacWoof 1.2
* Origin: Is God subject to Murphys Law? (1:3812/20.2)
==!
==* KRACHT
FROM: Matt Kracht
DATE: 14 Dec 91 21:04:26
TO: Lon Stockton
SUBJ: Re: Evidence for Creation Science
Quoting Lon Stockton to Chuck Maier:
LS> Barring a *literal* intrepretation of the Bible, what exactly is wrong
LS> with the view that evolution is/was the *technique* which God used in
LS> his creative adventure?
Sounds totally reasonable to me.
LS> Maybe it's just me, but I see no basis for any argument between
LS> science and religion. Science is designed to answer questions which
LS> begin with "How", while religion is designed to provide answers to the
LS> questions which begin with "Why". Two totally separate types of
LS> questions.
I never thought of it like that.... That's interesting.
... Surfing with the Alien!
--- Blue Wave/Max v2.01 [NR]
* Origin: < DH> > How did single celled organisms become multicelled
> DH> >organisms? How did mitochondria and chlorplasts
>originate?
> DH>
> DH> Well, you claim to know evolutionary mechanisms
>for such things
> DH> and you have discounted them. Tell me, what is the
>creationist
> DH> SCIENTIFIC explanation for such things?
>
> I just cited the evolutionary story on this to Jim
>Speiser , I think, a couple days ago. I've also read guru
>Maruglis' on the subject. These are not even mechanisms -
>they are fairy tales, which Brock plainly states are
>incapable of proof. They most certainly are not " the
>change of allele frequency in a population, " which is the
>constant line of baloney we are giv
>given here as being the 'unifying principle' that'll
>explain everything to amoeba to man , and we've seen
>'change in allele frequency' a million times so anyone
>questioning the general theory is a crank and a liar ...
>
> DH>
> DH> > How does evolution by natural selection explain
> DH> >metamorphosis and the life cycle of parasites,
>butterflies,
> DH> >and half-a-hundred other things one could name? How
>would
> DH>
> DH> Good grief, Chuck, there isn't enough disk space
>on this BBS to
> DH> explain that. Try a little empirical research. It's
>been done. The
> DH> answers are there for you to see. Would you like
>references?
>
> I have seen your comrades give the exact opposite
>'explanation' for metamorphosis that other evolutionists
>have given (as
>is true for so many evolutionary stories) elsewhere, which
>shows that nobody knows what they are talking about. This
>is just another of many examples where selection and change
>of allele frequency are totally useless in the argument,
>but yet people claim they can use them to expalin
>everything. cm.
Chuck, your discussion with me is again declining into endless ad
hominem and no substance. I warn you for the final time that I will
not engage in this sort of nonsense. First of all, most of what you
have said here, that that I could interpret beyond the emotionalism,
is not correct. Furthermore, I resent your implication that what
dedicated science-minded people are presenting here is "baloney" or
"fairy tale." Finally, if anyone has demonstrated here that they
don't know what they are talking about, it is you.
One more chance, Chuck, in the interests of fair play. Present
you evidence. Nebulous references such as those sent recently will
not do. Demonstrate that YOU know what YOU are talking about by
explaining these things rationally. You only show the weakness of
your arguments by delving into endless polemics and ad hominem.
Finally, I have saved the messages as quoted above for later
reply. As soon as you answer the many questions that I have posed to
you, I will then deal with what you have said above. You are not the
only one who gets to ask the questions, Chuck. In an open forum such
as this, there must be give and take or there is no reasonable
exchange of information.
Of the questions that I have asked you, there are two that I
consider paramount at this time. The rest can wait until later.
Please respond to the following:
1. You stated in a message to me that Marty did not have "much of
a coal theory." Marty repudiated this in this forum and you
seemed to go along with this, but you never sent ME a retrac-
tion, though you have had plenty of time to do so. NOR did
you even indicate to me that there had been a falsehood in
this regard. Why did you do this?
2. What is the SCIENTIFIC rationale proposed by creationists to
explain the presence of both reptilian and avian characteris-
tics in _Archaeopteryx_?
You will be reminded of these questions, and the many others that
have been ignored thus far, until you answer them, repudiate your
claims with regard to them, or disappear from the echo. I would
prefer that you answer them. I have asked the second question of
nearly every creationist that I have encountered and have never been
answered. The first I have asked, in other forms, to many
creationists and have never been answered there, either.
I am looking for an open mind and at least a modicum of
intellectual honesty in at least *one* creationist. Are YOU that
creationist, Chuck? If not, then what does your own Gospel tell you
about the merits of dishonesty? Do you believe in "heavenly
deception?" Is it okay to lie to people to get them into the "Kingdom
of Heaven?" I don't think so.
I await your answers. Merry Christmas.
--- ZMailQ 1.10 @1:104/810.0
* Origin: Electronic Library HST Denver 303-935-6323 (1:104/810)
==!
==* HORN
FROM: Dave Horn
DATE: 16 Dec 91 05:50:00
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: Evidence For Creation Science
"Upward," Chuck? What is this "upward" stuff? There is no
"upward" in evolutionary science. It is a meaningless phrase. Please
refrain from such uninformed generalizations.
--- ZMailQ 1.10 @1:104/810.0
* Origin: Electronic Library HST Denver 303-935-6323 (1:104/810)
==!
==* HANSEN
FROM: Greg Hansen
DATE: 16 Dec 91 13:07:03
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: Evidence for Creation Science
>(All: I will not post after the 15th, till next year. Last chance to
>send best wishes for the holidays :) ).
Then accept my sincere best wishes for happy holidays.
GH> As for what it would be, I'd say first, list the assumptions
GH> made by creationists, the basic ideas of creation. Evidence
>
> I know I've done this, but let's try it again. Basically, we assume
>that nature is full of *DISCONTINUOUS* phenonema; that the Creator made
I was hoping for some more concrete conditions, rather than some
vague hand-waving. For instance, every living thing being created
with a few days should certainly be testable in some respect! But...
> I know I've done this, but let's try it again. Basically, we assume
>that nature is full of *DISCONTINUOUS* phenonema; that the Creator made
>things 'good' and with remarkable interdependence and design; that he
>would have put a principle of conservation on his creation so it
>wouldn't just fall apart; that any laws of change would exhibit this
>law of conservation (known as the 1st law of thermo., the most powerful
>generalization made by science); that changes would occur on the same
>level of complexity; that any fundamental changes would necessarily be
>in a downward direction because the Creator made things good from the
>start (known as the 2nd law of thermodynamics, also one of the most
>powerful generalizations made by science).
Let me first say that I have some very serious reservations about
your application of thermodynamics. But I would rather not discuss
it because that would very much diverge from the purpose of this
discussion.
But you've stated a creationist assumption, that any change at
all would be in a "downward" direction because the Creator made
things "good" from the start. Before we can deal with this, you
must be considerably more specific. Exactly what do you mean by
"downward", and what do you mean be "good"? And then, how have
those assumptions been tested?
> Genetics itself gives powerful confirmation to the principle of
>conservation. The entire genetic apparatus of say, a loon, or a
>creationist, are 100% devoted to reproducing that organism.
That much, I believe, is not disputed by anyone.
>Now, these creatures, while they have many things in common, could
>never develop one from the other. The information in the supposed
>common ancestor wasn't there.
This doesn't appear to be a fundamental assumption, but it does
seem to be an assumption. How has it been tested?
>And for this information to occur would require innumerable genetic
>mistakes (duplications, insertions, deletions, point mutations etc. ),
>occurring by pure chance, Greg - pure chance!
If you believe evolution is entirely random, than I believe you
--- Opus-CBCS 1.12
* Origin: Nick's Nest (612) 490-3415 - (612) 490-0341 HST (1:282/3.0)
==!
==* HANSEN
FROM: Greg Hansen
DATE: 16 Dec 91 13:08:12
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: Evidence for Creation Science
>And for this information to occur would require innumerable genetic
>mistakes (duplications, insertions, deletions, point mutations etc. ),
>occurring by pure chance, Greg - pure chance!
If you believe evolution is entirely random, than I believe you
do not understand it well enough to debate it. It is statistical.
There's a difference.
>Well, if we exclude the hemoglobin example, I'm still looking for a
>'starter kit' of truly random mutations that give rise to functional
>complexity.
What do you mean, "exclude the hemoglobin example"? Let's NOT
exclude it. First, because I don't know what it is and would like
you to explain it to me. And second, because you cannot pick and
choose what evidence you want to accept the existance of.
>But we have many examples of downward changes due to mutations. The
>human population now has about 2000 genetic diseases going.
>Mutations accumulating in the genes (mutational load) would kill
>everything over such long periods of time , it would seem.
I think your analysis of genetic diseases, as you've presented it
to me, is simplistic and incomplete. How do you know there are more
diseases now than there were In The Beginning, for instance? Genetic
diseases can exist unexpressed, but still be inheritable.
Concerning "mutational load", how long do humans have before
mutational loading will kill the species? And does that include
the effects of natural selection?
>As far as some of theses speciation events, one could easily interpret
>these as being degenerative in themselves. They provide no evidence
>for upward increases in complexity as the general theory ultimately
>requires.
I think you misunderstand the conditions of the speciation events.
The ones I'm aware of are not degenerative, they're just an adaptation
to a previously unfilled niche. Not "downward", just different.
What do you mean by "complexity"? You should define that term,
first. But however you define it, I believe that the "general theory"
(I assume you mean the Darwinian type theory that is currently
accepted to explain the supposed law of evolution; be careful not to
condemn a process just because the explanation is lacking) does not
require an increase in complexity. At least not in the time frame
of human observation. (Assuming no such increase in complexity
has been observed; I'm not the one to ask about that one!)
Chuck, I'd like to know if you're trying to discredit the theory
of evolution that is currently being knocked around today, or the
law of evolution. (Some call it the "fact" of evolution, but I call
it the "law", because it has been inferred from other facts. At
least major evolution has; speciation has been observed and can
be considered fact.)
The reason I ask is because if you're trying to discredit the
law of evolution, it will do you no good to attack the theory. If
you cause the complete downfall of the theory, that just means the
evolutionists will have to come up with another one.
--- Opus-CBCS 1.12
* Origin: Nick's Nest (612) 490-3415 - (612) 490-0341 HST (1:282/3.0)
==!
==* LASKA
FROM: Andrew Laska
DATE: 17 Dec 91 01:40:08
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: Gaia - the dark side of evolutionism
CM> This Gaia business is just one of the many
CM> tentacles of New-Agism which are being promoted by
CM> the forces of globalism to destroy Christianity and
CM> bring man into total rebellion against God. Tal
CM> Brooke (SCP Joural July 1991) writes:
It is unfortunate that James Lovelock in naming "Gaia" chose the name
he did. It gets flack from Christians because the source of the name
is supposedly "pagan." It flacks from the scientific community because
the source of the name has metaphysics attached to it. When that
happens the new-agers get a hold of it and turn it into warm fuzzy
psuedo taoist mish mash.
Lovelocks hypothesis is interesting and worth looking at. To much
attention gets paid to this "world as an orgamism" idea. The most
interesting part and the most plausible is the implication that the
life forms help self regulate the temperature of the planet. This is
achieved by way of the gases they consume and expel, thier albedo,
etc. It should be interesting to see if anyone cares where it goes or
does something with it.
--- Maximus 2.00
* Origin: Verbose Ink * Dallas * 214-437-0914 * HST/DS (1:124/5125)
==!
==* THOMPSON PANSPERMIA AD_HOMINEM
FROM: John Thompson
DATE: 14 Dec 91 19:20:00
TO: Jim Speiser
SUBJ: Evidence For Creation Sci
JS> And I don't understand the reference to "pantheism"...do you perhaps
JS> mean "panspermia"?
No, he's just making an "ad hominem" attack on Lynn Margulis. He wants you
to think that because she apparently professes some kind of pantheistic
religious belief that her scientific work must somehow be suspect. Go
figure.
* KingQWK 0.08b # 39 * Evolution: the unifying principle of Biology!
--- SuperQWK 1.15 Gamma-4 (Reg)
* Origin: APPLEGATE - Home Alone in Appleton, WI. (COM2) (1:139/630)
==!
==* ENGLISH
FROM: Lawson English
DATE: 16 Dec 91 09:10:11
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: Evidence for Creation Science
Chuck Maier writes in a message to Greg Hansen
CM> I know I've done this, but let's try it again. Basically, we
CM> assume that nature is full of *DISCONTINUOUS* phenonema; that
CM> the Creator made things 'good' and with remarkable interdependence
CM> and design; that he would have put a principle of conservation
CM> on his creation so it wouldn't just fall apart; that any laws
CM> of change would exhibit this law of conservation (known as the
CM> 1st law of thermo.,
Scientists assume many things. However, one of tghe principles of
Science is to assume as little as possible. Assuming "that the Creator
made things 'good' and with remarkable interdependence and design;" is
a BIG assumption, bigger than any that modern scientists make.
CM> Genetics itself gives powerful confirmation to the principle
CM> of conservation. The entire genetic apparatus of say, a loon,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
CM> or a creationist, are 100% devoted to reproducing that organism.
There are plenty of bits of genetic code that don't have any
observeable function -this doesn't mean that they don't have
functions, just that scientists try not to "assume" that they do. You
have asserted that they do.
The whole Creationist argument assumes a) that God created the
universe, and b) that he created the universe in the way described in
the Christian aka "Jewish" bible. This assumes that, not only did God
do it, but that YOU have the final word on HOW he did it. That too, is
not scientific.
Lawson
--- COUNTERPoint Silver 1.02
* Origin: Sith Happens... (1:300/7.88)
==!
==* VAN_WENSVEEN
FROM: Frank Van.wensveen
DATE: 15 Dec 91 13:37:00
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Creation vs. evolution - kingdoms in conflict
Kingdoms in conflict? Why?
> Well, a lot of it's been a smear campaign, lately.
No, not really. Unless you call it a smear campaign if people disagree
with you and ask you to back up your claims with valid proof.
> I am not convinced that there is not a reasonable
> explanation for the tracks in a young earth scenario,
> though I need to ask an unbiased source some more
> questions at this point.
What do you call a reasonable explanation? There are explanations, but
you seem to consider them unreasonable because the don't fit your view
of things.
> It most certainly proves nothing in terms of the
> general theory of evolution. The earth could be 100
> bya and that would prove nothing in terms of
> biological evolution.
Again, I disagree. It would prove that Genesis can not be taken
literally. That invalidates the rest of the book with regard to
creation, too. Evidence proves that Earth is much older than
creationists claim and that Darwin was largely right.
> FV> I hope you have the courage to make this choice. I'm looking forward
> FV> to your reply to this message. If I get it, I'll reply back to you,
> FV> so you'll know I've actually read it. But no matter whether you reply
> FV> or not, after this message we'll finally know for sure what you're
> FV> really worth.
> FV>
> Creationists are not avoiding anything, unlike the
> constant caricatures and smear campaigns would imply.
Yet you have avoided answering my question directly. I have asked you
a simple question, i.e. chose one of three possibilities. You have
reacted with a few more or less general, non-committant statements,
but no answer.
Thank you, Chuck. I know enough.
printf ("Greetings, Frank\n"); /* Sign off */
---
* Origin: CHS BBS, Zadkine college Rotterdam (2:285/504.1)
==!
==* ELLIS
FROM: Rick Ellis
DATE: 18 Dec 91 01:35:09
TO: Greg Hansen
SUBJ: Re: Evidence for Creation Science
On Greg Hansen writes:
GH> If you believe evolution is entirely random, than I believe you
GH> do not understand it well enough to debate it. It is statistical.
GH> There's a difference.
He also misses the "selection" part. If you deal cards to me all day,
I can end up with only aces. Assuming I throw away everything card
that isn't an ace.
--- Squish v1.00
* Origin: Universal Electronics Inc [714 939-1041] HST/V.32bis (1:103/208)
==!
==* ELLIS
FROM: Rick Ellis
DATE: 18 Dec 91 04:04:38
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: Recycling Polymers
On Chuck Maier writes:
CM> As far as I know, plastics are washed, ground , melted and recast
They aren't. About the best that can be done without seperating the
various types of plastics is grinding them up and using the solids as
filler.
--- Squish v1.00
* Origin: Universal Electronics Inc [714 939-1041] HST/V.32bis (1:103/208)
==!
==* THOMPSON
FROM: John Thompson
DATE: 16 Dec 91 14:22:00
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Evidence For Creation Sci
CM> DH> and you have discounted them. Tell me, what is the creationist
CM> DH> SCIENTIFIC explanation for such things?
CM>
CM> I just cited the evolutionary story on this to Jim Speiser , I think,
CM> a couple days ago. I've also read guru Maruglis' on the subject.
CM> These are not even mechanisms - they are fairy tales, which Brock
CM> plainly states are incapable of proof. They most certainly are not "
CM> the change of allele frequency in a population, " which is the constant
CM> line of baloney we are given here as being the 'unifying principle'
CM> that'll explain everything to amoeba to man , and we've seen 'change in
CM> allele frequency' a million times so anyone questioning the general
CM> theory is a crank and a liar ...
You have not been treated as "a crank and a liar" simply for questioning the
"general theory". Questioning the "general theory" is well within the scope
of science provided you have something constructive to offer as an
alternative. You have done not done this. When pressed for evidence to
support your "model" you offer some vague and unsupported statements and
quickly change the subject back to "evolution bashing". When powerful
evidence is offered in support of evolutionary theory, you respond with
hand-waving and name-calling. It's hard not to see this as the behavior of
a "crank".
CM> I have seen your comrades give the exact opposite 'explanation' for
CM> metamorphosis that other evolutionists have given (as
CM> is true for so many evolutionary stories) elsewhere, which shows that
CM> nobody knows what they are talking about.
That there may be several possible plausible naturalistic explanations for
any given phenomenon in no way means that the overriding theory they are
based upon must be false. Further investigation may help clarify which, if
any, of these ideas is the most plausible, but the fact that there are
plausible naturalistic explanations in the first place can only be seen as
consistent with the scientific nature of evolutionary theory.
Unlike fundamentalist religion, scientists do not insist on having (right
from the beginning) One Right Answer to all of their questions -- several
answers or even no answer will serve and entice the curiosity of those
looking for the most plausible answer.
* KingQWK 0.11b # 39 * ERROR! Target Mind Not Open? Abort, Retry, Ignore?
--- SuperQWK 1.15 Gamma-4 (Reg)
* Origin: APPLEGATE; Appleton, WI. (COM2) (1:139/630)
==!
==* SINCERO ARCHAEOPTERYX
FROM: Roscoe Sincero
DATE: 17 Dec 91 23:10:05
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: Thick skulls, odds and ends
The archaepetryx has claws, teeth, and feathers. I am sure you have
read Gish's faulty work and noted that the bird in South America has
claws and that some ancient birds now extinct had teeth... However the
archaeopetryx has a pubic peduncle and abdominal ribs...These skeletal
structures are found in dinosaurs and reptiles, not birds...
So this is the characteristics of this "bird"..
1) claws
2) teeth
3) pubic peduncle
4) abdominal ribs
5) long BONY tail
6) feathers.
This "bird" had more reptilian features than it has "bird" features...
Tell me since you are so smart in these things, why would there be a
creature with so many reptilian features have "feathers" and flys like
a bird? Why would a "bird" have som many reptilian features?
--- GEcho/beta
* Origin: The North Star - FD/RA/GEcho - (410)263-1633 (1:261/1108)
==!
==* CHROMEY
FROM: Fred Chromey
DATE: 18 Dec 91 01:46:28
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: A Creator and Evolution - redundant, incompatible concept
>> 1) Evolution is totally inconsitent with the
>>character of God (design, love, plan ,purpose )
Chuck, pray tell from whence you learn of God's design.
Design, to most of us, implies a maker.
>>2.) Scientifically , evolution and creation are the exact opposite in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>their very conception, and are thus redundant.
^^^^
How in heaven's name can you come up with this oxymoron?
Pax :)
--- Via Silver Xpress V2.27
* Origin: Black Bag BBS - Newark, DE - (302) 731-1998 - (1:150/140)
==!
==* DR_PEPPER
FROM: Dr Pepper
DATE: 18 Dec 91 14:57:00
TO: Rick Ellis
SUBJ: Evidence for Creation Science
> On Greg Hansen writes:
>
> GH> If you believe evolution is entirely random, than I believe you
> GH> do not understand it well enough to debate it. It is statistical.
> GH> There's a difference.
>
> He also misses the "selection" part. If you deal cards to me
> all day, I can end up with only aces. Assuming I throw away
> everything card that isn't an ace.
Good point. I wonder if a creationist charged with a crime would tell
their lawyer not to challenge any jurors.
10 2
DR PEPPER
4
---
* Origin: GG TECH: Fandom and conversation (1:103/241)
==!
==* SINCERO
FROM: Roscoe Sincero
DATE: 17 Dec 91 23:11:06
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: Chucks Bones And dialog munchies
Why would a lawyer like Josh McDowwel know so much information about
evolution that he writes a book on it to "disprove" it?
--- GEcho/beta
* Origin: The North Star - FD/RA/GEcho - (410)263-1633 (1:261/1108)
==!
==* HANSEN
FROM: Greg Hansen
DATE: 18 Dec 91 11:51:49
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: Evidence for Creation
GH> A fossil is formed by replacing the original material with
GH> new material. It is not the same carbon (if carbon is involved
GH> at all; it probably is, I don't know, but the fossil could be
GH> some kind of silicon compound). If you don't have the original
>
> Not necessarily. This bone would be termed an 'altered remains'
>fossil, having undergone carbonization, whereby the volatiles are
>driven off and a black carbon film or goo is left behind.
I'm not familiar with that, but it sounds like it is not a
fossil, but simply the remains of the creature. I wish you'd have
mentioned that earlier. That _can_ be dated correctly, assuming
there has been no contamination or that the contamination can be
accounted for. But with rainwater coming down, leaching carbon
away, and trickling carbon from overlaying biomass into it, I
doubt the carbon date would be correct. Again, it's important
to ask if this person was qualified to take a sample for carbon
dating. Did he give the lab all the relevant information, or
did he just give them a chunk of carbon and say "date this"?
GH> But supposing the dinosaur died yesterday, so what?
>
>yea, but it's in rock (Upper Jurassic) supposedly 140 mya! Shows you
>how fossils are dated doesn't it; they use the fossils to date the
>rocks and the rocks to date fossils all based on some assumed
>evolutionary sequence laid out in the strata. Doesn't matter if the
>thing is two feet from the surface or gives a wrong radiometric
>date - these things are ignored or explained away.
If this is what you believe, then you do not understand the
methods used to date things.
GH> possible kind of natural explanation for frozen mammoths, HOW HAVE
GH> YOU RULED OUT THE POSSIBILITY? Don't tell me it's a silly hypothesis,
GH> tell me WHY it couldn't have happened.
>
>anything could've happened ...
If you couldn't explain why the mammoth had to be frozen by some
catastrophe, or how you know it didn't simply fall into the water or
somesuch, then that's all I needed to hear. I'm content with that.
>but we've also found fossils - alligators and coal I believe, on
>Antarctica. John should've seen some of this stuff. I think the
>standard story is continental drift, rather than global, warm
>environment in the past.
That's a pretty big digression from frozen mammoths. Anyway, I
believe continental drift AND a different climate is the explanation.
--- Opus-CBCS 1.12
* Origin: Nick's Nest (612) 490-3415 - (612) 490-0341 HST (1:282/3.0)
==!
==* HANSEN
FROM: Greg Hansen
DATE: 18 Dec 91 11:53:55
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: Evidence for Creation
{Continued from previous message.}
GH> this CM> country had Indians telling them of mammoth-like creatures.
GH>
GH> Maybe buffalo? Maybe mammoths did exist until the 1600's. That
GH> would certainly be interesting! But, so what?
>
>that would put them in a warm climate - and out of evolutionary folk
>lore and into modern times like with all terrestrial 'kinds' recently
>extinct , but known from the fossil record.
But, so what? And what is a "kind"?
> I'm not sure what you think it is that is such remarkable evidence
>for evolution. There is no mechanism for coding new information
>(other than pure chance) into a DNA if it isn't there in the first place.
>Obviously, the first bacteria didn't have the blueprint for all life.
>If you've followed some of my other notes recently (i.e. Jim Speiser)
>these notions of symbiosis , not straightforward pop. genetics, are
>being used to explain a lot of the 'early events' in evolution.
Be careful of your logic here! Once again you're attacking the
very idea of evolution by trying to discredit a particular explanation.
But, assuming you succeeded, that would only mean evolutionists have to
come up with another explanation. But the general law of evolution
would remain intact and unscathed.
And, if you yourself had to meet the criteria that you insist
evolutionists meet, then creationism would be thrown away without
a trial. You don't even HAVE a theory! You have no explanation,
beyond "God did it and we have no way of knowing how". Do this as
a favor to me: stop using double standards.
>A creationist would predict that language, intelligence, agriculture,
>metalworking, etc. would have been abilities of man right from the
>start of his created existence, not inherited or developed from any
>ancestor in the animal world.
How has this been tested? Have you examined stone-tool making
cultures, the development of agriculture, the emergence of
metalworking? Having done some small amount of study in archaeology
and physical anthropology, I'm a little more familiar and comfortable
with this area. And the evidence I've seen decidedly indicates that
mankind did NOT emerge complete with agriculture and metalworking.
They developed it over a lengthy period of time in a process of
cultural evolution.
>I Again, I can't give establish a criteria for you .
If you cannot give a criteria for testing creation, than it is
not falsifiable, it is not testable, and it is not science.
Thank you, you've answered my question. I was hoping it would
be more interesting, with some solid tests that can be done. But
that is sufficient.
--- Opus-CBCS 1.12
* Origin: Nick's Nest (612) 490-3415 - (612) 490-0341 HST (1:282/3.0)
==!
==* HANSEN
FROM: Greg Hansen
DATE: 18 Dec 91 13:03:32
TO: Leslie Rhorer
SUBJ: Re: Evidence for Creation Science
(In a letter to Jim Gifford, 15-Dec-91.)
JG> I don't think the CvE argument belongs in here, period.
>
> Here, I agree. So far, none of the proponents of Creationism
>on this echo have given any evidence that supports their hypotheses.
>All they do is bash evolution, and when asked for mathematical and
>factual support for their hypotheses, they change the subject.
Creationists will sometimes say that evolutionists just don't
take the time to learn about creation before they start bashing it.
Well, I gave Chuck a chance to give all the support for creation
that he cared to give. I don't know if you've been following it,
but the evidence he gave me that directly supports creation is,
as I recall:
1) A mammoth was found frozen solid.
2) Things die and don't spring back to life.
3) A dinosaur was dug up in someone's back yard.
I asked him to help establish some criteria for testing creation.
What must be true in order for creation to be true? He stated that
he cannot give any criteria. And if you've been following it, when
I asked for support for creation, he would continually attack some
aspect of evolution. I really was hoping for better.
--- Opus-CBCS 1.12
* Origin: Nick's Nest (612) 490-3415 - (612) 490-0341 HST (1:282/3.0)
==!
==* THRUST
FROM: Dick Thrust
DATE: 17 Dec 91 12:17:20
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Ignorance is delusion
+---------
CM|How about a new year's resolution for some believable
CM|evidence for evolution?
+---------
John Thompson is the ONLY believable thing in this evolution/garbage
creationist debate.
Where he gets the patience to continue to point out how so many salient
facts and points are consistently ignored is a wonder to me.
Continue if you can, John, but you already know creationists aren't
interested in what can be proven - they're a disease that thrive on
eluding the most potent medicines: fact and truth.
___
X PQ-Under-Trial 2.12 X If you ain't got it then you ain't communicatin'.
--- Maximus 2.00
* Origin: The CompuNet BBS - (416)769-3401 & (416)769-0022 (1:250/407)
==!
==* HORN ARCHAEOPTERYX
FROM: Dave Horn
DATE: 19 Dec 91 08:38:00
TO: Roscoe Sincero
SUBJ: Re: Evidence For Creation Science
>
>I seriously doubt that Chuck M. will answer you questions
>truthfully especially about the "bird". Creationists like
I confess that I doubt it, as well. However, I am always willing
to give someone the benefit of the doubt. Let's give him a chance to
answer (As opposed to "respond." A response isn't always an
"answer.").
>him are only here to cause trouble... They like to lie and
>are extremely dishonest...There are no sincere in their
>cause...
I have to disagree here. You aren't being fair. Is it any more
responsible to tar all creationists with the same brush as it is for
them to paint all evolutionists as deceitful? I don't think so. A
number of creationists are quite sincere. However, it is possible to
be sincere and yet be sincerely wrong. That is the story with most of
the LAY creationists that I have encountered.
The PROFESSIONAL creationists, the Gish's, Morris's, et al., are
another matter, of course.
>creationism is proof enough..For creationists they spend so
>little time trying to back up creationism... ChuCk M. is a
>perfect example...I suggest you (and others) stop
That's true -- creationists generally are quite reluctant to deal
with any issue that casts light on creationism. They'd rather "bash"
evolution (however they may be defining it). Whenever I ask for
evidence FOR creationism rather than presumed "evidence" against
evolution, I get either the same tired and easily falsifiable
arguments, a song and dance, or silence. I have yet to receive any
sort of viable answer to my questions about how creationists
SCIENTIFICALLY interpret things such as the presence of reptilian and
avian characteristics in _Archaeopteryx_, speciation in Hawaiian
honeycreepers and _Anolis_ lizards, etc. Of course, "G*d did it" is
not a scientific response, they know it, and so it is rare that I get
a response at all.
>...I suggest you (and others) stop responding to his messages...
Thank you. Your suggestion is noted. However, that does not
stop the creationist from continuing the rail and waste time and disk
space. The best way to deal with any sort of pseudo-science is to put
the professor of that "science" on the defensive. You do that by
providing the current scientific thinking and then ask them how they
SCIENTIFICALLY interpret the piece of evidence under discussion. John
Thompson and I have provided the current thinking on _Archaeopteryx_.
It now falls to Chuck to provide us with a SCIENTIFIC alternative
explanation (since the obvious presence of the reptilian and avian
characteristics cannot be explained away nor can they be intelligently
denied). As long as he, or any pseudo-science apostle, makes claims
without answering questions, then he must be reminded of the questions
until he either answers them, is forced to answer them, or leaves.
Sooner or later, it is usually the latter that occurs with
creationists, even on their own echo.
>
>Funny, about three months ago. people complained about the
>same things you are complaining now...
I'm not complaining. I'm merely asking Chuck to answer some
direct questions about the position he's taken. I have pointed out to
Chuck that most of what he has to say has been answered. He has been
practicing a lot of denial here, but he hasn't offered SCIENTIFIC
ALTERNATIVES for us to consider. Since it is Chuck and his fellow
creationists who are saying things contrary to current scientific
thought, the burden of proof falls to them. They have, thus far,
failed to even ACCEPT this burden, let alone attempt to SCIENTIFICALLY
support what they are saying. Oh, they "say" a lot -- but it's mostly
denial. Denying evidence does not make it go away nor is it any less
evidence for that denial.
We need to see what the creationists offer in the way of
SCIENTIFIC ALTERNATIVES. As long as they either fail to provide them
or refuse to provide them, then it becomes clear even to the less
science-minded individual -- or the layperson who may be taken in by
their "scientific" SOUNDING arguments -- that there is no science to
creation "science."
Thanks for the note. Have a good day.
--- ZMailQ 1.10 @1:104/810.0
* Origin: Electronic Library HST Denver 303-935-6323 (1:104/810)
==!
==* HORN
FROM: Dave Horn
DATE: 19 Dec 91 08:43:00
TO: Fred Chromey
SUBJ: Re: A Creator And Evolution - Redundant, Incompatible Concept
>>> 1) Evolution is totally inconsitent with the
>>>character of God (design, love, plan ,purpose )
>
>Chuck, pray tell from whence you learn of God's design.
>Design, to most of us, implies a maker.
>
>>>2.) Scientifically , evolution and creation are the exact
>opposite in
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>their very conception, and are thus redundant.
> ^^^^
>How in heaven's name can you come up with this oxymoron?
I missed this! A good question: How can things that are the
antithesis of each other also be redundant? Chuck?
--- ZMailQ 1.10 @1:104/810.0
* Origin: Electronic Library HST Denver 303-935-6323 (1:104/810)
==!
==* HORN
FROM: Dave Horn
DATE: 19 Dec 91 09:00:00
TO: Jim Speiser
SUBJ: Re: Evidence For Creation Science
>In a message to Greg Hansen <14 Dec 91 16:47> Chuck Maier
>wrote:
>
>
> CM> I know I've done this, but let's try it again.
>Basically, we
> CM> assume that nature is full of *DISCONTINUOUS*
>phenonema; that the
> CM> Creator made things 'good' and with remarkable
>interdependence
>
>There you have it; Creationists assume what they're trying
>to prove, from the Beginning.
You betcha. When I deal with biology students with questions
about creationism, I point out that the creationists proceed from the
conclusion, rejecting all evidence that does not support the
conclusion. Not only is this bad science (if it is "science," at
all), it is bad religion.
"...from the Beginning." I like that. :-)
--- ZMailQ 1.10 @1:104/810.0
* Origin: Electronic Library HST Denver 303-935-6323 (1:104/810)
==!
==* HORN ARCHAEOPTERYX
FROM: Dave Horn
DATE: 19 Dec 91 09:11:00
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Unanswered Question
Chuck, I was waiting until you returned, but since you put in an
appearance on the 17th, I must assume that you will be checking in
every now and then as opposed to your claim that you would not be back
until after the New Year. Please respond to my questions, so that we
may move on to other questions that your messages have prompted. I am
especially interested in the creationists' SCIENTIFIC explanation for
the presence of avian and reptilian characteristics in _Arcaeopteryx_.
--- ZMailQ 1.10 @1:104/810.0
* Origin: Electronic Library HST Denver 303-935-6323 (1:104/810)
==!
==* SINCERO SECOND_LAW
FROM: Roscoe Sincero
DATE: 17 Dec 91 23:35:09
TO: Greg Hansen
SUBJ: Re: Evidence for Creation Science
Don't be fooled by Chuck M.'s 2nd law of thermo... IT is all garbage.
They (including Dr. Gish himself) couldn't explain how thermo provides
evidence for creationism and provides "anti-evidence" for evolution...
If Chuck M. talks about thermo, leave me a message...I would be
interested in what he says on it.... I have already taken Physical
Chemistry, Thermodynamics... I'm no Ph.D. but I know a little about
it...
--- GEcho/beta
* Origin: The North Star - FD/RA/GEcho - (410)263-1633 (1:261/1108)
==!
==* SPEISER
FROM: Jim Speiser
DATE: 18 Dec 91 10:12:01
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Evidence for Creation Science
In a message to Greg Hansen <14 Dec 91 16:47> Chuck Maier wrote:
CM> I know I've done this, but let's try it again. Basically, we
CM> assume that nature is full of *DISCONTINUOUS* phenonema; that the
CM> Creator made things 'good' and with remarkable interdependence
There you have it; Creationists assume what they're trying to prove,
from the Beginning.
Jim
---
* Origin: XRS/REMOTRON/PARANETsm/SCOTTSDALE, AZ (Quick 1:114/37.666)
==!
==* SINCERO KIND
FROM: Roscoe Sincero
DATE: 20 Dec 91 09:50:04
TO: Greg Hansen
SUBJ: Re: Evidence for Creation
You are asking to much of Chuck M. He won't in high possibilty give
you a definition of the word "kind"...I asked him that same question
last August....No answer....I asked him couple of times...I even told
him it is dishonest to use a word that he knows that no one knows its
meaning....
I read Gish's Evolution: the challenge of the fossil record. He
"defined" kind for you....The meaning of the word changes....In one
instance, kind means species...In another kind means family....In
another kind means genus... It is a debating tactic used by
creationists....
--- GEcho/beta
* Origin: The North Star - FD/RA/GEcho - (410)263-1633 (1:261/1108)
==!
==* RHORER
FROM: Leslie Rhorer
DATE: 21 Dec 91 02:40:01
TO: Greg Hansen
SUBJ: Re: Evidence for Creation Science
GH> (In a letter to Jim Gifford, 15-Dec-91.)
GH>
JG> I don't think the CvE argument belongs in here, period.
GH> >
GH> > Here, I agree. So far, none of the proponents of Creationism
GH> >on this echo have given any evidence that supports their hypotheses.
GH> >All they do is bash evolution, and when asked for mathematical and
GH> >factual support for their hypotheses, they change the subject.
GH>
GH> Creationists will sometimes say that evolutionists just don't
GH> take the time to learn about creation before they start bashing it.
GH> Well, I gave Chuck a chance to give all the support for creation
GH> that he cared to give. I don't know if you've been following it,
Yes, I've read all your mail to him. I do not read Chuck's
replies, and I refuse to do so until he answers the questions I posed
to him.
GH> he cannot give any criteria. And if you've been following it, when
GH> I asked for support for creation, he would continually attack some
GH> aspect of evolution. I really was hoping for better.
So was I. He seems to be a fairly well educated man. He
simply refuses to study anything that might undermine his faith, and
so continually makes a fool of himself by posting the most ludicrous
misinformation, and grasping at straws (not to mention straw men) that
point toward flaws, imagined or real, in the various evolutionary
models, for some silly reason thinking that such flaws strengthen his
position. The fact that evolutionary theory usually fits these
"flaws" better than his hypothesis seems to elude him. Convenient,
that.
Les
ERROR! Backup not found: Abort, Retry, Massive heart failure?_
--- EZPoint V2.1
* Origin: GUI? Ptui!!! --- Last Chance Pt 4 (1:387/823.4)
==!
==* HORN ARCHAEOPTERYX
FROM: Dave Horn
DATE: 22 Dec 91 09:46:03
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Still Waiting...
Seeing as how you again entered the forum on Dec. 19th, Chuck, I
remind you that I am still waiting for you to SCIENTIFICALLY explain
why _Archaeopteryx_ has both reptilian and avian characteristics --
since you dismiss that it is a transitional form (and, probably,
dismiss mosaic evolution and preadaptation, as well). I await your
response.
---
* Origin: WestWind "The Voice of the Rockies" (303) 758-7589 (1:104/429.0)
==!
==* HANSEN
FROM: Greg Hansen
DATE: 22 Dec 91 13:21:35
TO: Leslie Rhorer
SUBJ: Re: Evidence for Creation Science
GH> he cannot give any criteria. And if you've been following it, when
GH> I asked for support for creation, he would continually attack some
GH> aspect of evolution. I really was hoping for better.
>
> So was I. He seems to be a fairly well educated man. He simply
>refuses to study anything that might undermine his faith, and so
>continually makes a fool of himself by posting the most ludicrous
>misinformation, and grasping at straws (not to mention straw men) that
>point toward flaws, imagined or real, in the various evolutionary
>models, for some silly reason thinking that such flaws strengthen his
>position. The fact that evolutionary theory usually fits these "flaws"
>better than his hypothesis seems to elude him. Convenient, that.
I didn't think to mention this before, but if creationists are
correct in a literal interpretation of every part of the Bible,
that would necessarily mean we have been deluded by ignorant or
deliberately deceitful scientists worldwide for hundreds of years,
including those in such disciplines as:
Physics
Chemistry
Astronomy
Geology
Anthropology
Paleontology
Genetics
Evolutionary Biology (of course!)
and just about anything else beginning with Geo-, Paleo-, or Bio-.
And all because those scientists want to find a way to remove the
influence of God from their lives. That would make it a bigger hoax
than NASA, the round earth, and even World War II!
I generally find it more profitable to reject conspiracy-theories
out of hand. Especially if the conspirators are upholding the
antithesis of whatever special interest group brings the matter to our
attention.
But what do them scientists know, anyway? They were wrong about
crystal power, they were wrong about the flat earth, and by golly, I
think they're wrong about creation, too!
(Sorry, I'm just rambling. If you think it's inappropriate,
feel free to not continue this thread. But it's fun. After all
this time of taking creationists seriously in the hopes that they
have something relevant to say, I think I deserve it.)
--- Opus-CBCS 1.12
* Origin: Nick's Nest (612) 490-3415 - (612) 490-0341 HST (1:282/3.0)
==!
==* THOMPSON
FROM: John Thompson
DATE: 19 Dec 91 14:56:00
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Evidence For Creation Sci
CM> Well, if you're going to defend her in this way, I hope you will
CM> immediately jump to the defense of creationists when someone brings up
CM> creationists preconceived ideas. The truly scientific work is not in
CM> question.
I would be happy to do the same for the "creation scientists"; however,
their scientific work (or lack thereof) speaks for itself. In spite of
repeated requests from many people here to provide evidence SUPPORTING the
"creation model" all you seem able to offer is more "evolution bashing" and
religious rhetoric!
* KingQWK 0.11b # 39 * ERROR! Target Mind Not Open? Abort, Retry, Ignore?
--- SuperQWK 1.15 Gamma-4 (Reg)
* Origin: APPLEGATE; Appleton, WI. (COM2) (1:139/630)
==!
==* HANSEN
FROM: Greg Hansen
DATE: 23 Dec 91 08:18:59
TO: Todd Starcher
SUBJ: Re: Evidence for Creation Science
GH> I asked him to help establish some criteria for testing
GH> creation.
GH> What must be true in order for creation to be true? He stated that
GH> he cannot give any criteria. And if you've been following it, when
GH> I asked for support for creation, he would continually attack some
GH> aspect of evolution. I really was hoping for better.
>
>I wrote a reply to Dave Horn that say about the same thing I'm going to
>say now... Some things can be measured scientifically, and some (like
>God) cannot. So when you ask for a way to test creationistic science,
>even if it doesn't work out in the creationists favor, he can say
>either "Guess there's another theory that I need to come up with",
>or if there's really not another viable answer, what you guys hate to
>hear--"God did it". You just can't measure God scientifically, and if
>you deny that there is a God, then you're operating on a totally
>different wavelength than that of the creationist. q
Have I ever denied that God exists? Tell me what I have done
to give you that impression. Of course you cannot prove or
disprove the existance of God, but that did not become a factor
in my discussion with Chuck.
Chuck Maier's position was that creationism is a scientifically
valid theory, and furthermore, explains the data far better than
evolution. Therefore, I treated it as a scientifically valid
theory and asked for evidence. No matter _how_ God created
everything (and creationists will tell you that we cannot know
how), a Biblically accurate creation will leave some evidence.
I asked for that evidence, and all I got was frozen mammoths
and the fact that when something dies, it doesn't spring back to
life.
When I asked for criteria to test creation-- what must be true
for creation to be true, what will show creation false if it is
proven false-- Chuck told me he cannot give me any criteria.
If you can't test it, if it is not even in principle falsifiable,
then it isn't science. I gave Chuck (the resident expert on
creation, and probably the best advocate for creationism that
this echo has seen) as much time as he wanted and plenty of
prompting to come up with evidence or criteria, and drew a
disappointing blank.
Creationism is not science and is not supportable. That
answered my question, that's all I wanted to know.
--- Opus-CBCS 1.12
* Origin: Nick's Nest (612) 490-3415 - (612) 490-0341 HST (1:282/3.0)
==!
==* PARRINELLO
FROM: Pat Parrinello
DATE: 23 Dec 91 21:46:21
TO: Dave Horn
SUBJ: Re: Start Creationist Vs Evolutionist Exclusive Echo
DH> I don't watch "wrestling matches," Pat. I am involved as a person
DH> interested in the intellectual integrity of science as a whole and in our
DH> educational system. Okay? It's not fair to tar ANYBODY with the same
DH> brush. Some of us continually fight things such as creationism because we
DH> SINCERELY believe that it is a threat to scientific integrity and to our
DH> system of education. We all have our causes. This just doesn't happen to
DH> be one of yours I guess. Fair enough? But don't deride me and those who
DH> fight with me because you don't happen to agree with us about the
DH> importance of the issue. Fair enough?
As far as that stated above I couldent agree more. I'm perplexed though
that you missed my clandestine point. The playing field per say invites
more avid responses from both sides. I do notice that 'they' use amunition
out of your box but you (active anticreationist) never seem to scoop up the
bounty of ammunition available in the bible. Why was it left to me to point
out the sillyness in the following exchange with Chuck:
CM> Christ was purportedly not of the blood line of Adam. Thus,
CM> his walk is not a disproof of the fall because he was not from
CM> the same 'sample' .
PP> Only 1/2 true Chuck. Mary was indeed of Adam. Or are you saying He had
PP> a mother but was not of her blood?
CM> What will be YOUR VERDICT, Pat? cm.
PP> My verdict is that you should read Collisians(sp?) chapter 2 verse 8.
PP> Then you will see why I feel it not important to abue so much time on
PP> the C/E issue. I in fact see no conflict with evolution as the God made
PP> machine of change for everything in the universe. Not just man or animals
PP> or plants, but everything from elementary particles & forces to the now
PP> that we know. I think God is laid back & in no hurry at all. Why should He
PP> be? Change & motion are what allow us to precieve the universe. If
PP> everything were instant & static we would have no being at all.
------------
Well as you may have noted I have had no response from Chuck on this and
it is basicly because the ammo I used was in his camp and the very legs he
tries to stand on, or rather falsely stand on. Even the bible supports the
very idea of evolution if you read it and not 'read into it.'
One thing I also noted in your response was the absense of defense for your
foes. After all, I did say, and I quote myself:
"As for creationist my opinion is that they are just power hungry assholes."
Bottoms up!
-Pat-
--- MacWoof 1.2
* Origin: Is God subject to Murphys Law? (1:3812/20.2)
==!
==* THOMPSON EQUAL_TIME POLICY
FROM: John Thompson
DATE: 23 Dec 91 14:02:00
TO: Pat Parrinello
SUBJ: Start Creationist Vs Evol
PP> As for evolutionist, the knowledgable ones keep quiet & go on with
PP> work. Those who argue with creationist probably watch wrestling
PP> matches too. No one gets seriously hurt as the whole thing is a
PP> farce.
PP> -Pat-
I beg to differ.
Not only do I not watch wrestling matches, but as a biology teacher, I see
scientific creationism" as a direct and real threat to my profession -- not
as a farce. While I have no illusions about changing the minds of ardent
creationists like CM, I feel the fact that powerful positive evidence for
the legitimacy of evolution and the bankruptcy of creationism may be aired
here *JUST MIGHT* influence someone here *NOT* to give in to the deceptive
creationist clamor for "fair treatment" of both creationism and evolution in
the school classrooms. As a religion, creationism has NO place in the
public schools.
BTW, CM is now a charter member of my "TWITNAME" club. There is a limit to
my patience! I will, however, continue to discuss C vs E issues with other
people on this ECHO.
* KingQWK 0.11b # 39 * Evolution: the unifying principle of Biology!
--- SuperQWK 1.15 Gamma-4 (Reg)
* Origin: APPLEGATE; Appleton, WI. (COM2) (1:139/630)
==!
==* ENGLISH
FROM: Lawson English
DATE: 19 Dec 91 12:22:02
TO: Jim Speiser
SUBJ: Evidence for Creation Science
Jim Speiser writes in a message to Chuck Maier
JS> There you have it; Creationists assume what they're trying to
JS> prove, from the Beginning.
Lots of Science is based on theories that people assumed; in the
sucessful theories, many of the assumptions were proven correct.
However, the people that came after the original theorists may have
been more flexable in dealing with anomolies than their predecessors.
In the Creationists' case, there doesn't seem to be much flexability
anywhere, nor can there be, as the theory is based on a rigid
interpretation of a book that is thousands of years old, written in a
way, according to researchers that study the bible, that doesn't
remotely resemble what the Creationists' tradition says about how the
bible was written, etc.
In other words, the assumptions that the Creationists have are based
on assumptions about their source which have been proven wrong. This
is well-known in the world of Biblical Exegesis, so most Creationists
are aware, in the back of their mind, that their position is
untenable, even from a literary point-of-view, but they still persist
in presenting their arguments. That such people are, um, er,
close-minded, shouldn't surprise anyone.
Lawson
--- COUNTERPoint Silver 1.02
* Origin: Sith Happens... (1:300/7.88)
==!
==* THRUST
FROM: Dick Thrust
DATE: 18 Dec 91 12:18:08
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: Evidence for Creatio
+---------
CM|Yet, like so many other fundamental facts, we are left
CM|completely in the dark as to how something like this could
CM|occur.
CM|
CM|If you are satisfied with this sort of explanation and find
CM|it consistent with the stated facts of evolution theory ,
CM|then that is fine with me. I don't , and am simply
CM|pointing it out to Greg. cm
+---------
Why is it that the final retreat of creationists is: "If you evolutionists
can't explain EVERYTHING, then you can't explain ANYTHING, therefore
anything I say is equally valid".
___
X PQ-Under-Trial 2.12 X How many women with PMS does it take to change a light bulb
--- Maximus 2.00
* Origin: The CompuNet BBS - (416)769-3401 & (416)769-0022 (1:250/407)
==!
==* VERAA
FROM: Rich Veraa
DATE: 28 Dec 91 17:22:29
TO: Leslie Rhorer
SUBJ: Re: Start Creationist Vs Evol
A message from Leslie Rhorer to John Thompson was released into the
bitstream 26 Dec 91 03:20.
> JT> creationism and evolution in
> JT> the school classrooms. As a religion, creationism has NO place in the
> JT> public schools.
LR> Is that really what you meant to say, or was it a typo? If is IS
LR> what you meant to say, perhaps you would care to expand a bit on it? I
LR> do not see creation AS IT IS PRESENTED IN THIS ECHO, and certainly not
LR> as proposed as teaching materials by the fundamentalists I have
LR> encountered, as a religion. It takes as its support tenets which ARE
LR> falsifiable, and so rests within the realm of "natural history", not of
LR> religion.
Les, if creationism, AS IT IS PRESENTED IN THIS ECHO, were even
remotely scientific, Chuck Maiers would have realized that it's bunk
long ago. The only thing "scientific" about it is the adoption and
misapplication of a lot of scientific terms and selective
presentatioin of "evidence" not on the basis of any validity or
scientific merit, but as debating points. The whole enterprise is
anathema to science.
Cheers,
Rich
--- XCS & XAP 0.05
* Origin: Is this a bird I see before me? (1:135/907)
==!
==* SINCERO
FROM: Roscoe Sincero
DATE: 29 Dec 91 20:59:04
TO: Dave Horn
SUBJ: Still Waiting...
* In a message originally to Chuck Maier, Dave Horn said:
>DH Seeing as how you again entered the forum on Dec.
>DH 19th, Chuck, I remind you that I am still waiting for you
>DH to SCIENTIFICALLY explain why _Archaeopteryx_ has both
>DH reptilian and avian characteristics -- since you dismiss
>DH that it is a transitional form (and, probably, dismiss
>DH mosaic evolution and preadaptation, as well). I await your
>DH response.
>DH
You are really asking for a miracle...Chuck M. is in the denial
stage...He does not want to hear the truth nor does he want to talk
about it. He is satisfied with lies and he knows it so you won't get a
REAL response until he gets over this denial stage...
--- GEcho/beta
* Origin: The North Star - FD/RA/GEcho - (410)263-1633 (1:261/1108)
==!
==* SINCERO
FROM: Roscoe Sincero
DATE: 30 Dec 91 13:58:02
TO: Dave Horn
SUBJ: Start Creationist Vs Evolutionist Ex
* In a message originally to Pat Parrinello, Dave Horn said:
>DH pp>
>DH pp> DH> so much about being afforded. So let's hear the CREATIONIST
>DH pp> *SCIENTIFIC*
>DH pp> DH> explanation for the presence of these features in
>DH _Archaeopteryx_.
Well Chuck M. wrote a message to Todd S. concerning evolution again...However
I did not see a response to you from concerning the Archaeopteryx...Have you?
Also did not see his definition of the word "kind"...I do not know if
I told you think already but I asked Chuck M. what does "kind" mean
last August...He did not give me a definition and I made it known to
him that it would be dishonest of him to use the word "kind" knowing
full well that noone knows what it means...
If you haven't already, read Chuck M.'s post to Todd S. I just made a
quick glance over it, and it looks like he made the evolutionists the
bad guys--evolutionists are misleading people, etc...
--- GEcho/beta
* Origin: The North Star - FD/RA/GEcho - (410)263-1633 (1:261/1108)
==!
==* RHORER
FROM: Leslie Rhorer
DATE: 30 Dec 91 21:47:02
TO: Rich Veraa
SUBJ: Re: Start Creationist Vs Evol
LR> do not see creation AS IT IS PRESENTED IN THIS ECHO,
RV> and certainly not
LR> as proposed as teaching materials by the fundamentalists I have
LR> encountered, as a religion. It takes as its support tenets which ARE
LR> falsifiable, and so rests within the realm of
RV> "natural history", not of
LR> religion.
RV> Les, if creationism, AS IT IS PRESENTED IN THIS ECHO, were
RV> even remotely scientific, Chuck Maiers would have realized
RV> that it's bunk long ago. The only thing "scientific" about
RV> it is the adoption and misapplication of a lot of
RV> scientific terms and selective presentatioin of "evidence"
RV> not on the basis of any validity or scientific merit, but
RV> as debating points. The whole enterprise is anathema to science.
I agree entirely. Please re-read my post. I did not say that
Creationism is scientific, merely that it lies within the realm of
science to judge. If it WERE a valid religion, and were presented as
such (it is neither), then I would have no problem with teaching it AS
A RELIGION in public schools. However, it is NOT a religion, in the
sense that its tenets are fully falsifiable. That being the case, it
is fully within the realm of critique and judgement by scientists and
scientific investigation. As we have all seen, under that scrutiny
Creationism (as presented overwhelmingly in this echo) is just pure
bunk.
Les
ERROR! Backup not found: Abort, Retry, Massive heart failure?_
--- EZPoint V2.1
* Origin: GUI? Ptui!!! --- Last Chance Pt 4 (1:387/823.4)
==!
==* HORN
FROM: Dave Horn
DATE: 31 Dec 91 16:14:01
TO: Roscoe Sincero
SUBJ: Start Creationist Vs Evolutionist Ex
rs> * In a message originally to Pat Parrinello, Dave Horn
rs> said:
rs> >DH pp>
rs> >DH pp> DH> so much about being afforded. So let's hear the CREATIONIST
rs> >DH pp> *SCIENTIFIC*
rs> >DH pp> DH> explanation for the presence of these features in
rs> >DH _Archaeopteryx_.
rs> Well Chuck M. wrote a message to Todd S. concerning
rs> evolution again...However
rs> I did not see a response to you from concerning the
rs> Archaeopteryx...Have you?
No, Roscoe, I have not; but that won't stop me from asking again.
You see, I think that it's patently unfair for creationists to
confront science, science-minded people, and scientists and demand
that they must ask the questions. Consequently, I do not mind asking
questions of creationists. Since the creationists are the ones making
statements contrary to current thought (not to mention the evidence
gathered thus far), the burden of proof (or as much as science can
"prove" anything) falls to them. They must be prepared not only to
falsify evolution scientifically, but they must also be prepared to
provide a SCIENTIFIC alternative hypothesis. I have never met the
creationist who can do this. I am giving Chuck the chance to be that
first creationist. I elect to start with something a simple as
_Archaeopteryx_, an animal form believed by science to be intermediate
between reptiles and birds and a form that demonstrates physical
characteristics of both. Science explains the presence of these
characteristics by theorizing that _Archaeopteryx_ represents a
transition between these classes. Creationists deny that transitional
forms exist and deny that _Archaeopteryx_ represents such a
transition. That is the "denial" part of their argument. Now they
must present an alternative SCIENTIFIC explanation for the presence of
these characteristics in _Archaeopteryx_ -- at least, something other
than "G*d did it." Until Chuck or any other creationist is willing to
do that, they cannot claim to be speaking or theorizing
scientifically. Of course, they haven't even fulfilled the first
requirement with regard to _Archaeopteryx_, i.e., they have failed to
FALSIFY its transitional nature. Therefore, neither of the scientific
criteria with regard to _Archaeopteryx_ is fulfilled. With this
simple form alone, we are demonstrating the lack of science present in
the creationist rhetoric.
rs> Also did not see his definition of the word "kind"...I do
rs> not know if I told you think already but I asked Chuck M.
rs> what does "kind" mean last August...He
rs> did not give me a definition and I made it known to him
rs> that it would be dishonest of him to use the word "kind"
rs> knowing full well that noone knows what it means...
There is no clear-cut creationist definition of kind. In my
experience, "kind" can refer to just about anything depending on the
creationist and the position that he is trying to support. On the
creationist BIOGENESIS echo, a particularly unpleasant fellow has at
least TRIED to define "kind" as any two animal forms that possess the
capability to interbreed (which roughly parallels the biological
species concept). This "gentleman" would, therefore, categorize as a
"kind" any group of animals -- as demonstrably convenient to him -- up
to the classification of "family." He would actually wind up
reinventing the wheel, so to speak. However, since his entire argument
was based on the need to limit the number of "kinds" aboard the ark of
Noah to 35,000-50,000, and since I can tell you without even looking
(and as an evolutionary zoologist) that the number of "kinds,"
assuming we accept this definition, would still far outstrip the
required minimum needed for this classification scheme to fit his
"theory," it falls apart on that basis alone. Of course, among his
claims in reclassifying animals according to this scheme are the
production of viable offspring by mules, various species of the "dog
kind" and zebras and horses. All were claims made without reference,
of course...
rs> If you haven't already, read Chuck M.'s post to Todd S. I
rs> just made a quick glance over it, and it looks like he made
rs> the evolutionists the bad guys--evolutionists are
rs> misleading people, etc...
Since the DEMONSTRATED deception has always been from the
creationist camp, I am unimpressed by this sort of thing. I'd like to
see some examples of this wanton deception designed to bring plagues
and G*dly retribution upon us, but I never have. All I have ever seen
were the same old tired arguments regarding mistakes (corrected by
science, of course) and the old saw about "Piltdown man." Gimme a
break... ;-)
---
* Origin: WestWind "The Voice of the Rockies" (303) 758-7589 (1:104/429.0)
==!
==* HORN
FROM: Dave Horn
DATE: 31 Dec 91 16:24:02
TO: Roscoe Sincero
SUBJ: Still Waiting...
rs> * In a message originally to Chuck Maier, Dave Horn said:
rs> >DH Seeing as how you again entered the forum on Dec.
rs> >DH 19th, Chuck, I remind you that I am still waiting for you
rs> >DH to SCIENTIFICALLY explain why _Archaeopteryx_ has both
rs> >DH reptilian and avian characteristics -- since you dismiss
rs> >DH that it is a transitional form (and, probably, dismiss
rs> >DH mosaic evolution and preadaptation, as well). I await your
rs> >DH response.
rs> >DH
rs> You are really asking for a miracle...Chuck M. is in the
rs> denial stage...He does not want to hear the truth nor does
rs> he want to talk about it. He is satisfied with lies and he
rs> knows it so you won't get a REAL response until he
rs> gets over this denial stage...
A notoriously difficult task, you must admit, Roscoe.
I suppose I could forget all this and let Chuck bow out of the
echo silently, under cover of darkness and "I'll be back after the
holidays." I confess that when I saw that he wouldn't be around, I
suspected that he would simply slip away. I have seen this tactic
before. I'd hate to think that it would be MY FAULT if he sticks
around -- if only to defend his "religion" in this inappropriate
forum.
But Chuck has not even been able to resist the temptation to stay
away from the echo until after the holidays. He has returned on a
couple of occasions to take his pot-shots. As long as he's going to
behave in such a manner, he needs to know that those of us with our
many unanswered questions have not forgotten those questions. Nor
will we let him forget them. I would REALLY like to see an answer --
ANY answer will do, as long as it's scientifically tenable.
At any rate, it is unfair for the creationist to get on these
forums, shout questions to the rafters (though they never REALLY want
to hear the answers), and NOT EXPECT to be questioned. If they want
the fair hearing, let them provide a fair alternative. I haven't seen
it yet.
---
* Origin: WestWind "The Voice of the Rockies" (303) 758-7589 (1:104/429.0)
==!
==* STEVENS
FROM: Nick Stevens
DATE: 17 Dec 91 14:44:00
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: Creation vs. evolution - kingdoms in conflict
In a message to Frank Van.wensveen, Chuck Maier said:
CM> Creationists are not avoiding anything, unlike the
CM> constant caricatures and smear campaigns would imply. cm.
Lie. Pure and simple.
I have followed your missinformation campaign for some time, and have
come to the conclusion that you are not just some sort of whimsical
flat earther type, but are actively and malisciously pursueing the
propagation of your beliefs with no regard for truth.
You twist words and misquote those who answer your questions. Then you
just shove them up again as if they had never appeared at all. You get
facts wrong, draw conclusions that are invalid even from your wrong
facts, extrapolate them to global proportions, then finish up with
'the bible was right all along'. When faced with evidence that your
original 'facts' are wrong, you then claim this does not invalidate
the rest of your arguements. A particularly clear example of all the
above was the hilarious sequence starting with orientation of tree
stumps.
You have no interest in science. You have no interest in discussion.
This is the CM Propaganda machine, pure and simple. Nick
---
* Origin: Starbase One: 071-733-3992 THE Astronomy BBS. (2:440/407)
==!
==* STEVENS
FROM: Nick Stevens
DATE: 20 Dec 91 23:57:00
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: Chucks Bones And dialog munchies
In a message to Pat Parrinello, Chuck Maier said:
CM> More correctly, 'by nature' was innocent and made
CM> perfect by obedience. Christ was purportedly not of the
CM> blood line of Adam. Thus, his walk is not a disproof of the
CM> fall because he was not from
CM> the same 'sample' . He was a 'limited edition' human model,
CM> in theextreme
Then how come the bible, which you take as literally true, gives two
different lines of descent for JC, both through Joseph?
CM> Now no one should have to believe
CM> this without evidence. That is why the Resurrection - the
CM> ultimate proof that life is of supernatural origin - is the
CM> single most provable event of ancient history in terms of
CM> historical , legal documentation. By orders of magnitude.
CM> We have well over 20,000 N.T. documents from the early
CM> centuries in existence. The only other work with remotely
CM> close in terms of existing copies is the Iliad, with a few
CM> hundred. Do you believe in Aristotle , Pat? Why? Take a
CM> guess as to the latest extant copy of a work of Aristotle.
Scientific evidence for Christ. I love this one. Its something that
biblical literalists are very fond of bringing up, but they very
rarely go into detail, for the excellent reason that the evidence is
not what they imply. Evidence that the mythology is based on a real
person is very strong indeed, and few would believe that such a
character existed. This is therefore generalised with the usual lack
of justification into 'the bible is literally true.' The thousands of
docs you mention (and just how far back does 'early centuries' go?')
are frequently translations of translations of translations, and the
ones that aren't were suppressed by the early Christian church very
hard indeed. Of the 4 widely known accounts of the birth of Christ (2
gospels, old Jewish and Moslem) , the only factor they agree on is
that his parents were not married when he was born.
Lies, damn lies, and dogma.
Nick
---
* Origin: Starbase One: 071-733-3992 THE Astronomy BBS. (2:440/407)
==!
==* VAN_WENSVEEN
FROM: Frank Van.wensveen
DATE: 27 Dec 91 14:45:00
TO: Rich Veraa
SUBJ: Moon Dust [1/3]
> You're right of course.. I had just been frazzled
> reading a bunch of Chuck Maier's nonsense...
OK. That's an excuse I'll accept without hesitation. :-)
printf ("Greetings, Frank\n"); /* Sign off */
---
* Origin: CHS BBS, Zadkine college Rotterdam (2:285/504.1)
==!
==* STEVENS
FROM: Nick Stevens
DATE: 01 Jan 92 20:53:00
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: Evidence For Creation Sci
Once again you have got it wrong - the references in the second item
you quote refer specifically to SEDIMENTARY rocks. And all the oldest
rocks are igneous stuff like granite. (I welcome corrections from a
geologist, but am pretty sure I am right).
Therefore there is no contradiction at all - the sedimentary rocks
formed well after life had changed the atmosphere to something like
its current composition. Which says nothing of the primordial
composition at all.
Liars, damned liars, and creationists...
Nick
---
* Origin: Starbase One: 071-733-3992 THE Astronomy BBS. (2:440/407)
==!
==* RHORER
FROM: Leslie Rhorer
DATE: 09 Jan 92 10:16:43
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: A single piece of evidence for creation prediction
CM> More of Les...
CM>
LR> Despite repeated requests for even a SINGLE piece of evidence that
LR> confirms the predictions of creationism, we have yet to see any such
LR> evidence. For that matter, we have yet to have anyone provide a
CM> Well just what do you consider my recent posts on the
CM> early atmosphere?
I haven't seen them. I mean no direct disrespect, Chuck, but
I am not going to reply to any more of your questions until you answer
mine. If you've forgotten them, I have them saved on disk. As to the
remaining statements in your post, they are as devoid of factual
evidence as the rest of your posts have been.
Les
ERROR! Backup not found: Abort, Retry, Massive heart failure?_
--- EZPoint V2.1
* Origin: GUI? Ptui!!! --- Last Chance Pt 4 (1:387/823.4)
==!
==* TACO
FROM: Lloyd Taco
DATE: 09 Jan 92 16:43:32
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Origin Of Life Myths
Actually, there are several ideas about the origins of life that don't
require any knowledge about the atmosphere... Obviously we can't
decide which one is true, but I favour the clay/crystal model.
Essentially it states that in the oceans and subterranean water
systems there were clays which formed into crystal lattices (or
something similar), and their growth, chemical replenishment, and
reproduction by a crystal seed allowed them to behave like living
things... When some of these clays developed a more efficient way of
storing the seed crystal on proteins, proteins became organized like
life. DNA was a rather complex development, but it could happen quite
easily, given enough time. After that, evolution proceeds as normal.
--- Maximus 2.00
* Origin: Home Of Ed The Superstring (1:163/207.999)
==!
==* ELSBERRY
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry
DATE: 13 Jan 92 18:56
TO: All
SUBJ: CM follies 1:3
EID:6560 182e0004
Since Chuck's memory concerning his correspondence with Marty Leipzig seems
to be (ahem) incomplete, I will here take appropriate excerpts from the
burgeoning CMWDB. CMWDB? That's...
---> The Chuck Maier Whopper Database <---
Release 1.01, 25 November 1991
-----------
SCIENCE Area 09:44 Thursday 7-Nov-91
From: MARTY LEIPZIG
To: CHUCK MAIER
Re: Coconino sandstone: Round 1
...Chuck Maier, whose reality check just bounced, says to Marty Leipzig
CM> Well, either they were made underwater , or they were not. I suggest
CM> these creatures found a calm spot during a lull in the Flood. Or
CM> maybe they were skittering away from a huge dune which was coming
CM> their way.
Yeah, you really have to watch those floods of sand coming at
you...
Unfortunately, most of the ichnofauna of the Cocnoino is composed of
reptile trails and trackways, of a very diverse nature. There are not
only locomotory trackways, but feeding and hunting trackways and
other such trackways indicative of rather arid environment behavior.
I know this seems like a minor objection, but it is quite incisive as
amphibians and reptiles exploit quite different niches; amphibians are
tied to an aqueous environment while reptiles are not.
Further, claiming that certain trackways that were made while the sand
was wet resemble some of those found in the Coconino in no way
invalidates the bulk of the evidence that they were indeed dune sands.
As cited in Davis, 1983, (Depositional System), Stokes (1968) notes the
processes forming bounding surfaces in aeolian dunes. From the
development of the initial dune field, to encroachment of the water
table, removal of sand to the water table (soggy sand here, Chuck,
amply wet for footprints as you describe above), to the re-
establishment of a second dune field. One experimental occurrence of
footprints that look like they may have been made while the sand was
wet in no way invalidates the overwhelming data indicating that the
Coconino was an aeolian sand (more about soon).
CM> Exhibit 'B' in today's testimony is a paper by Freeman, William E.,
CM> and Visher, Glenn S., Stratigraphic Analysis of The Navajo Sandstone,
CM> Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 45, no. 3 pp 651-668 sept 1975.
CM> They list a number of factors as evidences against desert-aeolian
CM> deposition:
Totally irrelevant. We are discussing the Coconino, not the Navajo.
[more deleted for brevity]
CM> The Navajo is located in north-central Nevada, and is an
CM> upper-triassic bed. Is that about the same "age" as the coconino,
CM> Marty?
Not even close, Chuck. The Navajo is Upper Triassic, the Coconino is
Permian...more than just a few million years difference.
------------
SCIENCE Area 12:23 Monday 4-Nov-91
From: MARTY LEIPZIG
To: CHUCK MAIER
Re: Yellowstone stumps, Lewis Overthrust
...Chuck Maier, trying valiantly again, says to Marty Leipzig
ML> Wrong again, Chuck. How about the deposition of the Solnhofen
ML> Lithographic Limestone? Or the 2000 m. of the Lewis Shale? Or
CM> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ unfamiliar w/ thisone ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Not surprised. Just two of the most heavily worked formations in
the world. FYI, Chuck, Archeopteryx was found in the Jurassic
Solnhofen Limestone of Bavaria.
-------------
==!
==* LEIPZIG
Public message 519 SCIENCE Area 11:15 Monday 4-Nov-91
From: MARTY LEIPZIG
To: CHUCK MAIER
Re: Polystrates, pine trees in coal
...Chuck Maier, stuck in a swamp, says to Marty Leipzig
CM> In a more strictly catastrophic model we're
CM> talking about single fossils that extend vertically through strata
CM> supposedly laid down over thousands or millions of years (i.e a
CM> nautiloid vertically deposited along a riverbank, or a tree vertically
CM> deposited in a coal bed).
A nautiloid in a riverbank would be of considerable interest,
Chuck...they're marine organisms, not fluvial.
-------------
--- TPBoard 6.1
* Origin: C.N.S.: ftp me.uta.edu:/pub/neural (509-WIN-1CNS) (1:347/303)
SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
PATH: 347/303
==!
==* ELSBERRY
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry
DATE: 13 Jan 92 18:58
TO: All
SUBJ: CM follies 2:3
EID:6590 182e0005
SCIENCE Area 08:51 Monday 4-Nov-91
From: MARTY LEIPZIG
To: CHUCK MAIER
Re: Formation of the Grand Canyon, Supai interp.
...Chuck Maier, back from a weekend debauch, says to Marty Leipzig
CM> sort of
CM> like a peneplane, eh? A surface along which no visible erosion has
CM> occurred ... where does that happen in the present world?!
Chuck...I'm really wearying of teaching you basic Geology.
A peneplain (please, again, note spelling), a term introduced by
Davis in 1889, refers to a low, nearly featureless, gently
undulating land surface of considerable area, produced by the
processes of long continued subaerial erosion, primarily
mass-wasting and sheetwash on interstream areas of a mature
landscape).
The term (although you probably won't acknowledge this) has
been extended to geomorphology to include surfaces produced by
marine, aeolian and glacial erosion; although many topographic
surface interpreted to be peneplains are actually pediplains
and panplains.
Your definition is lacking, Chuck. As are your arguments.
--------------
SCIENCE Area 08:22 Monday 4-Nov-91
From: MARTY LEIPZIG
To: CHUCK MAIER
Re: Formation of the Grand Canyon
...Chuck Maier, back from a weekend debauch, says to Marty Leipzig
CM> But these dunes are dozens of feet high, and the grains are
CM> such size that we'd be talking about water hundreds of feet deep
CM> moving at several feet per second to deposit these grains. Now what
CM> kind of scenario is that? FLOOD! FLOOD! FLOOD!
FANTASY! FANTASY! FANTASY! is a more descriptive rejoinder.
Water moving at several feet/second does not deposit sand, it
transports it as the saltational or bed load. Water several
hundred feet deep moving at several (please quantify 'several')
feet/second will not deposit much of anything. That's upper
flow regime...and that phase is erosional. Simple hydraulics
and sedimentology.
-------------
SCIENCE Area 07:56 Monday 4-Nov-91
From: MARTY LEIPZIG
To: CHUCK MAIER
Re: Formation of the Grand Canyon
...Chuck Maier, back from a weekend debauch, says to Marty Leipzig
ML> CM> followed by a less extensive catastrophe which
ML> CM> laid down the Snebley Hill formation,
ML>
ML> Chuck, you can't even follow your own stream of illogic. Above
ML> you say a huge catastrophe laid down the shale, then you say it
ML> was a less extensive catastrophe. Well, Chuck, which is it? It
CM>
CM> Let's see... all I know is the Snebley Hill formation exists ..
That's it? That's all you know about this particular formation?
Then how does this qualify you to make any sort of statements
about its deposition and (dare say I?) genesis?
CM> judging by your comments, it must be shale too, right? Well then,
CM> there was a bigger pile that washed into the Central Ariz. area
CM> (snebley hill). Is there anything that would preclude fine grained
CM> sand from Utah or Wyoming getting washed in there and looking like a
CM> stream deposit. Just what sort of depositional environment (stream,
CM> river, beach?) for this shale?
Chuck, read carefully...a fine grained sand is NOT A SHALE! Nor
will it ever be! Mud and silt, after diagenesis, becomes shale.
Sand (fine grained or not) becomes sandstone.
Sand is a term used by geologists as an exact size term. It is
coarser (by definition) that the muds and silts of shale.
Therefore, it is deposited in a more energetic (relatively
speaking) environment than the finer grained clasts of mud and
silt. Chuck, this is extremely elementary geology. I don't mind
destroying your arguments, but I don't think that I should
first have to educate you in what you're arguing.
-------------
--- TPBoard 6.1
* Origin: C.N.S.: ftp me.uta.edu:/pub/neural (509-WIN-1CNS) (1:347/303)
SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
==!
==* ELSBERRY
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry
DATE: 13 Jan 92 19:00
TO: All
SUBJ: CM follies 3:3
EID:a5c1 182e000c
SCIENCE Area 07:42 Monday 4-Nov-91
From: MARTY LEIPZIG
To: CHUCK MAIER
Re: Formation of GC;redwall/muav unc.
...Chuck Maier, upset over unconformities, says to Marty Leipzig
CM> I've seen good closeup pictures in there, and
CM> it's almost impossible to distinguish between the beginning and ending
CM> of these beds.
Almost impossible? Geologists the world over do it day in and day out.
It's called the science of Geology..
CM> Nobody, based on the empirical physical evidence,
CM> would postulate 150 mys for between flatlying layers like this.
Does your empirical evidence include biostratigraphy, field
mapping and stratigraphy?
CM> 150 mys of weathering over the redwall limestone (98% CaCO3) should
CM> have been plenty of time for solution of the limestone - pitting, cave
CM> formation, extension erosion and reworking of the formation. There's
CM> no soil profile, no plant roots, no worm burrows - something should
CM> have happened here over the course of this unimaginable length of
CM> time.
Wrong! The contact of the Redwall and superincumbant strata is
an undulating line that is the profile of the of the former
erosion surface, perhaps somewhat modified by wave action of
the shoreline that advanced over it during submergence. That is
quite apparent from simple observation.
--------------
SCIENCE Area 05:38 Saturday 26-Oct-91
From: MARTY LEIPZIG
To: CHUCK MAIER
Re: Formation of the Grand Canyon
-=> Quoting Chuck Maier to Marty Leipzig <=-
CM> As I understand it, there is a 600 foot thick sequence (Snebley
CM> Hill formation of Colorado ) between the Hermit Shale and the Coconino
CM> Sandstone in Colorado, but not in the G.C., where the Hermit Shale and
CM> Coconino sandstone are conformable layers. I would interpret this as
CM> a huge catastrophe which laid down the shale, during or shortly after
CM> the year of the flood,
Error! Shale is a fine grained sedimentary deposit, deposited
in slow moving or static water, not a "catastrophe", as you put
it. Wrong.
---------------------
---> End of [excerpts from] the Chuck Maier Whopper Database <---
This database is available as CHUCK.DB on Central Neural System.
Additional info is available in the file, R2CHUCK.ARJ, which contains many
detailed responses to Chuck Maier on various topics and also includes
several of the requests for information which have been presented to Chuck
but ignored. This file is available from the Central Neural System BBS for
download (in the SCI area) or F'req. CNS is 1:347/303, 509-WIN-1CNS (509-
946-1267). CNS also has some very good files on the evolution vs. SciCre
debate, such as Marty Leipzig's exhaustive bibliography, J.W. Merritt's
Frequently Asked Questions file from the Usenet talk.origins newsgroup, and
my own extremely basic genetic algorithm demonstration program
(GENALG.ARJ).
If there is a Chuck Maier-ism that you would like to add to the database,
simply append it to some evolution related post in the Science Echo,
netmail it to me at 1:347/303 (509-946-1267), send it to
elsberry@cse.uta.edu, or snail-mail me a disk (to P.O. Box 1187, Richland,
WA 99352) and arrange it like the following example:
For the Chuck Maier Whopper Database:
In a message of 17-Oct-91, CHUCK MAIER tells us:
> He's a big fan of old Von Baer ( the originator of 'ontogeny recaps.
> phylogeny').
Haeckel coined the phrase, "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny".
Reference: Gould, S.J. 198?. Ontogeny And Phylogeny. W.W. Norton.
End of example entry.
Specific items requested:
Rebuttal for Chuck's "evolution is pure chance" whopper
Rebuttal for Chuck's "here's a class-level relation" when the example
he gave was a kingdom-level relation
Quoted segment from Chuck asking for speciation evidence
Rebuttal for Chuck's "macroevolution isn't speciation" whopper
--- TPBoard 6.1
* Origin: C.N.S.: ftp me.uta.edu:/pub/neural (509-WIN-1CNS) (1:347/303)
SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
PATH: 347/303
==!
==* MARKOWITZ
FROM: Maury Markowitz
DATE: 19 Dec 91 12:19:00
TO: Pat Parrinello
SUBJ: Evolution won't work
On 12-17-91, Pat Parrinello wrote to Maury Markowitz:
>-------------------------------------
Betcha Lil' Chuck Maiershington tries to chop it down!
>-------------------------------------
HA! He did by the way...
Maury
___----
This copy of Freddie 1.0 is being evaluated.
--- Maximus 2.00
* Origin: bought some powdered water.I don't know what to add. (1:250/710)
==!
==* BRAZEE
FROM: Howard Brazee
DATE: 11 Jan 92 10:05:32
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: A single piece of evidence for creation prediction
CM>Well just what do you consider my recent posts on the early
CM>atmosphere? Using physical atmospheric chemistry, empirical
CM>geologic research, it is readily shown that the atmosphere has
CM>probably been essentially the same as it is now. That's the
CM>empirical evidence. Completely inconsistent with the myth we've
CM>been taught for the last 30 years, but completely consistent
CM>with the predictions of creationists.
Nobody doubts that the atmosphere 20,000 years ago was like it is now.
Any evidence that the atmosphere of 20,000,000 years ago is like it is
now is completely inconsistant to a model of a 20,000 year old
universe.
Pretend that we believe that an alien wolf created the earth
20,000,000 years ago and there were no Bible, nor Bible derived
literature. But we are willing to accept scientific evidence to
change our minds. What evidence can you supply to lead us to conclude
various features of Genesis 1 or 2?
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: phone Brazee <104/316.17> (1:30072/0.17)
==!
==* ELSBERRY
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry
DATE: 13 Jan 92 18:53
TO: All
SUBJ: Chuck Maier's fallacies
EID:c0fe 182dbf7c
In a message to Nick Stevens, Chuck Maier says:
[Begin quote]
Public message 806 SCIENCE Area 13:13 Sunday 5-Jan-92
From: CHUCK MAIER
To: NICK STEVENS
Re: Chucks Bones And dialog munchies
...
ns> ...a clear example was the hilarious sequence starting with
ns> the orientation of tree stumps.
Yes, Marty is a funny guy. I laugh at all his messages. Other than that, I
thought it was funny that he originally disputed 1) that there were stumps
being deposited in an upright fashion (later positively confirmed by Henry
Shaw as well) 2) that there were uprooted trees at yellowstone (which he
later stated was wrong - there were some of both).
These are not insignificant points
and illustrate why I don't hesitate to question the speculations of even the
most experienced scientists and all of the 'facts of science' not seriously
questioned by any serious scientific worker.
I've got three books here written by highly qualified and experienced
evolutionists, much moreso than anyone here, that plainly argue that the
Neo-Mendelism stated here as 'fact' is plainly false. I guess you can believe
whatever you want, Nick. cm.
--- Maximus-CBCS v1.02
Origin: Check Source BBS (1:233/13)
[End quote]
One can believe whatever one wants, and one could also pursue scientific research, which is not about "beliefs".
What Chuck apparently does not believe in is accurate representation. From the above-quoted text, one might get the mistaken impression that Chuck Maier provided a verbally humbling experience for a befuddled and confused Marty Leipzig. Psychologists might term that scenario "wish fulfillment" for Chuck, but about the only context in which that may have happened so far is in Chuck's daydreams, as the next three messages will plainly demonstrate.
There is something seriously warped in anyone who laughs at a series of
messages which amply display the profundity of that person's ignorance.
Anyway, the three messages following are excerpts from the Chuck Maier Whopper Database (CMWDB), which are comprised of snippets from the responses of Marty Leipzig to some of Chuck Maier's more egregious errors.
--- TPBoard 6.1
* Origin: C.N.S.: ftp me.uta.edu:/pub/neural (509-WIN-1CNS) (1:347/303)
SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
==!
==* LEIPZIG
FROM: Marty Leipzig
DATE: 14 Jan 92 08:02:03
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: The end of an era
...Chuck Maier said to Nick Stevens:
ns> ...a clear example was the hilarious sequence starting with
ns> the orientation of tree stumps.
CM>
CM> Yes, Marty is a funny guy. I laugh at all his messages.
Well, is this not a revelation? One makes a valid and valiant
attempt to seriously answer questions posed by someone, who by
his own admission, hasn't a shred of scientific education, and
this is the result. Ah, as they say, pearls before swine.
CM> Other than
CM> that, I thought it was funny that he originally disputed 1) that there
CM> were stumps being deposited in an upright fashion (later positively
CM> confirmed by Henry Shaw as well)
Oh, yes. That's right...that's where Mr. Shaw pointed out how
you go on "...spreading half-truths, providing incomplete
references and citing out of contex." Ah, yes.
CM> 2) that there were uprooted trees at
CM> yellowstone (which he later stated was wrong - there were some of
CM> both).
Not only do you not have a clue as to what science is or how it
operates, your memory is either quite faulty or very selective.
I never disputed that these stumps and trees existed (remember
Chuck, I was there...can you say the same?). What I disputed
was your (actually, not really yours; you're just parroting
what Austin wrote) mechanism for this deposition, their significance
to your constant (although inevitably futile) attempts to
discredit science, and interpretations of how this event could
be applied to the rock record.
While we're at it Chuck, care to tell us poor, misguided
scientists all about fluvial nautiloids? Or how sand is
magically transmuted into a shale? Or all about the Snebley
Hill formation, which "...all I know is that it exists..."?
Now do you hear the laughter?
Ah, well, Chuck. I can see that you have accomplished your
primary goal (and the goal of others of your "KIND").
That is if you can't win an argument on logical grounds, you can
always denigrate it and drag it into the morass of
the ad hominem and insinuation. I refuse to accompany you on
your short trip into denigration. I have stated many times
before that if you had legitimate geological questions, I would
do my best to answer them. Sorry, Chuck. That offer just
expired. Congratulations. Continue on this path and soon you'll
have only yourself with which to rant.
P.S. Save the bandwidth that you were going to use for a reply.
It won't be read.
... Draw from your fine command of language and say nothing.
--- Blue Wave/Max v2.01
* Origin: HST/DS/v32bis 713-589-0308 (1:106/500.0)
==!
==* GIWER
FROM: Matt Giwer
DATE: 16 Jan 92 15:59:00
TO: Howard Brazee
SUBJ: Re: a single piece of evi
HB CM>Well just what do you consider my recent posts on the early
HB CM>atmosphere? Using physical atmospheric chemistry, empirical
HB CM>geologic research, it is readily shown that the atmosphere has
HB CM>probably been essentially the same as it is now. That's the
HB CM>empirical evidence. Completely inconsistent with the myth we've
HB CM>been taught for the last 30 years, but completely consistent
HB CM>with the predictions of creationists.
HB Nobody doubts that the atmosphere 20,000 years ago was like it is now.
HB Any evidence that the atmosphere of 20,000,000 years ago is
HB like it is now is completely inconsistant to a model of a
HB 20,000 year old universe.
Something interesting. For the last 13 years on the Boards I
have been trying to get some sense through to creationists. However,
in the last year a new lie has surfaced in their repatoire, that
evolution is only 30 years old.
If anyone has any idea where this new lie started I would be very
happy to have a reference to it.
---
* SLMR 2.1a * Free speech is worth what you pay for it.
--- TosScan 1.00
* Origin: The DreamLand Express St.Pete, FL 813-821-8099 (1:3603/30)
==!
==* GIWER
FROM: Matt Giwer
DATE: 16 Jan 92 15:59:00
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: a single piece of evi
HB CM>Well just what do you consider my recent posts on the early
HB CM>atmosphere? Using physical atmospheric chemistry, empirical
HB CM>geologic research, it is readily shown that the atmosphere has
HB CM>probably been essentially the same as it is now. That's the
HB CM>empirical evidence. Completely inconsistent with the myth we've
HB CM>been taught for the last 30 years, but completely consistent
HB CM>with the predictions of creationists.
HB Nobody doubts that the atmosphere 20,000 years ago was like it is now.
HB Any evidence that the atmosphere of 20,000,000 years ago is
HB like it is now is completely inconsistant to a model of a
HB 20,000 year old universe.
Something interesting. For the last 13 years on the Boards I
have been trying to get some sense through to creationists. However,
in the last year a new lie has surfaced in their repatoire, that
evolution is only 30 years old.
If anyone has any idea where this new lie started I would be very
happy to have a reference to it.
---
* SLMR 2.1a * Free speech is worth what you pay for it.
--- TosScan 1.00
* Origin: The DreamLand Express St.Pete, FL 813-821-8099 (1:3603/30)
==!
==* ELSBERRY
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry
DATE: 18 Jan 92 09:34
TO: All
SUBJ: CM Replies
EID:94e7 1832bf78
I've gotten correspondence via Internet from Chuck Maier. He sent quite a bit of material in support of his comments here last week. I am making the file available as CHUCK_RB.LZH in the SCI section of CNS, ready for F'Req at 1:347/303 or download at 509-WIN-1CNS.
--- TPBoard 6.1
* Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (509-WIN-1CNS) (1:347/303)
SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
PATH: 347/303
==!
==* THOMPSON
FROM: John Thompson
DATE: 17 Jan 92 23:09:00
TO: All
SUBJ: Early Atmosphere Issues
I see our resident creationist apologist is back with his curious
perversions of fact and logic...
In a message to Howard Brazee, Matt Giwer quoted Chuck Maier:
MG> CM>Well just what do you consider my recent posts on the early
MG> CM>atmosphere? Using physical atmospheric chemistry, empirical
MG> CM>geologic research, it is readily shown that the atmosphere has
MG> CM>probably been essentially the same as it is now. That's the
MG> CM>empirical evidence. Completely inconsistent with the myth we've
MG> CM>been taught for the last 30 years, but completely consistent
MG> CM>with the predictions of creationists.
Since this geologic research concerning the composition of the
primordial atmosphere is apparently the favored, nay, virtually the
*ONLY* evidence of any scientific merit offered here in support of the
"creation model" it may be appropriate to evaluate this matter some
more. Several points come to mind immediately:
1. The composition of the primordial atmosphere remains a controversial
issue. While there may be some evidence that suggests that molecular
oxygen was a component of the early atmosphere, there is also
considerable evidence that it was not. It is not appropriate to simply
dismiss this evidence because it does not happen to fit with a
preconceived notion that the early atmosphere was essentially identical
to the present atmosphere.
2. Geological evidence of oxidizing conditions does not necessarily mean
global distribution of free O2. The evidence of primordial molecular
oxygen may also reflect local, rather than global conditions of free O2,
perhaps due to local populations of early photosynthesizing organisms.
This, too, cannot be dismissed out of hand.
3. Even evidence of global primordial free O2 distribution does not
necessarily mean that primordial O2 concentrations were the same as
present O2 concentrations (as required by the "creation model"). The
observed geological evidence of free O2 might be accounted for by O2
concentrations at only a small fraction of the present concentration.
This of course would preclude the presence of any terrestrial animals
during this early period, in direct contradiction to the "creation
model".
4. If it is eventually established that a significant concentration of
globally distributed free O2 was a component of the primordial
atmosphere, this only eliminates *SOME* (not all!) proposed mechanisms
for abiogenesis; BUT it does *NOT* invalidate the principle of evolution,
which is *AN ENTIRELY SEPARATE ISSUE*. While the Miller-Urey model for
abiogenesis requires a reducing atmosphere, other models do not. Sidney
Fox's proteinoid microspheres, for example, are routinely synthesized in
open glassware in today's oxidizing atmosphere -- there is no reason to
suspect they could not have done so in a primordial oxidizing atmosphere.
5. A single piece of evidence that *MAY* be consistent with the "creation
model" is not adequate to establish creationism as a scientifically
credible alternative to abiogenesis and evolution. Much more work would
need to be done to precisely define terms (e.g. "created kind") and
mechanisms (e.g. "flood geology"), and show how creationism is consistent
with other scientific knowledge (e.g. the age of the universe and the
earth, the fossil record, relationships between various organisms, etc.).
Until that time, there is no compelling reason to not treat "scientific
creationism" as just another crackpot theory inflicted on us by zealous
believers.
All in all, it should be obvious that (in spite of his assertions to
the contrary) not only is this evidence Chuck Maier has given us quite
consistent with organic evolution and at least some models of
abiogenesis, it also offers only marginal and indirect support for his
favored theory of "scientific creation". It is not at all clear why
this evidence should lead us to accept his "theory" as a credible
alternative to abiogenesis and evolution, much less as preferable to
them!
* KingQWK 0.11b # 39 * Evolution: the unifying principle of Biology!
--- SuperQWK 1.15 (Reg)
* Origin: APPLEGATE; Appleton, WI. (COM2) (1:139/630)
==!
==* ELSBERRY
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry
DATE: 19 Jan 92 18:51
TO: All
SUBJ: CM follies, reprise
EID:5730 18340004
WRE> For the Chuck Maier Whopper Database:
WRE>
WRE> In a message of 17-Oct-91, CHUCK MAIER tells us:
WRE>
WRE> CM> He's a big fan of old Von Baer ( the originator of 'ontogeny
WRE> recaps.
WRE> CM> phylogeny').
WRE>
WRE> Haeckel coined the phrase, "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny".
WRE>
WRE> Reference: Gould, S.J. 198?. Ontogeny And Phylogeny. W.W. Norton.
CM> Have you even heard of Von Baer? Ever read so much as a
CM> quote about what he had to say on the subject? Have you
CM> included his four laws in your meticulous documentation of
CM> the matter? I can only imagine that you are completely
CM> ignorant of all of this. I'm sure you realize that many
CM> people who originate ideas ultimately do not get credit
CM> for them.
Chuck has really outdone himself here. Non-sequitur leading into ad
hominem, then finishing with a straw man as piece de resistance. Nice job,
Chuck! It doesn't matter whether Von Baer originated the ideas or not,
since Chuck cited the phrasing (in quotes, no less, so we couldn't fail to
notice), and the phrasing is indisputably Haeckel's.
As I have attempted to explain to Chuck before, there is a difference
between citing a conspicuous phraseology and citing the precursor concepts
behind that phraseology. If Chuck wishes to simply plead sloppy phrasing,
that's fine with me, but it is still an error. Chuck remains an unreliable source of biological information.
Then, there is the point that Chuck keeps repeating: "You guys don't read
the SciCre literature, so you don't understand what we SciCre'ers are
doing." In this case, though, it becomes apparent that Chuck hasn't kept
up with his dogma. I'm not the only person who can distinguish between Von
Baer and Haeckel, at least given the contents of Boardman, Koontz, and
Morris (1973. Science and Creation. CSRC.) pp. 76-77.
WRE> Specific items requested:
WRE> Rebuttal for Chuck's "macroevolution isn't speciation" whopper
CM> If you'd read the books in your own bibliography,
CM> rather than continually defiling our screens with it,
CM> you'd see that evolutionists do not equate known
CM> speciation events with the "larger events of
CM> macroevolution" .
Chuck stated that macroevolution did not include speciation. Biologists
do. Thus, the "larger events of macroevolution" would be those
transitions at greater than species taxonomic levels, which would indicate
that speciation, as the lowest level transition considered to be
macroevolution, would by definition not be one of the "larger events".
Just another example of Chuck's adroit verbal misdirection.
CM> Those of you who continually cite this
CM> or that speciation event, claiming that evolution is a
CM> fact, completely mislead the uninformed reader these
CM> events prove anything at all. See also my rebuttals to
CM> the WRE Whopperbase.
Speaking of misleading, Chuck here states that some of us have cited
speciation as evidence that evolution is a fact. Given that evolution is a
change in allele frequency in a population, it is obvious that speciation
is not necessary to demonstrate evolution. The speciation events were
cited (as Chuck's memory conveniently ignores) to demonstrate that
macroevolution (as defined by biologists) occurs, contrary to Chuck's
ravings.
WRE> Rebuttal for Chuck's "here's a class-level relation" when the
WRE> example
CM> include also Leslie Rhorer's not infrequent mistakes in
CM> such areas.
If Leslie refused to admit his errors, then repeated them later, and also
used non sequiturs, ad hominems, misdirection, and straw men to the extent
that Chuck has done, I'd be happy to establish a similar system of
egregious quotes for Leslie. Happily, though, Chuck is the only person
currently active on the Echo for which such drastic neasures seem to be
necessary. Mike Vest and Andrew Laska looked like they might have been
contenders for a while, but they are nowhere near Chuck Maier's class.
I'll note here that the CM rebuttal file doesn't actually rebut any portion
of the CMWDB. For example, Chuck's "rebuttal" of Henry Shaw's comments on
quoting out of context consisted of the observation that Henry did not
correct everyone else in such detail. Chuck can't seem to understand that
pointing out any specific error does not imply a responsibility to point
out all, nor should it. If Chuck would eschew such errors, he would catch
no flak at all, and we all would feel much more comfortable here.
--- TPBoard 6.1
* Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (509-WIN-1CNS) (1:347/303)
SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
==!
==* ELSBERRY
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry
DATE: 19 Jan 92 18:47
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: More CM whoppers
EID:a6b9 1833bf7b
> ML> ...Chuck Maier said to Nick Stevens:
> ML>
> ML> ns> ...a clear example was the hilarious sequence starting with
> ML> ns> the orientation of tree stumps.
> to: WRE
>
> For all your effort, you didn't cite one message
> related to my specific comments. As you may recall, ML
> asked for an explanation of
> 1) Grand canyon features, which u cited 2) gulf coast features
> 3) and coal and cyclothems , which is where the upright
> trees spirit lake and yellowstone got involved.
>
> I'm sure you will grace the readers by uploading my
> fully documented remarks regarding yellowstone and spirit lake.
I didn't argue with your comments regarding Marty, I had a problem with you representing yourself as having bested Marty in your basic exchange of knowledge and presented the counter-evidence to your high-handed dismissal of Marty. Nowhere did I say that I was attempting to do otherwise. Please read carefully...
As for your "fully documented comments", I have made your Internet mail messages available for download or F'Req here, and also a collection of your original messages to boot.
Don't expect me to post 'em for you in this Echo though... garbage doesn't taste better the second time around. And if I run short on disk space, I know of a couple of files in the SCI section that will be low on the "keep available" priority schedule, too. (Be aware, I've got the appropriate commentary for the files you sent my way ready to run whenever you post.)
We all have been more than fair to you, Chuck, despite the constant stream of ad hominems you aim our way. The CMWDB simply documents the fact that you are not as expert as you would like some of the readers of this Echo to think you are. There's no reason that someone else should spend four or five months giving you the benefit of the doubt when we can remove all doubt nearly immediately concerning your personal expertise. That's public service in action.
--- TPBoard 6.1
* Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (509-WIN-1CNS) (1:347/303)
SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
==!
==* HARTSHORN
FROM: Wally Hartshorn
DATE: 20 Jan 92 18:42:00
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: Using the Bible to solve problems of science
We've just begin receiving this echo, so I'm entering this discussion
late. However, there is a basic problem with all of the examples you
cited -- you are looking at the Bible and interpreting these passages
in light of what science has found. It is notoriously easy to find
correspondences and patterns in any large data pool. (See, for
instance, the prophecies of Nostradamus -- classic cases of
"prophecies" being interpreted after the fact.) In order to show that
the Bible has the jump on science, you need to find something in the
Bible which we DON'T know yet, then find out whether science confirms
what the Bible predicted.
Here's a few questions I'd like to see the Bible answer: "What is the
basic component making up subatomic particles that physicists call a
quark? How many different quarks arethere? What is the relationship
between the intensity of their interactions and their distance? Are
the leptons -- the lightest particles, such as the electron -- made up
of anything simpler? Are there any additional heavy leptons? How
many? What is the relationship between quarks and leptons? And so
on." (Isaac Asimov, "Science and the Mountain Peak", from "Science
Confronts the Paranormal", edited by Kendrick Frazier)
Again, it is rather easy to find something that you ALREADY KNEW in
the Bible (or in any very large body of text written in a poetic,
non-literal style). That merely shows that you are an intelligent
creature capable of seeing (or creating) possible links between
information presented to you. That's normal. It's one of the
characteristics which DEFINE intelligence. Actually showing that the
Bible already has explained what science is revealing requires you to
use the Bible to predict FUTURE discoveries, not merely INTERPRET past
discoveries.
Good Questing!
Wally Hartshorn
--- DLG Pro v0.985b/DLGMail v1.00g [Not Legit]
* Origin: The Quest (F&SF, RPGs, hobbies, weirdness) (1:233/10)
==!
==* WILLIS
FROM: Chris Willis
DATE: 20 Jan 92 20:29:22
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: Using the Bible to solve problems of science
Way out in 1:233/13 on the day of 18 Jan 92 11:40:43
we observed that Chuck Maier posted to George Rudzinski.
CM> Medicine in general is an excellent example of where people
CM> would benefit greatly if people would follow simple admonitions
CM> for clean and healthy living: avoiding fat, eating beef
CM> (protein), living a chaste and proper sexual existence (there
CM> goes AIDS, and 30,000 other cases of STD's every day), practicing
CM> forgiveness, understanding the sin nature of man rather than
CM> making people try to 'feel good' about it, understanding that the
CM> human body was created (think how many people have been tortured
CM> by having 'vestigial organs ' removed or having been 'bleed' i.e
CM> George Washi
CM> gton to death - in fact , the Bible tells us the 'life of the
CM> flesh is in the blood) ....
Amen!
Even if read in a non-spiritual sense, there is a deep wisdom and
moral code in the Bible that is hard to refute.
It is unfortunate that biblical passages have been so abused as
weapons by the over-zealous, that there are people who are so
sensitive to biblical admonitions that they can't see the great Truth
within the book.
Thanks for reminding us that the Bible indeed speeks a timeless
message to all humanity.
--- Chris
---
* Origin: Our House BBS TG 2.7 FIDO/USTGNET 616/837/7675 (1:228/55)
==!
==* THOMPSON
FROM: John Thompson
DATE: 23 Jan 92 09:18:01
TO: Wally Hartshorn
SUBJ: Using The Bible To Solve
WH> We've just begin receiving this echo, so I'm entering this discussion
WH> late.
Welcome! Its always nice to have another thoughtful person here!
WH> However, there is a basic problem with all of the examples you cited --
WH> you are looking at the Bible and interpreting these passages in light
WH> of what science has found...
WH> ...it is rather easy to find something that you ALREADY KNEW in the
WH> Bible (or in any very large body of text written in a poetic,
WH> non-literal style).
Yeah, these "post hoc" type arguments shouldn't carry any weight, but
when its all you can come up with to defend your pet theory -- well,
"any port in a storm", right?
WH> Here's a few questions I'd like to see the Bible answer: "What is the
WH> basic component making up subatomic particles that physicists call a
WH> quark? How many different quarks arethere? What is the relationship
WH> between the intensity of their interactions and their distance? Are
WH> the leptons -- the lightest particles, such as the electron -- made up
WH> of anything simpler? Are there any additional heavy leptons? How
WH> many? What is the relationship between quarks and leptons? And so
WH> on." (Isaac Asimov, "Science and the Mountain Peak", from "Science
WH> Confronts the Paranormal", edited by Kendrick Frazier)
Silly boy, didn't you know that the only scientific topic the bible is
specific enough to make predictions on is evolution -- or rather the
lack thereof? :-)
I see another problem, also -- if the Bible were to provide
information on these issues, it would mean that quantum theory is
"correct". If that is so, then radiometric dating must ALSO be
correct, and there goes the "young earth" theory Chuck is so fond of!
* KingQWK 0.11b # 39 * Evolution: the unifying principle of Biology!
--- GEcho/beta
* Origin: APPLEGATE; Appleton, WI. (COM2) (1:139/630)
==!
==* BIBLE
FROM: John Bible
DATE: 23 Jan 92 16:34:00
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: Using the Bible to solve problems of science
Please, Chuck this is a science echo and I really don't want to
hear your quotes from the Bible. If you're going to attempt to make a
point using an archaic manuscript way over 2000 years in age please
try to keep it brief if you must do it at *all*.
---John
---
* Origin: PDX CHESS BBS (503)232-2282 All the Chess that Fits! (1:105/85)
==!
==* AUGUSTINE
FROM: Keith Augustine
DATE: 23 Jan 92 17:01:00
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Using the Bible to solve problems of science
CM> CM> Probably the most profound example of someone taking a verse
CM> CM> right from the Scriptures to solve a problem of science is that of
CM> CM> Matthew Maury. Ps. 8:8 talks about the " paths of the seas." Maury
CM> CM> used the verse as an inspiration in his foundational work in charting
CM> CM> the currents of the oceans. The verse is on his grave.
What's your point? I can see how you would identify with this, for it
is authority driven (like the church). When is it going to get through
to you. One man cannot make science based on his statements. Science
is based on observations and hypothesis. When the two agree, that is
science.
CM> Dinosaur existence - Huge dinosaurs were not known to modern
CM> science until recently (term coined by Sir Richard Owen ,
CM> right WRE?). However, we see in *Job 40:15* a description
CM> of 'Behemoth' (recall dinosaurs is a nineteenth century a.d.
CM> term, not 19 b.c.) ..."He bends his tail like a cedar..."
CM> Modern biblical commentators, foolishly intimidated by the
CM> evolutionists, have called this creature a hippo or an
CM> elephant. In fact, the metaphor accurately describes a huge
CM> dinosaur, and is another evidence of accuracy predating
Your metaphor claiming dinosaurs means nothing. Your are clutching at
straws.
CM> modern scientific discovery. And with the recent
CM> plesiousaur capture and carbon dating of an allosaurus at
CM> 6500 years of age, we have good evidence to support that
CM> dinosaurs have only recently become extinct.
A capture of a plesiosaur? Odd, I never heard of it. My data indicates
that they became extinct around 136 million years ago. Are you
refering to some kind of Loch Ness Monster? Of course, I don't take
your claim seriously. I seriously doubt your data about a 6500 year
old dinosaur. I like this new attitude for carbon-14 dating. When it
estimates the age in millions of years it is wrong, but when it
estimates biblical time (and consider the source of the data's
credibility) it is right. If the observations fit (which they rarely
do) use them to support the Bible. If not, they are mistakes. Talk
about hypocritical.
CM> CM> Numbers of stars - Jer. 33:22 " As the host of heaven
CM> cannot be counted and the sand of the sea cannot be measured..."
CM> This implies the essentially infinite numbers of stars that
CM> exist, yet Ptolemy, Brahe, and Kepler tried to count them
CM> (1055, 777, 1,005 respectively).
CM> CM> Gravity - Job 26:7 "He hangeth the earth upon nothing..."
CM> The Egyptiansgsaid the earth was flat and supported by
CM> pillars. The Greeks believe Atlas was hard at it. The
CM> Hindus had a legend of a Giant elephant holding up the
CM> earth.
The Hebrews thought it was created in six days. Correct me if I am
wrong, but doesn't the Old Testament refer to the four corners of the
earth? I can not give you a verse, for I am not the expert on Hebrew
mythology that you seem to be.
--- GEcho/beta
* Origin: WRITER'S BLOCK (An EchoNet BBS) 410-945-1540 (1:261/1056)
==!
==* AUGUSTINE
FROM: Keith Augustine
DATE: 23 Jan 92 17:11:01
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Using the Bible to solve problems of science
CM> unenforced ones on the books today. You know , there are
CM> two cases in the Bible where people got so lazy, so rich, so
CM> selfish, and so horny that even visiting men were in danger
CM> of being raped! In one case, God himself personally *nuked*
CM> the city (Gen 19). And in the other, he sent in 11 tribes
CM> of Israel to waste all but 400 of the men of Benjamin
CM> (Judges 19-21). I never used to believe these stories.
CM> However, gals are getting raped around here constantly. I
CM> even saw a report (locally) where a man claimed he had been
CM> raped!!
CM>
Interesting, how the Hebrews believed in a perfect God, yet he wasn't
even close to it. Instead of revealing himself to Sodom and Gommorah,
he destroyed them in his all loving wisdom. Not to mention that he
created them to be capable of sin. God also created an angel, Satan,
who was capable of falling. This is not an all-powerful, all-wise, or
all-loving God. How odd it is that God, who is all-powerful could not
do ANYTHING without getting the Hebrews to do it. Wouldn't be easier
to create a perfect world? Or why create anything at all? Perhaps your
God exists only in your hopeful imagination. One thing is obvious: the
Hebrew conception of God is inconsistent--a God of love in one
situation; a God of vengeance in another.
--- GEcho/beta
* Origin: WRITER'S BLOCK (An EchoNet BBS) 410-945-1540 (1:261/1056)
==!
==* RUDZINSKI
FROM: George Rudzinski
DATE: 22 Jan 92 06:17:02
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: Using the Bible to solve problems of science
-=> Quoting Chuck Maier to George Rudzinski <=-
CM> George R. sez to someone
GR> that protect his lower half, or any other scientific theory? Or why
GR> he doesn't
GR> use his Biblical knowledge to solve some of the questions of science?
CM>
CM> Probably the most profound example of someone taking a verse right
CM> from the Scriptures to solve a problem of science is that of Matthew
CM> Maury. Ps. 8:8 talks about the " paths of the seas." Maury used the
CM> verse as an inspiration in his foundational work in charting the
CM> currents of the oceans. The verse is on his grave.
CM> Simpson is supposed to have used Adam's 'deep sleep' as an
CM> inspiration to look for anesthetics.
CM> George W. Carver used Gen 1:28 ("I have given you every green
CM> plant for food") as an inspiration to develop many products from the
CM> peanut and sweet potato.
CM> You can find a good example of a control/variable group scientific
CM> experiment right in Dan ch. 2 (I believe). Some have suggested that
CM> Bacon , the 'father of science', may have taken his inspiration from
CM> this example.
CM> See "Sandemanian and Scientist" for a close look at the
CM> interrelationship between Michael Faraday's faith and his science. Or a
CM> good little synopsis is Morris' "Men of Science - Men of God" , which
CM> documents the fact that most of the 'fathers' of modern science were
CM> creationist.
CM>
CM> Pasteur used his creationist beliefs to solve the problems of the
CM> wine industry when most of the quacks of the day were attributing the
CM> souring of the wine to 'spontaneous generation.'
CM> Medicine in general is an excellent example of where people would
CM> benefit greatly if people would follow simple admonitions for clean
CM> and healthy living: avoiding fat, eating beef (protein), living a
CM> chaste and proper sexual existence (there goes AIDS, and 30,000 other
CM> cases of STD's every day), practicing forgiveness, understanding the
CM> sin nature of man rather than making people try to 'feel good' about
CM> it, understanding that the human body was created (think how many
CM> people have been tortured by having 'vestigial organs ' removed or
CM> having been 'bleed' i.e George Washi gton to death - in fact , the
CM> Bible tells us the 'life of the flesh is in the blood) ....
CM> The Bible gives us the basic framework of the world and the nature
CM> of things. We would do well to start with it as the basis for our
CM> scientific endeavors. Yet look how much effort is worthlessly
CM> expended on trying to find life or create life or change creatures
CM> (biological alchemy) into something that doesn't or didn't exist' xm
CM>
CM> --- Maximus-CBCS v1.02
CM> * Origin: Check Source BBS (1:233/13)
Chuck,
Being inspired by something in the Bible is a far cry from a scientific
prediction.
I have no doubt that most scientists today are Creationists. Their
view of Creation is one that is not limited by man, i.e. the Bible, it
is one limited only by what God has given us as evidence, i.e. the
universe. They do not propose to limit God, as you have, with
interpretations of a text that was written by man. Instead they
choose to read what is truly written by God, using the tools God's
universe has given them.
RE: Medical
Pardon me, but doesn't the Bible state that you shouldn't eat the meat
of a cloven footed animal? Yet studies have shown that eating pork is
better for you than eating red meat.
RE: Changing Creatures
Man has been doing that since before the time of Christ with selective
breeding. If changing animals and plants by whatever means helps
elliminate hunger, maybe your interpretation of God is wrong.
RE: Vestigal organs
I hope you aren't saying that we shouldn't have an infected appendix
removed?
If you are then I suggest you un-plug your computer. They aren't
mentioned in the Bible either. You pick and choose what you want to
use from science the same way you pick and choose the way the Bible
should be interpreted.
george
... We are eating our seed corn!
~~~ Blue Wave/TG v2.01 [NR]
---
* Origin: Our House BBS TG 2.7 FIDO/USTGNET 616/837/7675 (1:228/55)
==!
==* RUDZINSKI
FROM: George Rudzinski
DATE: 22 Jan 92 06:33:04
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: Using the Bible to solve problems of science
-=> Quoting Chuck Maier to George Rudzinski <=-
CM> Deut. 23:12-14 - human sanitation. "You shall also have a place
CM> outside the camp and go out there, and you shall have a spade among
CM> your tools, and it shall be when you sit down out side [ aka , when
CM> you grunt], you shall dig with it and shall turn to cover up your
CM> pucky." Doesn't seem real earth shattering, but when you consider that
CM> cholera and innumerable other plague/diseases are directly related to
CM> human failure to properly deal with their own excrement, it shows you
CM> something about the incite into the cause of disease
CM> --- Maximus-CBCS v1.02
CM> * Origin: Check Source BBS (1:233/13)
Chuck,
This one has to be a classic. Even the U.S. Army, a known bastion of
things less than wise, has better rules than this. Where is mention
of staying away from your water supply, cooking areas, areas where
animals are slaughtered, where does it even say anything about washing
your hands afterwards!
george
... I love Freedom of Speach, as long as it can be controlled.
~~~ Blue Wave/TG v2.01 [NR]
---
* Origin: Our House BBS TG 2.7 FIDO/USTGNET 616/837/7675 (1:228/55)
==!
==* RUDZINSKI
FROM: George Rudzinski
DATE: 22 Jan 92 06:52:55
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: Using the Bible to solve problems of science
-=> Quoting Chuck Maier to George Rudzinski <=-
CM> ...continued
CM> chaste and proper sexual existence (there goes AIDS, and 30,000 other
CM> cases of STD's every day), practicing forgiveness, understanding the
CM>
CM> Sexually transmitted diseases - George, what would you say if I found
CM> the cure for AIDS, Herpes simplex II, Chlamydia, and
CM> half-a-hundred other STD's that are causing incalculable suffering in
CM> the lives of millions? Should I get a Nobel Prize? Stones? The
CM> Bible has a two-pronged formula to cure (prevent, mostly) all std's
CM> 1) Sex by one man w/ one woman according to the original created
CM> order (Gen 1,2; Mt. 19, Leviticus), which would obviously prevent
CM> transmission of std's. Or, failing that...
CM> 2)*EXECUTION* (Leviticus 20 and elsewhere for details).
CM>
CM> You might think the latter option is a little rough, kind of radical,
CM> or 'old covenant'. Actually, you should see some of the laws they had
CM> back in the colonial days. Or even the unenforced ones on the books
CM> today. You know , there are two cases in the Bible where people got
CM> so lazy, so rich, so selfish, and so horny that even visiting men were
CM> in danger of being raped! In one case, God himself personally *nuked*
CM> the city (Gen 19). And in the other, he sent in 11 tribes of Israel
CM> to waste all but 400 of the men of Benjamin (Judges 19-21). I never
CM> used to believe these stories. However, gals are getting raped around
CM> here constantly. I even saw a report (locally) where a man claimed he
CM> had been raped!!
CM> Mountains in the sea; surviving ingestion by a whale (Jonah 1:17;2:6)
CM> Jonah, in his prayer from the belly of the whale, describes how
CM> he had sunk to the 'roots of the mountains'. The concept of mountains
CM> in the seas was not accepted until the 19th century. Jonah had
CM> Jacques Cousteau beat by millenia. Also, I have heard detailed
CM> accounts given of men in the whaling industry who have been swallowed
CM> whole by whales, given up for dead, and later discovered in the belly
CM> of the whale - ALIVE! Unconscious, in shock, slightly burned from the
CM> acids, but they survived. It may well be that Jonah died and was
CM> resurrected (as that is used as a type of the Ressurection in the
CM> N.T.), but the naturalistic precedent is well documented.
CM> "all flesh is not the same flesh, but ther is one flesh of men, and
CM> another flesh of beasts a, and another flesh of birds, and another of
CM> fish...." 1 Cor. 15:39
CM> Carolus Linnaeus - Gen 1... distinct groups of creatures created to
CM> propogate themselves after their own 'kind' (original genetic code)
CM> . If we could just get evolutionists to accept this obvious
CM> fact, we could focus on the real problems of biology. cm.
CM> --- Maximus-CBCS v1.02
CM> * Origin: Check Source BBS (1:233/13)
Chuck,
RE: Cure for AIDS
Nice try but it won't work. You can marry a virgin who also happens
to be a doctor and get AIDS. Unless you think that doctors shouldn't
care for AIDS patients? Same thing applies for nurses and dentists or
anyone else who cares for AIDS patients! You see your cure doesn't
take into account accidents. What does the Bible say about taking
care of the sick?
You also ignore the fact that people are going to make mistakes.
Should we kill everyone who makes a mistake? The Bible has something
to say about that too.
Do I believe in abstinance and monogamy? I sure do, but I also know
it isn't going to happen. If one person dies because they didn't use
a condom because they weren't educated, or didn't have access to one,
the price of your moral views are too high. You and your God seem to
be lacking in compassion and understanding.
george
... Meeeeechigan!
~~~ Blue Wave/TG v2.01 [NR]
---
* Origin: Our House BBS TG 2.7 FIDO/USTGNET 616/837/7675 (1:228/55)
==!
==* RUDZINSKI
FROM: George Rudzinski
DATE: 23 Jan 92 06:27:14
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: Using the Bible to solve problems of science
-=> Quoting Chuck Maier to George Rudzinski <=-
CM> ...continued
CM> chaste and proper sexual existence (there goes AIDS, and 30,000 other
CM> cases of STD's every day), practicing forgiveness, understanding the
CM>
CM> 1) Sex by one man w/ one woman according to the original created
CM> order (Gen 1,2; Mt. 19, Leviticus), which would obviously prevent
CM> transmission of std's. Or, failing that...
Chuck,
Didn't more than a few of these folks back in Biblical times have more
than one wife?
george
... Nothing is as simple as it seems at first glance.
~~~ Blue Wave/TG v2.01 [NR]
---
* Origin: Our House BBS TG 2.7 FIDO/USTGNET 616/837/7675 (1:228/55)
==!
==* RUDZINSKI
FROM: George Rudzinski
DATE: 23 Jan 92 07:28:48
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: Using the Bible to solve problems of science
-=> Quoting Chuck Maier to George Rudzinski <=-
CM> To follow up a bit...
RE: Paths of the seas
There were already many people travelling the seas. I would be
surprised if they didn't have some knowledge of currents.
RE: Control Group
Nothing new there. Food testers were common well before that time.
And there are other examples.
RE: Pasteur used his Creationist beliefs.
That is a patently mis-leading statement. Pasteur said that life came
from life. At the time of the Bible and Pasteur there was no evidence
obtainable by them to suggest otherwise. No scientific prediction
there.
RE: Circumsision
Its a matter of interpretation. Some folks read the Bible and see
evidence that men should never be circumsized. My son was circumsized
on the second day. As far as vitamin K and prothrombin go, I don't
know for sure but I would imagine it has something to do with breast
feeding. A mother's milk changes the more a baby nurses. Nothing
here either that is a prediction.
RE: Dinosaur existance
Where did you read about a Plesiosaur being captured? Carbon dating
of an allosaurus bone would only tell you about the date when carbon
infiltrated the bones. Carbon dating isn't used to date dino bones,
its half life is way to short. I don't even think any direct
radio-active dating is used on dino bones per se. That kind of dating
is used on rocks above and below the rock layers the bones were found
in. And as far as a tail like a cedar goes, that does describe a
rhino or an elephant, a long straight tail with a bushy end. And I
find it interesting that all the other people of the time didn't
record the beasts either in writing or pictures. I would think a 10
ton animal should merit at least passing mention when the existance of
the common cat isn't in any doubt, aka the Egyptians. No prediction
there.
RE: Gravity
qIt was evident at the time that the moon and the sun hung on nothing
not to mention the stars. Why assume the earth should be any
different? The idea had been proposed before by the Greeks. Though
not well received becaused it messed with thier gods. Sound familiar?
The idea already existed.
RE: Hydrologic Cycle
No prediction. But you are close on this one. But no mention of the
mechanism of evaporation.
The Bible also mentions rainbows, but doesn't explain defraction. I'd
like to where in the Bible there is a prediction of a scientific fact
that couldn't possibly be known at the time the Bible was written.
And not something that requires interpretation, but a clear statement.
The existance of the rings of Saturn, the planet Pluto - or its moon,
a tenth planet, lasers, masers, radar, electrons, protons, anything
like that would do.
george
PS. Its chapter 1 of Daniel that is the example of using a "Control"
model. So much for God inspired. Any way you look at it, you have
failed the "God inspired" test. God didn't inspire you to give the
correct information, or you aren't worthy of being inspired. Welcome
to the club, nothing easy about being human.
... We are eating our seed corn!
~~~ Blue Wave/TG v2.01 [NR]
---
* Origin: Our House BBS TG 2.7 FIDO/USTGNET 616/837/7675 (1:228/55)
==!
==* THOMPSON
FROM: John Thompson
DATE: 24 Jan 92 12:53:01
TO: Keith Augustine
SUBJ: Using The Bible To Solve
KA> CM> modern scientific discovery. And with the recent
KA> CM> plesiousaur capture and carbon dating of an allosaurus at
KA> CM> 6500 years of age, we have good evidence to support that
KA> CM> dinosaurs have only recently become extinct.
KA>
KA> A capture of a plesiosaur? Odd, I never heard of it. My data indicates
KA> that they became extinct around 136 million years ago. Are you refering
KA> to some kind of Loch Ness Monster? Of course, I don't take your claim
KA> seriously. I seriously doubt your data about a 6500 year old dinosaur.
I guess you weren't around when Chuck told us about the Japanese
fishermen who allegedly caught a pleisiosaur out in the Pacific
somewhere. Seems they took a couple pictures, but threw it over the
side when began to smell. Convenient, that. Ah, well, a living
dinosaur wouldn't be any great tragedy to Biology anyway -- all it
would mean is that a taxon thought to be extinct really wasn't
extinct. One shouldn't put too much weight on negative evidence for
extinction (or anything else), after all.
KA> The Hebrews thought it was created in six days. Correct me if I am
KA> wrong, but doesn't the Old Testament refer to the four corners of the
KA> earth?
Yes, Chuck is being very selective about what he presents to us. As
long as he is insisting on confusing hermeneutics with science, why
didn't he point out the fact that the Bible tells us that humans were
created from clay is consistent with the Cairns-Smith clay-crystal
hypothesis for abiogenesis? Hallelujah! The Bible proves abiogenesis
and evolution! It makes as much sense as any of the other examples he
gave us!
* KingQWK 0.11b # 39 * Cum grano salis.
--- GEcho/beta
* Origin: APPLEGATE; Appleton, WI. (COM2) (1:139/630)
==!
==* RUDZINSKI
FROM: George Rudzinski
DATE: 16 Jan 92 07:31:26
TO: Harlow Campbell
SUBJ: Re: evolution or creation
-=> Quoting Harlow Campbell to John Bradley <=-
> I has always puzzled me that anyone could think that all you
> need to know, or all you can know, about the universe could be
> put in the pages of a book 4cm thick and written to be
> understood by people that could only be described as primative.
> The universe that these people live in is a small one indeed.
HC> AMEN! And I say AMEN! :)
HC> ---
HC> * Origin: Would you persuade, speak of interest, not of Reason.
HC> (1:132/130)
Well the Creationists' have to admit that God has a sense of humor.
After all God has provided all the evidence that Creation is wrong,
given some of us the ability to see it is wrong, and then given us the
"Bible" which tells us He was just kidding.
RE: All you need to know in one book
I find it most interesting that Chuck has no problem using the
scientific literature to back up the Creationist belief. I wonder why
he doesn't use the Bible to back up the theories that he apparently
accepts, aka the computer he uses, the anti-biotics available to treat
his illnesses, the nuclear weapons that protect his lower half, or any
other scientific theory? Or why he doesn't use his Biblical knowledge
to solve some of the questions of science?
george
... We are eating our seed corn!
~~~ Blue Wave/TG v2.01 [NR]
---
* Origin: Our House BBS TG 2.7 FIDO/USTGNET 616/837/7675 (1:228/55)
==!
==* VERAA
FROM: Rich Veraa
DATE: 25 Jan 92 17:21:42
TO: George Rudzinski
SUBJ: Using the Bible to solve problems of science
A message from George Rudzinski to Chuck Maier was released into the bitstream 23 Jan 92 06:27.
> CM> 1) Sex by one man w/ one woman according to the original created
> CM> order (Gen 1,2; Mt. 19, Leviticus), which would obviously prevent
> CM> transmission of std's. Or, failing that...
GR> Didn't more than a few of these folks
GR> back in Biblical times have more than
GR> one wife?
Kind David and King Solomon
Led merry, merry lives,
With many, many lady friends
And many, many wives.
But when old age crept onward
With all its many qualms,
Solomon wrote the Proverbs
And King David wrote the psalms.
Cheers,
Rich
--- XCS & XAP 0.05
* Origin: Mammals suck! (1:135/907)
==!
==* DOTY
FROM: Scott Doty
DATE: 25 Jan 92 01:25:00
TO: George Rudzinski
SUBJ: Re: Using the Bible to s
-=> Quoting George Rudzinski to Chuck Maier, 01-23-92 (07:28) <=-
GR> RE: Dinosaur existance
GR>------------------------
Carbon dating of an allosaurus bone would only tell you about the date when
carbon infiltrated the bones. Carbon dating isn't used to date dino bones,
its half life is way to short. I don't even think any direct radio-active
dating is used on dino bones per se. That kind of dating is used on rocks
above and below the rock layers the bones were found in.
GR>------------------------
True. C14 dating won't work on anything before approx.
50,000 years BP. Scientists use the Potassium-Argon method for
dating before 400,000 years BP -- ideal for dinosaur fossils
=and= older human artifacts. The earliest human artifacts
discovered (at publication of my ref.) date 1.85M years BP.
(For all involved in this thread:)
Please pardon me for jumping into your conversation -- but,
would it be politic to use Modern (or, "Critical") Biblical
Interpretation in this discussion? (I think I can demonstrate
how the fundamental assumptions of the Creationism hypothesis are
=internally= inconsistent...)
Also, would SCIENCE be an appropriate forum for this discussion? I
can get BIOGENESIS on FamilyNet.
Scott
Fagan, Brian M. _World Prehistory: A Brief Introduction_.
Boston, Toronto: 1979.
___
X JABBER v1.1b9 #b038 X It's always darkest before you step on the cat.
--- Maximus 2.00
* Origin: Sonoma Online (1:125/7)
==!
==* ELSBERRY
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry
DATE: 29 Jan 92 22:44
TO: All
SUBJ: Yet more CM follies
EID:34fa 183e0006
talk.origins #22307 (4 + 0 more)
From: shafto@ils.nwu.edu (Eric Shafto)
[1] Re: Extant dinosaurs, recent dino fossils
Date: Wed Jan 29 12:01:02 CST 1992
Distribution: world,local
Organization: The Institute for the Learning
+ Sciences
Lines: 34
Nntp-Posting-Host: aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
maier@romulus (Chuck Maier) writes:
> lippard@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>
> >In article , maier@romulus (Chuck Maier) writes...
>
> >I've seen a photo of this--and it is already substantially rotted to the
> >point where it's impossible to tell what the creature is. Creationists
> >say it's a plesiosaur, non-creationists identify it as some kind of fish
> >or whale. Walter Brown likes to promote this plesiosaur claim.
>
> A whale? You have to be kidding. The makers of the stamp didn't have
> any trouble figuring out what it looked like. And that isn't any
> fish or whale that I've ever seen - and I doubt the stampmakers were
> creationists.
No, YOU have got to be kidding. A stamp-maker is told that some
fishing boat found a plesiosaur, and draws a picture of a plesiosaur,
and that is supposed to be proof that they found a plesiosaur. It's
too bad (and rather convenient) that it didn't occur to them to
refrigerate the carcass. Or to save even a little piece of it. One
bone. A piece of skin, dried in the sun. A small sample in a sealed
phial. Hmm, what's that I smell? Is it a piece of rotten plesiosaur?
Or is it a HOAX?
>
> A picture of the 'whale' can be found in Hall's seminar book available from hi
m at Liberty or you can see it in Morris' book Biblical basis of modern science.
Thank you, but most people here have seen pictures of whales.
--
*Eric Shafto * Sometimes, I think we are alone. Sometimes I *
*Institute for the * think we are not. In either case, the thought *
* Learning Sciences * is quite staggering. *
*Northwestern University * -- R. Buckminster Fuller *
End of article 22307 (of 22311)--what next? [npq]
talk.origins #22309 (3 + 0 more) |-(1)
From: sbradley@iwarp.intel.com (Seth Bradley)
[1] Re: Extant dinosaurs, recent dino fossils
Nntp-Posting-Host: o.iwarp.intel.com
Organization: Intel iWarp, Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Distribution: world,local
Date: Wed Jan 29 16:26:22 CST 1992
In article <1992Jan29.180102.2799@ils.nwu.edu> shafto@ils.nwu.edu (Eric Shafto)
writes:
>too bad (and rather convenient) that it didn't occur to them to
>refrigerate the carcass. Or to save even a little piece of it. One
>bone. A piece of skin, dried in the sun. A small sample in a sealed
A sample was saved, and was later determined to belong to a basking
shark. Basking sharks are cartilaginous, and can take on very
strange shapes when well decomposed. Many washed up "sea monsters"
have later been determined to be basking sharks. BTW, if a plesiosaur
were found, it would have no effect on evolutionary theory, and would
in NO WAY support creationism. The celocanth (sp?) is an older species,
was thought extinct, and has been discovered to be a living species.
--
Seth J. Bradley
Internet: sbradley@iwarp.intel.com
UUCP: uunet!iwarp.intel.com!sbradley
End of article 22309 (of 22311)--what next? [npq]
talk.origins #22311 (2 + 0 more) |-(1)
From: isaak@imagen.com (mark isaak)
[1] Re: Extant dinosaurs, recent dino fossils
Keywords: fossil dinosaur
Date: Tue Jan 28 15:53:51 CST 1992
Organization: imagen
Lines: 25
In article maier@romulus (Chuck Maier) writes:
> The Japanese caught [a Plesiosaur] off New Zealand in 1977. . . .
>I have pictures of it in several references. It was virtually ignored in
>this country as your (and every one else's reaction I've brought this up
>before) shows. Unfortunately, they tossed it overboard as it began to rot.
This is all worthless without references. My understanding (it may be of
a different incident) is that the creature was already rotted beyond
recognition when it was taken onboard.
How did it happen that the boat which caught the creature happened to
have onboard a paleontologist qualified to make the identification?
Or did it?
[on dating dinosaur fossils with C14]
> Your reaction is also typical of the earlier response of other evolutionists
>who can't even conceive what I'm saying would be true because we've been
>indoctrinated to believe dinosaurs are millions of years old.
The reaction has nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with
the physics of radioactive decay. The numbers you quote are useless
because C14 dating isn't applicable.
--
Mark Isaak imagen!isaak@decwrl.dec.com or {decwrl,sun}!imagen!isaak
"The color of truth is gray." - Andre Gide
End of article 22311 (of 22311)--what next? [npq]
--- TPBoard 6.1
* Origin: C.N.S.: ftp me.uta.edu:/pub/neural (509-WIN-1CNS) (1:347/303)
SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
==!
==* RICE
FROM: Edward Rice
DATE: 22 Jan 92 15:21:06
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: Using the Bible to solve problems of science
CM> Simpson is supposed to have used Adam's 'deep sleep' as an
CM> inspiration to look for anesthetics.
But why didn't he use it to solve diabetic and hypoxia coma, since
"deep sleep" would apply equally well to them?
CM> George W. Carver used Gen 1:28 ("I have given you every green plant
CM> for food") as an inspiration to develop many products from the peanut and
CM> sweet potato.
Carver may have, as other have, used the Bible for inspiration -- but
we're not eating much from the poison ivy plant or the deadly
nightshade, are we?
CM> You can find a good example of a control/variable group scientific
CM> experiment right in Dan ch. 2 (I believe). Some have suggested that Bacon
CM> , the 'father of science', may have taken his inspiration from this
CM> example.
Daniel 2 looks like dream interpretation to me -- are you saying that
therefore dream interpretation is scientific?
CM> Pasteur used his creationist beliefs to solve the problems of the
CM> wine industry when most of the quacks of the day were attributing the
CM> souring of the wine to 'spontaneous generation.'
Pasteur was a creationist? Mind citing an authority for THAT?
CM> Medicine in general is an excellent example of where people would
CM> benefit greatly if people would follow simple admonitions for clean and
CM> healthy living: avoiding fat, eating beef (protein), living a chaste and
CM> proper sexual existence (there goes AIDS, and 30,000 other cases of STD's
CM> every day), practicing forgiveness, understanding the sin nature of man
CM> rather than making people try to 'feel good' about it, understanding that
CM> the human body was created (think how many people have been tortured by
CM> having 'vestigial organs ' removed or having been 'bleed' i.e George
CM> Washi
CM> gton to death - in fact , the Bible tells us the 'life of the flesh is in
CM> the blood) ....
The Bible also says, quite clearly, that pork is unclean. Do /you/
follow that admonition, or do you subjectively choose which parts of
the Bible are errant and which are not?
This isn't science - let's leave it out of the science echo.
--- MacWoof 1.2.1
* Origin: 3 Point 14159 (1:109/70.4214)
==!
==* HORN
FROM: Dave Horn
DATE: 29 Jan 92 08:30:02
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: Liberty U. Professor Goes Public With Dinosaur C-dates
Speaking of "standard dogma[s]," Chuck, will you please answer my
question? What is the creationist SCIENTIFIC alternative explanation
for the existence of reptilian and avian characteristics in
_Archaeopteryx_?
cm> Two days ago I said this to George R. ...
I first asked you my question in November...
---
* Origin: WestWind "The Voice of the Rockies" (303) 758-7589 (1:104/429.0)
==!
==* ELSBERRY
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry
DATE: 29 Jan 92 22:42
TO: All
SUBJ: More CM follies
EID:d04f 183dbf7d
Not content with the pounding his SciCre posturings have taken here in the Science Echo, our own Chuck Maier recently took his WhopperShow on to the big time, the Usenet talk.origins newsgroup. Here is a bit of what happened when Chuck unrolled his "modern pleisiosaur" for the t.o. denizens (two posts):
talk.origins #22296 (7 + 0 more)
From: maier@romulus (Chuck Maier)
[1] Re: Extant dinosaurs, recent dino fossils
Keywords: fossil dinosaur
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: world,local
Date: Tue Jan 28 17:42:44 CST 1992
Lines: 24
lippard@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>In article , maier@romulus (Chuck Maier) writes...
>> GR> RE: Dinosaur existance
>> GR>
>> GR> Where did you read about a Plesiosaur being captured? Carbon dating
>>
>> The Japanese caught one off New Zealand in 1977. It was such a big event
>>in Japan that they made a national stamp with a picture of it comemmorating
>>100 years of science there. I have pictures of it in several references. It
>>was virtually ignored in this country as your (and every one else's reaction -
>>I've brought this up before) shows. Unfortunately, they tossed it overboard
>>as it began to rot.
>I've seen a photo of this--and it is already substantially rotted to the
>point where it's impossible to tell what the creature is. Creationists
>say it's a plesiosaur, non-creationists identify it as some kind of fish
>or whale. Walter Brown likes to promote this plesiosaur claim.
A whale? You have to be kidding. The makers of the stamp didn't have
any trouble figuring out what it looked like. And that isn't any fish or whale
that I've ever seen - and I doubt the stampmakers were creationists.
A picture of the 'whale' can be found in Hall's seminar book available from him
at Liberty or you can see it in Morris' book Biblical basis of modern science.
cm.
End of article 22296 (of 22311)--what next? [npq]
talk.origins #22298 (6 + 0 more)
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
[1] Re: Extant dinosaurs, recent dino fossils
Keywords: fossil dinosaur
Nntp-Posting-Host: starman.convex.com
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation,
+ Richardson, Tx., USA
Distribution: world,local
Date: Tue Jan 28 19:33:09 CST 1992
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
+ Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
+ not necessarily those of CONVEX.
Lines: 6
It was a half-rotted whale carcass. Flesh tends to fall off bones as
a body rots, yes? (Maybe they don't teach that at Liberty University.)
"Arthur Clarke's Mysterious World" had a segment on this, including
a photo of the corpse hanging from the boat and nice description of
rotting by a biologist.
End of article 22298 (of 22311)--what next? [npq]
talk.origins #22304 (5 + 0 more)
From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
[1] Re: Extant dinosaurs, recent dino fossils
Keywords: fossil dinosaur
Date: Tue Jan 28 23:36:16 CST 1992
Distribution: world,local
Organization: sgi
Lines: 31
Nntp-Posting-Host: solntze.esd.sgi.com
In article , maier@romulus (Chuck Maier) writes:
|> lippard@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
|>
|>
|> A whale? You have to be kidding. The makers of the stamp didn't have
|> any trouble figuring out what it looked like. And that isn't any fish
|> or whale that I've ever seen - and I doubt the stampmakers were creationists.
I guess you've never collected stamps, or at least never looked into the
technology behind them. The people who "make" stamps are artists and
printers. They have about as much expertise in the topics they are
illustrating as do printers who print books. Namely none. Basically,
someone comes to them and says "Here is a picture of The Queen, a Bridge,
a volcano, Elvis, a "plesiosaur" or whatever. Please make a postage
stamp of it, twenty nine cents denomination."
And that's all there is to it. The stamp designers/printers don't
go off and verify the photograph or drawing that they were given.
That's not their job. They make stamps. If you want a stamp of
Elvis shaking hands with the Queen in front of the White House, you
can have it.
|>
|> A picture of the 'whale' can be found in Hall's seminar book
|> available from him at Liberty or you can see it in Morris' book
|> Biblical basis of modern science.
That's very sweet. Does either of them have the picture of the
human footprint beside the dinosaur footprint?
jon.
End of article 22304 (of 22311)--what next? [npq]
--- TPBoard 6.1
* Origin: C.N.S.: ftp me.uta.edu:/pub/neural (509-WIN-1CNS) (1:347/303)
SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
==!
==* ELSBERRY
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry
DATE: 1 Feb 92 07:23
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Organized debates, freq. asked ques
EID:3af3 18413d88
> Usenet has matured to the point where they seem to have a
> number of people holding FAQ (freq. asked question files)
> files, which are doled out upon request to newcomers via
> private e-mail.
>
> You might develop and list of who retains FAQ's in the
> rules as well. Or routinely drop it in the echo.
On CNS:
Complete SCI Section Directory Listing
as of
04:00 Saturday 1-Feb-92
CHUCK.DB 34k
(TEXT) The Chuck Maier Whopper Database
CHUCK_RB.LZH 15k
(TEXT) Rebuttal by Chuck Maier
DERIVE.ZIP 184k
(DOS) Diff. Eq. package
EKG.ZIP 91k
(TEXT) Info on electrocardiograms
EVO_FAQ.ARJ 108k
(TEXT) Merritt's Frequently Asked Question file for evo vs SciCre
EVO_V_SC.LZH 532k
(TEXT) Marty Leipzig's exhaustive bibliography on evo vs. SciCre
F_CHUCK.ARJ 17k
(TEXT) SCIENCE Echo posts from Chuck Maier
KWKST21A.SDN 198k
(DOS) Statistics package
KWKST21B.SDN 163k
(DOS) Statistics package
LIBRARY.LOG 74k
(TEXT) messages from misc.internet.library
LRN_GUES.ZIP 74k
(DOS) Learn to Guess standardized test trainer
R2CHUCK.ARJ 34k
(TEXT) SCIENCE Echo replies to Chuck Maier
SHAWDATE.ARJ 13k
(TEXT) Henry Shaw explains radioisotope dating
SPINOFFS.ARJ 327k
(TEXT) NASA Spinoff Database (as of 910914)
TOTRECAL.ZIP 153k
(DOS) Rote Memory enhancer
--- TPBoard 6.1
* Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (509-WIN-1CNS) (1:347/303)
SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
==!
==* GILBERT
FROM: Dean Gilbert
DATE: 30 Jan 92 10:30:52
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: Liberty U. Professor goes public with dinosaur C-dates
In a message of <27-Jan-92 19:22:11> Chuck Maier (1:233/13) wrote:
CM> I am pleased to report that Professor James Hall, Liberty
CM> University, has given me permission to publicize the carbon dates
CM> received from not one, but two dinosaur fossils. Let me just
CM> essentially enter the letter
CM> from the carbon-dating lab that did the work:
CM> The University of Arizona
CM> Tucson, Arizona 85721
CM> Department of Geosciences
CM> Laboratory of isotope geochemistry
CM> Tel. (602) 621-6014
CM> August 10, 1990
Question: Is this person allowing these fossils to be dated by other
scientists?
---
* Origin: Starfleet Command, Kamloops, BC (1:353/700)
==!
==* ELSBERRY
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry
DATE: 31 Jan 92 06:19
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Inspiration?
EID:3619 183fbf7d
> No, we're not interested in more skeptical
> interpretations of the Bible. We have enough of that in
> our Bible cemetaries and colleges. Besides, this isn't
> the appropriate forum, and people get mad if I digress
> from my scientific posts to answer some of these liberal
> views and ridiculous caricatures people make of the bible
> and creationists.
There are two people in this Echo who make a habit of quoting the
Bible: yourself and Richard Clark. The rest of us have pretty much
refrained from attempting to comment on theological issues, and would
just as soon leave the theological issues outside the Echo. In other
words, it is mostly yourself that provokes off-topic commentary on the
bible here in the Science Echo. If you would restrain yourself from
posting snippets, I'm sure that the number of "liberal views and
ridiculous caricatures" you get in response would decrease. Since the
original quotes are off-topic to begin with, you might find it worth a
try.
On the other hand, as long as specific SciCre'ers continue to use
misdirection, misinformation, prevariacation, and poor argumentative
practices, don't for a moment expect that I or others will show them
even a modicum of undeserved respect.
> I was just pointing out some statements in the Bible which
> have served
> as guiding principles for scientific inquiry in the past
> and could for
> for the future as well.
I must have missed this, since the examples I did see you post all
claimed to have "inspired" folks to perform scientific inquiries, not
provide "guiding principles". (You can send it to me netmail or
Email, no need to post the same off-topic message twice.) I am,
again, impressed with your skills at verbal misdirection. You support
a statement ("There exists scientific inquiry which has been inspired
by biblical scripture."), and then claim to have demonstrated a much
stronger statement ("There exists scientific inquiry whose guiding
principles have been lifted from biblical scripture.") after an
appropriate lapse of time to allow somewhat fuzzy recall of your
original post by the Echo recipients.
One does not have to believe in scriptural inerrancy in order to be
inspired by the Bible. In fact, I was surprised to see that you
didn't include the example of Leslie Rhorer being inspired by the
biblical creation account to study evolution (just because you
disapprove of the outcome doesn't make it any less real).
--- TPBoard 6.1
* Origin: C.N.S.: ftp me.uta.edu:/pub/neural (509-WIN-1CNS) (1:347/303)
SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
==!
==* OTTO
FROM: Jeff Otto
DATE: 1 Feb 92 08:40:01
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Organized debates, freq. asked questions
CM> I would like to see some mutual agreement on a topic, beat it to
CM> death, and then summarize it after a month or two. That way all
CM> expertise available can be focused on a given subject and the
CM> appropriate questions can at least be stated and collected, if
CM> not fully answered. 'Serious'
CM> Cre/evol types can then focus on that topic and all other
CM> discussion of tangential or unrelated cre/evol subjects can be
CM> ignored. You might
CM> even incorporate something like that as an amendment to the rules.
The idea would be to have experts write responses to specific questions.
Which would represent the current thought on the topic. I would hate to
see further discussion at this point, because you haven't answered our
questions to you. This is pretty unfair don't you think? But
regardless, the text files would save a great deal of time and energy.
CM> There's no reason there can't be an interesting discussion of
CM> some of these topics, even Biblically related ones if people
CM> wish, but they should be organized. Otherwise everybody pops off
CM> on there own favorite thing at random.
I see no reason that the bible or biblically related questions need or
even should be discussed here. This is stated quite clearly in the
rules.
Jeff
--- XRS!% 4.50+
* Origin: SciQuest BBS Science is our Specialty (RAX 1:154/32.32)
==!
==* ENGLISH
FROM: Lawson English
DATE: 03 Feb 92 11:21:29
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: more opinions
Chuck Maier writes in a message to Wesley R. Elsberry
WRE> The reaction has nothing to do with evolution and everything to do
WRE> with
WRE> the physics of radioactive decay. The numbers you quote are useless
WRE> because C14 dating isn't applicable.
CM> The fact is, one fellow Lippard that you quoted is from Arizona
CM> and has already contacted the individuals who performed the analyses
CM> on the carbon samples. If the samples are irrelevant, then these
CM> guys blew it.
Actually, I too, live in Arizona, about 10 minutes drive away from the U of
A here in Tucson. I just had a phone call with Dr. Austin Long, Professor of
Geosciences, that took place from 10:15 to 10:20 AM, on the 3rd of February,
1992. Important quotes from our conversation follow:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[...]
ME: What do you think of using these bones to prove Creationism?
Dr. Long: "Nonsense!"
ME: "Can I quote you on this?"
Dr. Long: "Yes." [...] "We didn't really date the bone, we dated some stuff
that was encrusted on the bone."
ME: "Thanks for your time"
Dr. Long: "Let me add one or two more things:"
"My associate, Bob Kalin [research scientist & PhD canditate at the
UA], tried to explain that such dating was useless as there was no
organic material in the bone."
[...]
"The curator of the mueseum [Jim King] that supplied them with the
bones for testing told me that he gave them "toss-away" bones
that were found on the floor of the mueseum as he had [some very
bad feelings about who they were.] They didn't seem to be
up-front about things."
[...]
ME: "Thank you sir. This is fun!"
Dr. Long: "No problem. Have a good day."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ummm....
Yes...
Lawson
--- COUNTERPoint Silver 1.02
* Origin: "politically correct"-ness is just neo-McCarthyism (1:300/7.88)
==!
==* RUDZINSKI
FROM: George Rudzinski
DATE: 03 Feb 92 10:17:17
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: Using liberalism and science to interpret the bible
-=> Quoting Chuck Maier to Scott Doty <=-
SD> True. C14 dating won't work on anything before approx.
SD> 50,000 years BP. Scientists use the Potassium-Argon method for
SD> dating before 400,000 years BP -- ideal for dinosaur fossils
SD> =and= older human artifacts. The earliest human artifacts
SD> discovered (at publication of my ref.) date 1.85M years BP.
CM>
CM> Again, it is not unheard of for a fossil to become 'altered' and
CM> rather than mineralize it simply is compressed and leaves and the
CM> flesh of the animal remains as a film of carbonaceous goo. Now if
CM> this goo is the remains of the creature, and that seems to be the
CM> obvious interpretation here, then why not let the evidence speak for
CM> itself? Because this would clearly overthrow the whole of evolution
CM> theory. Rocks supposedly 140 mya cannot contain fossils a few
CM> thousand years old. cm.
CM>
CM> --- Maximus-CBCS v1.02
CM> * Origin: Check Source BBS (1:233/13)
Chuck,
You could well attempt to date this carbonaceous goo using carbon
dating. Unfortunately the carbon 14 has such a short half life that
you wouldn't be able to extract enough to measure for dating purposes.
This would then give the age of the sample as infinite.
But how would one know he is dating a dinosaur carbon sample if there
are no bones to identify it as a dinosaur? And wouldn't other
dinosaur fossils, at least some of them also leave carbonaceous
remains to be dated as well?
I do know of a sample that must also conform to any such data obtained
from carbon dating of carbonaceous remains. In fact, make that two
samples. The most obvious would be coal and oil. The other would be
the fossils of the Burgess shale formations. They represent life,
mostly arthropods, from just after the pre-Cambrian explosion. They
are noted not only for very well preserved arthropod exoskeletons, but
for the film of carbonaceous material representing the animals
softparts.
If carbon dating shows that dinosaurs are not millions of years old,
it must show that all other carbon containing material fits into this
time frame as well.
george
... We are eating our seed corn!
~~~ Blue Wave/TG v2.01 [NR]
---
* Origin: Our House BBS TG 2.7 FIDO/USTGNET 616/837/7675 (1:228/55)
==!
==* HORN
FROM: Dave Horn
DATE: 08 Feb 92 12:20:06
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: More Opinions; Austin Long Conversation
-=> Quoting Chuck Maier to Lawson English <=-
CM> Lawson English reporting...
LE> A here in Tucson. I just had a phone call with Dr. Austin Long,
LE> Professor of
LE> Geosciences, that took place from 10:15 to 10:20 AM, on the 3rd of
LE> February,
LE> 1992. Important quotes from our conversation follow:
LE>
LE> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
LE> +++++++++++++++++++
LE>
LE>
LE> [...]
LE>
LE> ME: What do you think of using these bones to prove
LE> Creationism?
LE>
LE> Dr. Long: "Nonsense!"
CM>
CM> What you expect him to say - for instance
CM>
CM> AL : " Oh yes, I knew all along this might be the case. I'm resigning
CM> my post immediately to contemplate my future. I may inquire of any
CM> position openings at the ICR."
Whatever you do, Chuck, don't answer the actual issue here. Just
throw a quip, hope nobody notices that you didn't really _deal with
the actual issue_, and flit away.
Why don't you show us why Dr. Long is wrong, Chuck? You can be
far more successful for your position if you ever bother to answer
questions like that. As it is now, you appear to be one to avoid
issues rather than deal with them. _Archaeopteryx_ pretty much leaps
to mind. So does the issue of your credentials and why you lied to me
about Marty's "coal theory" or lack of same. I haven't forgotten
these things, Chuck, and I won't let you forget them, either.
So while you may perceive this particular response to Lawson as
sort-of clever, it is not. It simply continues to reveal the weakness
of your position.
I think that it's time for those of us who are observing that to point
it out to you.
LE> ME: "Can I quote you on this?"
LE>
LE> Dr. Long: "Yes." [...] "We didn't really date the bone, we dated some
LE> stuff
LE> that was encrusted on the bone."
LE>
LE> ME: "Thanks for your time"
LE>
LE> Dr. Long: "Let me add one or two more things:"
LE>
LE> "My associate, Bob Kalin [research scientist & PhD
LE> canditate at the
LE> UA], tried to explain that such dating was useless as
LE> there was no
LE> organic material in the bone."
LE>
LE> [...]
LE>
LE> "The curator of the mueseum [Jim King] that supplied them
LE> with the
LE>
LE> bones for testing told me that he gave them "toss-away"
LE> bones
LE> that were found on the floor of the mueseum as he had
LE> [some very
LE> bad feelings about who they were.] They didn't seem to be
LE> up-front about things."
LE>
LE> [...]
LE>
LE> ME: "Thank you sir. This is fun!"
CM>
CM> Yahoo! I'm sure Prof. Hall will love this. Must be that that greasy
CM> Falwell had this dude smear some hidden substance on this bone when
CM> nobody was looking.
Another casual dismissal! Wonderful. Keep digging your own
grave, Chuck.
As for the comment that "that greasy Falwell" (a reasonable
description) perpetuated some sort of fraud, well, gee, it's not like
that's never happened before...
Now, Chuck...about those credentials of yours...
... 13th Rule of Creationism: If you can't answer it, ignore it!
--- Blue Wave/RA v2.05 [NR]
* Origin: WestWind "The Voice of the Rockies" (303) 758-7589 (1:104/429.0)
==!
==* HORN
FROM: Dave Horn
DATE: 07 Feb 92 17:34:06
TO: Aaron Boyden
SUBJ: Re: Creationism Vs Realit
-=> Quoting Aaron Boyden to Matt Giwer <=-
> JB>> Does that make it clear? I am saying there is no such
> JB>> thing as creationism as it does not support creation in the
> JB>> least.
> JBBut Creationism does exist. Those make claims in
> its behalf are simply JBmaking unverifiable claims.
> One More Time! They do not make claims about
> creation at all. Creationists make propaganda attacks
> against evolution. Am I getting through this time?
AB> Almost correct. Unfortunately, I cannot locate my issue I of the
AB> Creation/Evolution journal; it had a piece entitled "Yes, Virginia,
AB> There Is a Creation Model", based on statements from leading
AB> creationists painstakingly assembled into a coherent picture that
AB> could be exposed to the world in all its absurdity. If anyone else
AB> has it, this might be a time to mention it. I'll keep looking.
AB>
_Creation/Evolution_, vol. I, Summer, 1980, pg. 1, by Frank
Awbrey, Aaron. I'd volunteer to copy it for you, but I'm not sure
that that wouldn't violate a copyright law or three.
Matt is at least _partially_ correct, though. The majority of
creationist arguments and "evidences" are, indeed, "propaganda attacks
against evolution," most of which distort facts and contain very
little substance. A case in point is Chuck Maier's recent "answer" to
my question about _Archaeopteryx_ which, at first, he did not want to
answer. Creationists avoid revealing the natural history of
creationism at almost any cost. That is why it must be exposed.
... Reality is for those who can't face creationism.
--- Blue Wave/RA v2.05 [NR]
* Origin: WestWind "The Voice of the Rockies" (303) 758-7589 (1:104/429.0)
==!
==* ELSBERRY
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry
DATE: 10 Feb 92 08:54
TO: Marty Leipzig
SUBJ: Tagline science
EID:c970 184b000e
> ... Information is the inverse of entropy.
Not according to Shannon, where the information entropy is high for messages with high information content. This is a basic disconnect between the term "entropy" as used in thermodynamics and "entropy" as used by information theorists, and one which the SciCre'ers shamelessly exploit, hoping no one notices.
--- TPBoard 6.1
* Origin: C.N.S.: ftp me.uta.edu:/pub/neural (509-627-6CNS) (1:347/303)
SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
==!
==* ROLFE
FROM: Jonathan Rolfe
DATE: 08 Feb 92 21:20:01
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: C14 dating: fossils?
> GR>
> GR> You could well attempt to date this carbonaceous goo using
> carbon
> GR> dating.
> GR> If carbon dating shows that dinosaurs are not millions of years
> old,
> GR> it must
> GR> show that all other carbon containing material fits into this
> time
> GR> frame as
> GR> well.
>
> Very true. Comments on actual C-dates on oil, coal, etc. are
> welcome.
>
C14 dating is based on the isotopic ratios of carbon 12/ carbon 14: Given that C14 has a L/2 of 5760 years, and that in general, most nuclides are considered "dead" after twenty halflives, as a rule of thumb, this dating method, whether by counting or by accelerator Mass Spectrometry would not be appropriate to the ages of fossils. What little beta emission remaining would be "lost in the noise", or in the limits of mass spec detection.
Usually, CO2 from limestones (which often do contain fossils) is used
as a C12 calibration gas in dating.
K40/Ar40 would only prove the age of the elements/ minerals and not of
the structure. Very old or very recent C14 dates have often been
called into question because of errors at either limit. Since the
introduction of Mass spec ratio measurement, the dating has become
more reliable. Previously, carefully weighed (very carefully!)
organic material was oxidized, and the beta from the C14 O2 counted.
Since the specific activity of C14 is known, the number of atoms in
the total carbon could be determined. However, the total carbon was
subject to error, and counting chambers had to be built so as to
eliminate background. One scheme had a ring of G/M tubes surrounding
the counting chamber to subtract solar or background counts. Mass
Spectrometry has improved C14 dating, but not to the extent of pushing
back the 20 L/2 practcal limits.
Hope this was helpful..
--- Star-Net v1.0x
* Origin: Political Rhetoric - Gov't (1:322/225.0)
==!
==* WILLIAMS
FROM: Craig Williams
DATE: 08 Feb 92 07:10:25
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: Dating carbonized fossils
> using carbon
> GR> dating.
> GR> If carbon dating shows that dinosaurs are not millions
> of years old,
..
> GR> well.
>
> Very true. Comments on actual C-dates on oil, coal, etc.
> are welcome.
Sorry, but carbon dating works only on samples less than about 50,000
years old;i.e., great for mastodons and mammoths and chunks of wood
from early human camp fires, but of no use for dinosaurs.
=Craig=
--- Opus-CBCS 1.73
* Origin: KIC-BBS (1:108/89.0)
==!
==* SHAW
FROM: Henry Shaw
DATE: 08 Feb 92 23:56:15
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: MORE OPINIONS; AUSTIN LONG CON
> Yahoo! I'm sure Prof. Hall will love this. Must be that that
> greasy Falwell had this dude smear some hidden substance on this
> bone when nobody was looking. Thanks for the inquiry. cm.
Chuck, next time you work in your garden, let me come over and scrape
some dirt from under your fingernails. I'll submit it for C-14
testing and that'll tell me how old you are, right?
--- TBBS v2.1/NM
* Origin: Diablo Valley PCUG-BBS, Walnut Creek, CA 510/943-6238 (1:161/55)
==!
==* RUDZINSKI
FROM: George Rudzinski
DATE: 09 Feb 92 08:59:39
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: Dating carbonized fossils
-=> Quoting Chuck Maier to George Rudzinski <=-
CM> Very true. Comments on actual C-dates on oil, coal, etc. are welcome.
CM>
CM> --- Maximus-CBCS v1.02
CM> * Origin: Check Source BBS (1:233/13)
Chuck,
Could you specify what an "actual C-date" is? I understand that you
are referring to carbon dating. I trust you are not implying that
an"actual" date is one you happen to agree with.
RE: Young Bone, Old Rock
Pardon me? You accept the date of the rocks a fossil is found in, but
not the date of the bone? How do you justify that position?
RE: Letter to Lawson English
Am I to understand that the bones dated came off a museum's store room
floor? If that's the case, they could have been trying to date
anything from mouse droppings to old bubble gum.
I expect, no, make that demand, that if you are going to use data to
disprove evolution, it must be scientifically valid data. It isn't
that difficult or expensive to collect a fossil in situ, insure that
it isn't contaminated by outside sources of carbon and date it.
RE: Explanations
I'm going to assume that this young bone when collected was cataloged
as to the specific rock layer and location in which it was found. It
is quite possible that it was found in a layer of rack that may in
other places be hundreds of feet underground. If so, what mechanism
do you propose that buried it and then un-earthed it in so short of
time? This mechanism must also bury and un-earth all fossils that are
younger than it, in the proper order.
You are also going to have to explain to me how the coal and oil
deposits devoloped in such a short time and then buried under, in some
cases, miles of rock.
george
... Prune the fruit trees.
--- Blue Wave/TG v2.01 [NR]
* Origin: (1:228/55.0)
==!
==* ELSBERRY
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry
DATE: 18 Feb 92 01:14
TO: Nick Stevens
SUBJ: Chuck's Whoppers
EID:6acb 18522825
> Did you get the one where he
> said that he did not consider the penguin a flightless
> bird? And that he did not see how anyone else could
> consider it a flightless bird? I've been dining out on
> that one for some time now...
> I can feel a FREQ request coming on!!
I must have missed that one. Could you repost it for me?
--- TPBoard 6.1
* Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (509-627-6CNS) (1:347/303)
SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
==!
==* RHORER
FROM: Leslie Rhorer
DATE: 28 Feb 92 21:02:10
TO: Lawson English
SUBJ: Re: Vedic Science
LE> 7) Use the principle of charity.
LE> (By this, I take to mean assume that a person is making an
LE> honest mistake. Neither
To a certain extent, I disagree with this one. When the
poster makes a "mistake" once, even twice, I can agree. However, when
Chuck Maier makes the same old tired "mistake" seven or eight times in
fairly rapid (as echo posts go) succession, AFTER being explicitly
told that he was mistaken, the only recourse I see is the one we have
taken: to ignore him.
Les
ERROR! Backup not found: Abort, Retry, Massive heart failure?_
--- EZPoint V2.1
* Origin: GUI? Ptui!!! --- Last Chance Pt 4 (1:387/823.4)
==!
==* ENGLISH
FROM: Lawson English
DATE: 01 Mar 92 15:26:15
TO: Leslie Rhorer
SUBJ: Re: Vedic Science
Leslie Rhorer writes in a message to Lawson English
LR> To a certain extent, I disagree with this one. When the poster
LR> makes a "mistake" once, even twice, I can agree. However, when
LR> Chuck Maier makes the same old tired "mistake" seven or eight
LR> times in fairly rapid (as echo posts go) succession, AFTER being
LR> explicitly told that he was mistaken, the only recourse I see
LR> is the one we have taken: to ignore him.
Jim Leppard noted that while the "professional Creationists" were
obviously being deceitful, many of the people that quote them might
honestly believe everything that their sources said was spoken with
perfect sincerity, honesty and integrity.
IE, even if the person being qouted is a con-artist, that doesn't mean
that the person doing the quoting is.
(of course, knowing some of the people doing the TM research, I tend
to take much of what they claim with bags of salt. However, what I've
been referring to when I talk about the subject is what is left after
I attempt to seperate the wheat from the chaff, so I tend to get a bit
huffy when accused of "psuedo-science" claims...)
Lawson
--- COUNTERPoint Silver 1.02
* Origin: "politically correct"-ness is just neo-McCarthyism (1:300/7.88)
==!
==* HORN
FROM: Dave Horn
DATE: 03 Mar 92 17:13:15
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: Gen 1 & 2 - Internally Consistent
Chuck:
I see that you're back. I still have those questions for you
that you have, to date, refused to answer.
The first has to do with your credentials. You stated that you
had many hours of a multitude of sciences and I asked for specifics
which you have yet to provide.
You stated that Marty Leipzig didn't "have much of a coal
theory." This was a mistrepresentation and Marty called you on it.
However, you never retracted this claim publicly. Why did you behave
in that manner?
There are more. We can get to them when you answer these two.
... Creationism is "Gumby science."
--- Blue Wave/RA v2.05 [NR]
* Origin: WestWind "The Voice of the Rockies" (303) 758-7589 (1:104/429.0)
==!
==* OTTO
FROM: Jeff Otto
DATE: 6 Mar 92 21:18:07
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Abiogenesis overview - include Rebek
In a message to Jeff Otto <05 Mar 92 8:04> Chuck Maier wrote:
> JO> > JO> not deal with origins. To address the origin of DNA however,
> JO> I think
> JO> > JO> we need to look to RNA and the RNA world hypothesis ala Cech,
> JO> Altman,
> JO> > JO> Pace, Weiner etc. I posted a fairly extensive bit of info on
> JO> this
> JO> > JO> about a year ago. Is it time again?
CM> I think so. Been awful boring in here lately. I hope you'll
CM> include the latest and greatest work of Julius Rebek and peers
CM> from MIT (Science 255, 848 (1992) Feb 17 or thereabouts.
CM> Grandiose claims are made that his system shows "replication,
CM> cooperativity, and mutation."
I have the article right here. I saw nothing grandiose about their
claims. It seemed like quality science to me, and achieved what he
said it would.
CM> More importantly he says, "[It] is true that our molecules
CM> [heterocyclic compounds synthesized in a lab] and conditions are
CM> not those of the prebiotic Earth...." and "his system is not
CM> intended to micmic how life emerged on primordial Earth." Gerald
CM> Joyce calls the system " a dead end." C&EN 2-24-92 vol 70, 8.
What journal is C&EN, its abbreviation escapes me. But so what Chuck?
No one will ever know for certain what things were like back on
prebioitc earth. What is significant is that molecules can be
constructed that perform these functions. It is even more significant
if these molecules can spontaneously form. I readily admit problems
with current theory (always have), but nevertheless *it is the best
theory we have*. When something that can explain things better comes
along, that theory will be accepted.
Jeff
CM> Nonetheless , they ascribe great significance to all of this. cm.
--- XRS!% 4.50+
* Origin: SciQuest BBS Science is our Specialty (RAX 1:154/32.32)
==!
==* HORN
FROM: Dave Horn
DATE: 08 Mar 92 02:20:01
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: Evolution
-=> Quoting Chuck Maier to Jim Ziegler <=-
CM> Just a little inside info Jim - most of the guys who feel
CM> compelled to flame everybody who even mention creation (and then
CM> complain the echo is full of such stuff) are skeptics of one sort or
CM> another. Indeed, they do believe "you came from the goo by way of the
CM> zoo" . All as a result of genetic mistakes, occurring by pure chance.
CM> Can you believe that, Jim?
Of course, there is no reason for Jim to believe that, and no one
here believes it, either. Misrepresentation is not a new creationist
tactic, Chuck, but it is no less an unfair tactic for that reason.
CM> You might ask just what evidence anyone would accept as evidence for
CM> creation (hint: they won't accept any)
This is also untrue. Many of us would be willing to accept
creationist evidence as long as it _is_evidence_. Jim's failure, and
yours, to present any _scientifically_acceptable_ evidence is hardly
indicative or _our_ failure to accept any.
CM> Don't let it bother ya - it's all in fun :) . cm.
True to a point. However, it stops being fun when you folks want
to legislate science.
Still waiting for the answers to those questions, Chuck...
... Creationism is "Gumby science."
--- Blue Wave/RA v2.05 [NR]
* Origin: WestWind "The Voice of the Rockies" (303) 758-7589 (1:104/429.0)
==!
==* SINCERO
FROM: Roscoe Sincero
DATE: 08 Mar 92 17:57:01
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Evolution
>CM You might ask just what evidence anyone would accept as
>CM evidence for creation (hint: they won't accept any)
How can anyone accept evidence for creation when NONE is given? Why
don't creationists provide evidence INSTEAD of making them up
(remember the Earth's B field supposedly decreasing, how'z about the
decay of speed of light, how'z about the so-called man prints at Paluz
y River tracks)? Why don't creationists provide evidence for creation
INSTEAD of making up stories concerning evolution (remember the
Archaeoptryx)?
--- GEcho/beta
* Origin: The North Star - FD/RA - (410)263-1633 (1:261/1108)
==!
==* DR_PEPPER
FROM: Dr Pepper
DATE: 09 Mar 92 02:04:00
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Evolution
> Just a little inside info Jim - most of the guys who feel
> compelled to flame everybody who even mention creation
> (and then complain the echo is full of such stuff) are skeptics
> of one sort or another. Indeed, they do believe "you came from
> the goo by way of the zoo" . All as a result of genetic
> mistakes, occurring by pure chance. Can you believe that, Jim?
>
> You might ask just what evidence anyone would accept as evidence
> for creation (hint: they won't accept any)
Until and unless someone presents some and it is rejected, you cannot
honestly say this.
10 2
DR PEPPER
4
---
* Origin: GG TECH: Fandom and conversation (1:103/241)
==!
==* HANSEN
FROM: Greg Hansen
DATE: 08 Mar 92 19:14:51
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: Evolution
154
(In a letter to Jim Ziegler, 05-Mar-92.)
>You might ask just what evidence anyone would accept as evidence for
>creation (hint: they won't accept any)
A fossil record consistent with a Big Flood. A world-wide
clay/silt layer consistent with a Big Flood. Radioisotopes consistent
with a young earth. A universe that is only 6000 light years wide. A
demonstration of limitations on mutation-selection in adapting a
species to a changing environment. Human fossils mixed in with
animals that supposedly lived much earlier (preferably alleged human
ancestors). Geological processes (sedimentation, etc.) that will
work with a young earth.
Probably over a year ago I listed many of the same evidences you
could dredge up. If you want to push a literal interpretation of
Genesis, there are zounds of physical consequences that would result.
Show us any of them.
I asked you for evidence earlier, remember? I asked you to derive
the creation story from physical evidence. And you graciously
supplied frozen mammoths, a young dinosaur fossil someone dug up in
his backyard (dated with dubious techniques), and the fact that things
die. Evidently you have no evidence.
I could well ask you, what evidence would YOU need to accept
evolution? As seen by many people writing hundreds of pages of text
to you directly answering any question you've ever asked, the
evolutionist crowd is not lacking in data and examples. What's more,
you keep on bringing up the same subjects, the same questions.
(Although you've been mighty silent lately.)
I'm beginning to believe what others are saying about you, that
you just plain don't listen. You don't see what you don't want to
see, you forget what you don't want to know, and anything that might
possibly disprove your particular theology is dismissed as inaccurate
or downright fraud.
Prove me wrong. Prove it by listing what evidence you would
accept for evolution. Wait for it to come in, and then evaluate it.
You may think I'm over-reacting. I probably am. But it's because
you insist that no evidence for creation will ever be accepted by the
evolutionist crowd when you've already been told what evidence would
support your case! And what's worse, you don't have _any_ evidence in
the first place, so the whole question is senseless! It's getting
tiresome.
--- Opus-CBCS 1.12
* Origin: Nick's Nest (612) 490-3415 - (612) 490-0341 HST (1:282/3.0)
==!
==* PARRINELLO
FROM: Pat Parrinello
DATE: 13 Mar 92 15:59:19
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Abiogenesis overview - in
In a message to Jeff Otto, Chuck Maier said:
CM> What
CM> possible reason could non-living matter have to "cooperate" in
CM> any realistic , biological sense?
So, Chuck, until you have had a chance to review Warren York's work in the
field of creating human life from crystals, (and they even reproduce!)
( and have placentas! ) ( and can be seen under a microscope! ) I'll leave
it to you to ask such questions as quoted above. ;-)
My answer to your question would be that in a living thing,
not one single atom in it's makup is alive by any known standard.
The fact that the whole of the atoms that make up a 'living' cell
do so as a 'cooperative,' suggest that some influence(s) was key to
it's (arg!) 'creation' in the first place. Life being a special aspect
of non-living stuff is in of itself grounds for serious reflection on
the nature of nature. I cannot find reason in such simple approach to
say that creation precludes evolution, nor evolution; creation. I have
come to find that one without the other is totally unthinkable, for in
denying one, you deny the other.
-Pat-
--- Alice4Mac v1.0E
* Origin: Mac II for the best of Us! (1:3812/20.9)
==!
==* HORN
FROM: Dave Horn
DATE: 16 Mar 92 01:06:01
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: Evolution - Genetic Mistakes, By Pure Chance
* In a message originally conjoured for Greg Hansen, Chuck Maier said:
Lots of stuff...
I'd like to get into an analysis of what you said, Chuck. I
_really_ would. But I'm still waiting for you to answer those other
questions that I've posed to you. Would you like
reminders...again...?
---
* Origin: WestWind "The Voice of the Rockies" (303) 758-7589 (1:104/429.0)
==!
==* OTTO
FROM: Jeff Otto
DATE: 16 Mar 92 08:22:55
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Abiogenesis overview - include Rebek
> JO> I have the article right here. I saw nothing grandiose about their
> JO> claims. It seemed like quality science to me, and achieved what he
> JO> said
> JO> it would.
CM> Even using the words in quotes above is misleading. What
CM> possible reason could non-living matter have to "cooperate" in
CM> any realistic , biological sense? There is none. He is
CM> anthropomorphizing. It is a tricky reaction yes, but this is not
CM> how , DNA for instance, is replicated. There again it is
CM> misleading to those unitiated in biochemistry. To his credit,
CM> the review I saw showed the reaction(s)
CM> in color (therefore it must be right!
> JO> What journal is C&EN, its abbreviation escapes me. But so what Chuck?
CM> Creation and Evolution News, the journal of the ACS :) .
CM> cm.
Well, Chuck, I would like to continue this discussion, but
unfortunately, you have not yet answered the questions I had for you.
I haven't forgotten this. Would you like me to post them again, now
so that you may have a crack at them?
Jeff
--- XRS!% 4.50+
* Origin: SciQuest BBS Science is our Specialty (RAX 1:154/32.32)
==!
==* LEIPZIG
FROM: Marty Leipzig
DATE: 18 Mar 92 08:47:53
TO: Greg Hansen
SUBJ: Re: Evolution - genetic mistakes, by pure chance
...Greg Hansen, who uses coal (for peat's sake), said to Chuck Maier:
>I have pictures here of spoons and other artifacts that have been found
>in coal beds. Just because things like this are ignored doesn't mean
>they don't exist. Most likely some of these human 'ancestors' were humans.
GH>
GH> Not enough data to draw anything useful out of that.
GH> Marty, do you have an opinion?
Yes I do, and I would have kept them to myself unless you would
have asked. You see, there are certain individuals (singular
actually) that I refuse to waste any more time on.
But since you asked; spoons in coal beds, "machined metal cubes
found in coal beds", "fossil bullets" found in/on/near dinosaur
remains, "fossil screws" found in Ordovician rocks, an ancient
"hammer" found in Paleozoic sediments, Miocene Human Jawbones,
a fossil Triassic sandal print, "Glen Rose Man"...I've heard it all
before. It's either distortion (of which I'm not sure that it's not
deliberate); misinterpretation (the "machined cube" was the mineral
galena which just so happens to be hexahedral in nature, the "fossil
screw" is the Bryozoan colony _Archimedes_, the "fossil bullets" are
belemnites (common Mesozoic cephalopods)); hoaxes perpetrated for
whatever reason; faulty reasoning; and a willingness to accept almost
anything, no matter how unsupported, that is deemed inimical to
evolution.
None of the claims brought forth by creationists regarding these
"unique" (but strangely ubiquitous) objects has ever stood up to
scientific scrutiny. Pictures of supposed spoons found in supposed coals
prove absolutely zero. And that's the amount of credence I give these
objects and their promoters.
... Creationists are fossils in their own time.
--- Blue Wave/Max v2.05
* Origin: HST/DS/v32bis 713-589-0308 (1:106/500.0)
==!
==* LEIPZIG
FROM: Marty Leipzig
DATE: 18 Mar 92 08:52:40
TO: Matt Giwer
SUBJ: Re: evolution - genetic m
...Matt Giwer, who uses coal (for peat's sake), said to Chuck Maier:
MG> Of course the other half of the trick is misrepresent evolution
MG> and then shoot down the misrepresentation.
That's called the "Straw Man" argument. Some individuals around
are of such great skill in creating them, I half expect to see
their names listed in the special effects credits for the
"Wizard of Oz".
... I used to be disgusted, now I'm just amused.
--- Blue Wave/Max v2.05
* Origin: HST/DS/v32bis 713-589-0308 (1:106/500.0)
==!
==* HANSEN
FROM: Greg Hansen
DATE: 15 Mar 92 20:03:05
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: Evolution - genetic mistakes, by pure chance
GH> Probably over a year ago I listed many of the same evidences you
GH> could dredge up. If you want to push a literal interpretation of
>and
GH> I'm beginning to believe what others are saying about you, that
GH> you
GH> just plain don't listen. You don't see what you don't want to see,
>
>I've only been around for 9 mos. or so. And you already believed this
>about creationists before you started as evidenced by your opening
>remarks re: ICR's statement of faith. I happened to run across that
>'statement' a while ago. All it says is that they're Christians, they
>believe in the Bible, and from a scientific perspective, they believe
>in separate creation and a global flood.
I was referring specifically to ICR. I did not mention or include
any other creationist groups. But what does that have to do with the
discussion?
GH> species to a changing environment. Human fossils mixed in with
GH> animals that supposedly lived much earlier (preferably alleged
GH> human ancestors). Geological processes (sedimentation, etc.)
>
>Well, I've mentioned this one several times. For instance, Leakey's
>discovery of the circular stone hut in Olduvai Gorge beneath supposed
>human ancestors.
So? Circular stone huts have been around before we were.
>I have pictures here of spoons and other artifacts that have been found
>in coal beds. Just because things like this are ignored doesn't mean
>they don't exist. Most likely some of these human 'ancestors' were humans.
Not enough data to draw anything useful out of that. Marty, do
you have an opinion?
>I know I asked you this a while back - I don't know if you ever got
>it - but you might calculate for yourself what would be the odds of
>finding an ancient human fossil and having it honestly and accurately
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>reported.
Your position stands or falls on the intellectual integrity of the
opposition? A dangerous (and presumptious, and difficult to prove)
position to be in!
--- Opus-CBCS 1.12
* Origin: Nick's Nest (612) 490-3415 - (612) 490-0341 HST (1:282/3.0)
==!
==* HANSEN
FROM: Greg Hansen
DATE: 15 Mar 92 20:06:34
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: Evolution - genetic mistakes, by pure chance
GH> A fossil record consistent with a Big Flood. A world-wide
GH> clay/silt
GH> layer consistent with a Big Flood. Radioisotopes consistent with a
...
GH> human ancestors). Geological processes (sedimentation, etc.)
GH> that will work with a young earth.
>
>Well , you still seem to think the remnants of the Flood would've left
>little more than some ring-around-the-collar. Recall from our
>discussion of Mt. St. Helens that *600* feet (in depth) of mud -
>finely laminated - was laid down at 100 mph in a few minutes! (Etc.)
That's EXACTLY what I'm talking about! If the Bible was right,
there should be mountains of evidence EVERYWHERE! It should be
OBVIOUS! So where is it?
> Greg, it's a great time to be a catastrophist - it's a great time to
>be a creationist. *ALL OF THE EVIDENCE* is coming into our court!
Then share it with us! Did anything new turn up since I asked the
same question four months ago?
>Speaking of court, ICR has finally won its court case
I know. I get their monthly publication.
>against the humanists
Please, Chuck. Whatever else you do, don't make these unfounded
(and often unfair) assumptions and accusations about the opposition.
Their personal beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with science
anyway, so don't even bring it up.
>who are really the ones trying to
>legislate how science is taught (contrary to Mr. Horn's remarks recently).
Chuck, you have managed to switch the focus of the discussion to
put me on the defense. You brought up issues and information that
have no relevance to evidence for creation or the evidence you would
accept for evolution. And you have not addressed the original topics
at all. You bring the motives of the questioners into doubt, thereby
trying to invalidate the questions instead of answering them.
I don't know if that's your intention. I hope not. But that's
the way I see it. I'm seeing sophistry where, if your claims are
correct, there need be none. Please stop it. Please stick to the
discussion. Why is it so hard to get a straight answer out of you?
(And that is not a rhetorical question. I would like to know.)
To rehash, I would like
1) Evidence for creation.
2) Evidence, however nonexistant it may be, that YOU would accept
for evolution.
That's not too much to ask.
--- Opus-CBCS 1.12
* Origin: Nick's Nest (612) 490-3415 - (612) 490-0341 HST (1:282/3.0)
==!
==* GIWER
FROM: Matt Giwer
DATE: 16 Mar 92 13:24:00
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: evolution - genetic m
CM>>> GH> die. Evidently you have no evidence.
CM>>> GH> A fossil record consistent with a Big Flood. A world-wide
CM>>>Well we could spend all life going over these evidences. About any
CM>>>fossil-bearing sediments one could look at could be easily
CM>>>interpreted as a catastrophic deposit. On the other hand, we
CM>>>still have evolutionists depicting the La Brea tar pits as some
CM>>>with creatures of every kind mangled and tossed into these huge
CM>>>crevasses. No other agent but a castastrophic flood can
CM>>>account for such formations.
CM>>>As we only have about 250,000 documented fossil species and only a few
CM>>>thousand of these are terrestrial vertebrates (95% are sea
CM>>>creatures), it wouldn't be surprising to find sea creatures at
CM>>>the bottom of most regional formations. But as we can find,
CM>>>for instance, dinosaurs right at the surface , or under other
CM>>>formations, and young formations under older formations and
CM>>>also smack dab on the crystalline basement rocks, we have a
CM>>>model which fits the real evidence just fine.
CM>>> GH> I could well ask you, what evidence would YOU need to accept
CM>>> GH> evolution? As seen by many people writing hundreds of pages of text
CM>>>Stillness has its time and place.... If
CM>>>evolutionists had any real examples then I would hope they could do
CM>>>away with stuff like industrial melanism (peppered moth) ,
CM>>>antibiotic resistance, the hemoglobin/malaria example , and so
CM>>>forth because none of these prove anything. cm.
It is interesting that creationist are under the impression that
creation can be proven by disproving evolution. If evolution were
completely discarded tomorrow that would not constitute the slightest
evidence creation.
Of course the other half of the trick is misrepresent evolution
and then shoot down the misrepresentation.
===
* SLMR 2.1a * Disproving evolution does not prove creation.
--- Squish v1.00
* Origin: The DreamLand Express * St.Pete, FL * 813/821-8099 (1:3603/30)
==!
==* HANSEN
FROM: Greg Hansen
DATE: 16 Mar 92 10:21:55
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: Evolution - genetic mistakes by pure chance
GH> Prove me wrong. Prove it by listing what evidence you would
GH> accept for evolution. Wait for it to come in, and then evaluate it.
>
>1)Geologically the only real evidence I could see that would be remarkable
>would good evidence of erosional surfaces between sediments documenting
>the passage of time. I've recently been reading some of Davis YOung's
>stuff on the Grand Canyon which addresses this.
>
>2)At the molecular level, the origin of novel genetic information - not
>the transmission of information (which is what evolutionists often pass
>of as 'evolution') - is the matter of interest. What is the state
>of the theory of the origin of, say, new polypeptides?
>
>One must ask just what this 'duplicated' gene was doing during the
>millions of years it was mutating into some other gene coding for a
>different polypeptide? Was it expressed? Was the polypeptide
>ultimately produced always functional? As near as I can tell, we have
>nothing but handwaving on these most fundamental issues. Ultimately ,
>at the molecular level the problem of 'transitional forms' is the same
>as it is at the morphological level. It is impossible to even
>conceive of what the transitional state would have been like, much
>less finding any actual evidence for it.
And that was evidence you would accept for evolution? Thank you.
I have to rely on others in this echo to continue this part. I only
wanted to know if there was anything at all that you would accept. If
that evidence were given to you, would you accept even the possibility
of some sort of evolutionary process?
GH> I asked you for evidence earlier, remember? I asked you to
GH> derive the creation story from physical evidence. And you graciously
GH> supplied frozen mammoths, a young dinosaur fossil someone dug up in
GH> his backyard (dated with dubious techniques), and the fact that things
GH> die. Evidently you have no evidence.
>
>Well, there's a lady in our congregation who has seen a leg grow out on a
>person at one meeting in Mexico. I know some fellas in Kansas City who
>have had God talk to them - audibly. I have a pamphlet outlining a
>resurrection of a dead 6 year old boy under the ministry of Mahesh
>Chavda (in "Only Love Can Make a Miracle") .
Wonderful and miraculous events, to be sure. But I fail to see
how a miracle today documents creation 6000 years ago.
--- Opus-CBCS 1.12
* Origin: Nick's Nest (612) 490-3415 - (612) 490-0341 HST (1:282/3.0)
==!
==* HANSEN
FROM: Greg Hansen
DATE: 16 Mar 92 10:23:18
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: Evolution - genetic mistakes by pure chance
GH> A fossil record consistent with a Big Flood. A world-wide
>
>Well we could spend all life going over these evidences. About any
>fossil-bearing sediments one could look at could be easily interpreted
>as a catastrophic deposit. On the other hand, we still have evolutionists
> ... Or in the bottom of the Grand Canyon we have boulders,
>some as big as 200 tons, stacked dozens of feet high. Yet, we have
>uniformitarian geologists proposing a 'migrating shoreline' for such
>formations (Tapeats Sandstone).
>Then there are these ossiferous fissures all over the globe with
>creatures of every kind mangled and tossed into these huge crevasses.
>No other agent but a castastrophic flood can account for such formations.
Thank you. You have given what I asked. Why didn't you do this
four months ago? But assuming this is evidence for The Flood, does
that necessarily imply creation?
Marty (or anyone else), do you have an opinion on this?
GH> I could well ask you, what evidence would YOU need to accept
GH> evolution? As seen by many people writing hundreds of pages of text
GH> to you directly answering any question you've ever asked, the
>
>If evolutionists had any real examples then I would hope they could do
>away with stuff like industrial melanism (peppered moth) , antibiotic
>resistance, the hemoglobin/malaria example , and so forth because none
>of these prove anything. cm.
Would you consider speciation a "real" example?
Chuck, you'll probably be receiving a pair of messages from me
before this pair gets to you. Please disregard much of what I said in
them. Your latest two responses, that I'm replying to now, got to me
a day later than the first one.
Do you mind questions about your personal life? What do you do
besides argue with evolutionists? (Before you take it the wrong way,
that was not meant to be sarcasm. I'd just like to know a little more
about you. Feel free to tell me to mind my own business.)
--- Opus-CBCS 1.12
* Origin: Nick's Nest (612) 490-3415 - (612) 490-0341 HST (1:282/3.0)
==!
==* WELCH
FROM: Mike Welch
DATE: 18 Mar 92 13:23:53
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Guillibility among Creationists
CM> there's a lady in our congregation who has seen a leg grow out
CM> on a person at one meeting in Mexico.
That is one of the oldest tricks among faith healers. They either
pull on the heel of the shoe to make the leg "grow" or push on the
other foot to make the short leg just seem to get longer in
comparison. A film of this trick was aired a few months ago on ABC's
Prime Time Live or 20/20.
--- Opus-CBCS 1.14
* Origin: Construction Net #1 (602)258-8347 (1:114/20.0)
==!
==* OTTO
FROM: Jeff Otto
DATE: 20 Mar 92 16:56:52
TO: all
SUBJ: Abiogenesis
I posted the following messages back last august in the SCIENCE echo.
Recently, it has been requested that the material be posted once
again. I have not kept up with the field as much as I would have
liked (my own thesis work taking more and more of my time these days),
and consequently, have little to add to the following text. The one
addition is that further evidence is accumulating that the functional
parts of snrps (small nuclear riboproteins), is in fact the RNA. I
got this information second hand from a biochemist (Stephen Monroe),
who atttended an RNA meeting late last summer. If anyone can update
what I have here, or address the role of lipid formation in early
biological systems, I would be greatly indebted.
The bottom line remains the same. The following does not prove that
this is the way that life first evolved. Rather it indicates a
possible scenario where life might have evolved. From this, even with
its problems it is clear that the chemistry of the compounds of which
we are made is such that abiogenesis could occur. A further
distinction should also be made. The following has no bearing on
evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory would predict the same
regardless of: special creation, space men, abiogenesis or anything
else. It only predicts change in the frequency with which certain
alleles exist in a population as environmental forces act upon that
population.
Jeff Otto
3-30-92
====================================================================
Chuck Maier has requested that I post a detailed message involving a
possible biochemistry of abiogenesis. The following messages contain my
comments on the matter.
The following are various organic/biochemical reactions that may have
occurred on primitive earth. The reactions are taken directly from
the text Biochemistry by Geoffrey Zubay, the second edition, 1988. To
be honest, I though this text was more comprehensive that it appears
to be. In order to address abiogenesis, one first must decide what
would be required for a primitive "living" system. Based on the
studies of Thomas Cech, Norman Pace, Sidney Altman, and Alan Weiner, I
would suggest that a membrane encapsulated system containing RNA or an
RNA like molecule would be sufficient. This is based upon experiments
which have demonstrated that RNA can perform the following:
1) act as a polymerase and direct template specific synthesis of RNA
2) act as a site specific nuclease to cleave RNA
3) act as polymerase and direct template independent synthesis of RNA
The result of these reactions is a molecule that under different ionic
conditions can replicate, and release the products of replication via
cleavage. To my way of thinking, in order to optimize the
concentrations, and allow for somewhat adequete conditions for a self
replicating system, it should be self contained, thus a membrane would
be important if not required for our first "living" organism. It is
quite possible that the earliest life forms performed these required
reactions by nucleating in pockets of salt water saturated clays.
Eventually however, a membrane is required. You should not from the
above discussion assume that proteins are not required for this most
primitive of scenarios.
Beyond this, there is circumstantial evidence that would support RNA's
role in primitive life. First of all, it is completely ubiquitous and
absolutely required for life of all known systems. No known
biological systems can survive without RNA. DNA viruses have to go
through an RNA intermediate. Not all RNA viruses require a DNA
intermediate. This is an important distinction. Secondly, increasing
evidence has demonstrated that it is the RNA in ribosomes that is
critical for protein synthesis, not the proteins. It appears that the
proteins are more of a scaffolding, while the RNA performs the
catalytic function. Thus we have evidence of yet another role for RNA
- that for polypeptide synthesis. Furthermore, RNA has been
implicated in maintenance of telomeres, which is important to prevent
loss of genetic information in each round of replication. Other
groups have also implicated RNA as a catalyst involved in carbohydrate
metabolism. From these examples it is clear that no other molecule is
nearly as wide reaching in its biological implications as RNA.
Now, what is required to form an RNA molecule, and is it reasonable to
expect that these molecules may have formed spontaneosly on primitive
earth?
To answer the first part, you need bases, a sugar and phosphates. To
answer the second part, the answer is yes, and no. Although the
arguments are certainly not definitive, they are currently the best
ones that I am aware of, although it is entirely possible that I have
missed important research in this area in the last few years. The
next message(s) will detail these reactions and my comments on them.
Much to my regret, the text that I have does not supply the reactions
for lipid synthesis or sugar synthesis. The lipid reactions I have
completely forgotten and will have to ignore. The sugar reactions, I
remember a bit more of, and will try to recount what I can.
--- XRS!% 4.50+
* Origin: SciQuest BBS Science is our Specialty (RAX 1:154/32.32)
==!
==* HANSEN
FROM: Greg Hansen
DATE: 20 Mar 92 10:30:07
TO: Marty Leipzig
SUBJ: Re: Evolution - genetic mistakes, by pure chance
166
>I have pictures here of spoons and other artifacts that have been found
>in coal beds. Just because things like this are ignored doesn't mean
>they don't exist. Most likely some of these human 'ancestors' were humans.
GH>
GH> Not enough data to draw anything useful out of that.
GH> Marty, do you have an opinion?
>
> Yes I do, and I would have kept them to myself unless you would
> have asked. You see, there are certain individuals (singular
> actually) that I refuse to waste any more time on.
If you ever want to direct an opinion to me instead of Chuck,
please do so. I'd be happy to see it.
> But since you asked; spoons in coal beds, "machined metal cubes
> found in coal beds", "fossil bullets" found in/on/near dinosaur
> remains, "fossil screws" found in Ordovician rocks, an ancient
> "hammer" found in Paleozoic sediments, Miocene Human Jawbones,
> a fossil Triassic sandal print, "Glen Rose Man"...I've heard it all
> before. It's either distortion (of which I'm not sure that it's not
> deliberate); misinterpretation (the "machined cube" was the mineral
> galena which just so happens to be hexahedral in nature, the "fossil
> screw" is the Bryozoan colony _Archimedes_, the "fossil bullets" are
> belemnites (common Mesozoic cephalopods)); hoaxes perpetrated for
> whatever reason; faulty reasoning; and a willingness to accept almost
> anything, no matter how unsupported, that is deemed inimical to
> evolution.
>
> None of the claims brought forth by creationists regarding these
> "unique" (but strangely ubiquitous) objects has ever stood up to
> scientific scrutiny. Pictures of supposed spoons found in supposed
> coals
> prove absolutely zero. And that's the amount of credence I give these
> objects and their promoters.
I suspected as much. But, in your opinion, is it possible for a
genuine artifact to become embedded in coal? (Besides someone digging
a hole and putting it there, which would probably leave some pretty
obvious evidence even to my untrained eye.)
Did you get the letter I sent you yet? (If you didn't, I'd start
to worry because I sent it out weeks ago, and haven't had it
returned.)
--- Opus-CBCS 1.12
* Origin: Nick's Nest (612) 490-3415 - (612) 490-0341 HST (1:282/3.0)
==!
==* CAMPBELL
FROM: Harlow Campbell
DATE: 18 Mar 92 22:47:04
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Evolution - genetic mistakes, by pure chance
> Speaking of court, ICR
> has finally won its court case against the humanists who are
> really the ones trying to legislate how science is taught
> (contrary to Mr. Horn's remarks recently).
Where when and what case?
---
* Origin: Would you persuade, speak of interest, not of Reason. (1:132/130)
==!
==* MARKOWITZ
FROM: Maury Markowitz
DATE: 19 Mar 92 18:06:00
TO: Jeff Otto
SUBJ: Abiogenesis overview - in
On 03-16-92, JEFF OTTO wrote to CHUCK MAIER:
JO> Well, Chuck, I would like to continue this discussion, but
JO> unfortunately, you have not yet answered the questions I had for
JO> you. I haven't forgotten this. Would you like me to post them
JO> again, now so that you may have a crack at them?
Boy, I only asked one. It's 7 months later, and I'm still waiting.
I do hope you won't hold your breath! :-) You'll note that my refusal
to talk to Chuck until he answers has resulted in these wonderful side
effects:
a) My blood pressure has dropped
b) Less mail by Chuck
I think either one was worth it alone, but both! WOW!
Maury
---
This copy of Freddie 1.1 is being evaluated.
* Origin: Scott's Basement ! Special Interest Areas (416)898-4826 (1:250/901)
==!
==* RHORER
FROM: Leslie Rhorer
DATE: 20 Mar 92 13:10:43
TO: Greg Hansen
SUBJ: Re: Evolution - Genetic Mistakes, By Pure Chance
GH> >* In a message originally conjoured for Greg Hansen, Chuck Maier said:
GH> >
GH> > Lots of stuff...
GH> >
GH> > I'd like to get into an analysis of what you said, Chuck. I
GH> >_really_ would. But I'm still waiting for you to answer those other
GH> >questions that I've posed to you. Would you like reminders...again...?
GH>
GH> I'd like to see your analysis of what Chuck said. I _really_
GH> would. Could you direct it to me instead of him?
Exactly! See, that is one very large reason why I do not
personally object to the various postings of those people with an
agenda, whatever that agenda may be, or how logic tight the
compartment that creates the agenda may be. We all can learn from the
replies to these people, the reader because it unearths new
information, and the respondent because it forces them to clarify and
rethink the position in their own minds. Although I, along with most
of the echo participants, have undertaken to ignore Chuck (not because
he is a creationist, but because he refuses to be equitable and honest
in his posting techniques), the last thing we want to do (IMHO) is
silence the creationists, irrational and uninformed though they may
be.
Les
ERROR! Backup not found: Abort, Retry, Massive heart failure?_
--- EZPoint V2.2
* Origin: GUI? Ptui!!! --- Last Chance Pt 4 (1:387/823.4)
==!
==* RHORER
FROM: Leslie Rhorer
DATE: 20 Mar 92 13:19:46
TO: Aaron Boyden
SUBJ: Re: Evolution
> JZ> Further, since complexity cannot just
> JZ> appear by some freak accident of nature, there must be one
> JZ> or more intelligent designers and creators.
> This argument was pretty well destroyed in the
> 19th century, I believe.
AB> 18th. David Hume's _Dialogues Concerning Natural
AB> Religion_, published shortly after his death in 1776, is
AB> generally considered to be the definitive refutation of
AB> the argument from design.
Thanks, I thought it was a bit later than that. Amazing how
these folks cling to (often rather silly) arguments that have been
refuted for over two centuries.
Les
ERROR! Backup not found: Abort, Retry, Massive heart failure?_
--- EZPoint V2.2
* Origin: GUI? Ptui!!! --- Last Chance Pt 4 (1:387/823.4)
==!
==* RHORER
FROM: Leslie Rhorer
DATE: 20 Mar 92 14:05:58
TO: Harlow Campbell
SUBJ: Re: Evolution - genetic mistakes, by pure chance
> Speaking of court, ICR
> has finally won its court case against the humanists who are
> really the ones trying to legislate how science is taught
> (contrary to Mr. Horn's remarks recently).
HC> Where when and what case?
Ooooh! Asking a creationist for actual solid evidence is
against the rules, didn't you know that? It's got to be true because
he said it, don't you know? (Gad, I'm beginning to get cynical!)
Les
ERROR! Backup not found: Abort, Retry, Massive heart failure?_
--- EZPoint V2.2
* Origin: GUI? Ptui!!! --- Last Chance Pt 4 (1:387/823.4)
==!
==* OTTO
FROM: Jeff Otto
DATE: 21 Mar 92 08:35:05
TO: Maury Markowitz
SUBJ: Abiogenesis overview - in
In a message to Jeff Otto <19 Mar 92 18:06> Maury Markowitz wrote:
MM> On 03-16-92, JEFF OTTO wrote to CHUCK MAIER:
> JO> Well, Chuck, I would like to continue this discussion, but
> JO> unfortunately, you have not yet answered the questions I had for
> JO> you. I haven't forgotten this. Would you like me to post them
> JO> again, now so that you may have a crack at them?
MM> Boy, I only asked one. It's 7 months later, and I'm still waiting. I
MM> do hope you won't hold your breath! :-) You'll note that my refusal to
MM> talk to Chuck until he answers has resulted in these wonderful side
MM> effects:
MM> a) My blood pressure has dropped
MM> b) Less mail by Chuck
MM> I think either one was worth it alone, but both! WOW!
It has done much to improve my frame of mind as well. My frustration
level with this echo has dropped substantially. There were periods
late last summer, when I considered dropping out of the echo
altogether, but now I am glad that I stayed. Glad you did too.
Jeff
--- XRS!% 4.50+
* Origin: SciQuest BBS Science is our Specialty (RAX 1:154/32.32)
==!
==* THOMPSON
FROM: John Thompson
DATE: 23 Mar 92 20:12:00
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Evolution Says Nothing
After 3 months of filtering your messages, I take Marty's suggestion
to read them for their humor value, and look what happens...
Seems like you're dishing out the same load of crapola!
Here's a little "gem" you wrote to Les Rhorer:
CM> ...through genetic mistakes (duplications, point mutations,
CM> etc. ), occurring by pure chance, all adaptive complexity of life has
CM> come to pass.
We've been over this SOOOOO many times before -- can't you give it a
rest and think up something new? Look at this message from last
October:
Date : 19-Oct-91 12:23 (received on 20-Oct-91 20:18)
From : Chuck Maier
To : John Thompson
Subj : Evolution: Genetic mistakes, by PURE CHANCE!
JT> CM> Yet, you guys want me to believe that a
JT> CM> billion years of genetic mistakes, occurring by PURE CHANCE,
JT> CM> can solve all of these problems!!! This sort of logic takes
JT> CM> place nowhere else in real science.
JT>
JT> Fer cryin' out loud, Chuck this is LITERALLY the fifth time in the
JT> last 2 months I have had to tell you that *NOBODY* claims that
JT> evolution proceeds by
JT> "PURE CHANCE"! Are you dense, or what!!??
JT>
JT> ...as I have pointed out
JT> to you many times -- random variation is *ONLY ONE PART* of what is
JT> needed for evolution. By itself, random mutation would not be adequate
JT> to account for evolution. BUT NO COMPETENT EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGIST
JT> BELIEVES THAT RANDOM VARIATION ACTS ALONE TO PRODUCE EVOLUTION. Please
JT> don't drag out this straw-man any more.
This is at least "number six", not counting any similar messages I
missed since January!
And how about this one to Marty Leipzig?
CM> Several times I have posted from literature 15 years old that there is
CM> no evidence of in the sedimentary distribution of C, S, Fe, and U that
CM> there was ever any evidence of a reducing atmosphere. That is to say,
CM> the earth's atmosphere has always been oxidizing, just like the
CM> creationists predict.
The literature you cited (that I have been able to read) did *NOT* say
that there was NO evidence of a reducing atmosphere; what it said is
there was *SOME* evidence that there was O2 in the early atmosphere.
*YOU* made the "leap of faith" that it meant the early atmosphere was
identical to the present atmosphere. The scientists in the articles I
read were more cautious -- they used words to the effect that their
new evidence may require re-thinking of the standard model of a
reducing atmosphere. That's quite a difference in meaning!
While we're on this subject, back in January I posted a message on
your atmospheric evidence. You never commented on it. In case you
missed it, here it is again:
I see our resident creationist apologist is back with his curious
perversions of fact and logic...
In a message to Howard Brazee, Matt Giwer quoted Chuck Maier:
MG> CM>Well just what do you consider my recent posts on the early
MG> CM>atmosphere? Using physical atmospheric chemistry, empirical
MG> CM>geologic research, it is readily shown that the atmosphere has
MG> CM>probably been essentially the same as it is now. That's the
MG> CM>empirical evidence. Completely inconsistent with the myth we've
MG> CM>been taught for the last 30 years, but completely consistent
MG> CM>with the predictions of creationists.
Since this geologic research concerning the composition of the
primordial atmosphere is apparently the favored, nay, virtually the
*ONLY* evidence of any scientific merit offered here in support of the
"creation model" it may be appropriate to evaluate this matter some
more. Several points come to mind immediately:
1. The composition of the primordial atmosphere remains a controversial
issue. While there may be some evidence that suggests that molecular
oxygen was a component of the early atmosphere, there is also
considerable evidence that it was not. It is not appropriate to simply
dismiss this evidence because it does not happen to fit with a
preconceived notion that the early atmosphere was essentially identical
to the present atmosphere.
2. Geological evidence of oxidizing conditions does not necessarily mean
* * * C O N T I N U E D T O N E X T M E S S A G E * * *
* KingQWK 0.11b # 39 * ERROR! Target Mind Not Open? Abort, Retry, Ignore?
--- SuperQWK 1.16 Gamma-2A (Reg)
* Origin: APPLEGATE; Appleton, WI. (COM2) (1:139/630)
==!
==* THOMPSON
FROM: John Thompson
DATE: 23 Mar 92 20:12:00
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Evolution Says Nothing{2}
* * * C O N T I N U E D F R O M L A S T M E S S A G E * * *
global distribution of free O2. The evidence of primordial molecular
oxygen may also reflect local, rather than global conditions of free
O2, perhaps due to local populations of early photosynthesizing
organisms. This, too, cannot be dismissed out of hand.
3. Even evidence of global primordial free O2 distribution does not
necessarily mean that primordial O2 concentrations were the same as
present O2 concentrations (as required by the "creation model"). The
observed geological evidence of free O2 might be accounted for by O2
concentrations at only a small fraction of the present concentration.
This of course would preclude the presence of any terrestrial animals
during this early period, in direct contradiction to the "creation
model".
4. If it is eventually established that a significant concentration of
globally distributed free O2 was a component of the primordial
atmosphere, this only eliminates *SOME* (not all!) proposed mechanisms
for abiogenesis; BUT it does *NOT* invalidate the principle of
evolution, which is *AN ENTIRELY SEPARATE ISSUE*. While the
Miller-Urey model for abiogenesis requires a reducing atmosphere, other
models do not. Sidney Fox's proteinoid microspheres, for example, are
routinely synthesized in open glassware in today's oxidizing atmosphere
-- there is no reason to suspect they could not have done so in a
primordial oxidizing atmosphere.
5. A single piece of evidence that *MAY* be consistent with the "creation
model" is not adequate to establish creationism as a scientifically
credible alternative to abiogenesis and evolution. Much more work
would need to be done to precisely define terms (e.g. "created kind")
and mechanisms (e.g. "flood geology"), and show how creationism is
consistent with other scientific knowledge (e.g. the age of the
universe and the earth, the fossil record, relationships between
various organisms, etc.). Until that time, there is no compelling
reason to not treat "scientific creationism" as just another crackpot
theory inflicted on us by zealous believers.
All in all, it should be obvious that (in spite of his assertions to
the contrary) not only is this evidence Chuck Maier has given us quite
consistent with organic evolution and at least some models of
abiogenesis, it also offers only marginal and indirect support for his
favored theory of "scientific creation". It is not at all clear why
this evidence should lead us to accept his "theory" as a credible
alternative to abiogenesis and evolution, much less as preferable to
them!
...and how about this classic example of avoiding the issue from the
same message to Marty?
ML> Protracted "Argument From Design". Just as invalid today as it
ML> was when Hume disposed of it back in the 1700's.
CM>
CM> I wonder what old Dave [Hume] is up to these days. I was reading about
CM> his death bed scene a while back. Rather sad.
Rather than addressing what you may see as difficulties in Hume's
refutation of the argument from design, you facetiously muse about his
presumed fate for writing such heresy. Do you really expect people
will find your comments a convincing counter-argument?
I'll leave the TWIT filter off for a week to give you a chance to
respond.
* KingQWK 0.11b # 39 * ERROR! Target Mind Not Open? Abort, Retry, Ignore?
--- SuperQWK 1.16 Gamma-2A (Reg)
* Origin: APPLEGATE; Appleton, WI. (COM2) (1:139/630)
==!
==* ELSBERRY
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry
DATE: 25 Mar 92 23:56
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: ICR triumphs, US IQ plummets
EID:2de4 187a2827
> Dr. Steven Austin (Penn State
> U), who thesis on coal formation has been called "one of
> the finest ever written" by evolutionists, heads the
> Geology department.
I know this is unfair, and a depraved humanist tactic, but I would like you to answer a question which has been posed several times before, but which I have not seen you answer: which "evolutionists" made the statement quoted above, and where was it reported? I'm really interested in looking it up.
But, given your past record on answering simple questions, I am expecting and predicting the null response from you. Here's a prime opportunity for you to prove me wrong for once... make my day.
--- TPBoard 6.1
* Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (509-627-6CNS) (1:347/303)
SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
==!
==* LEIPZIG
FROM: Marty Leipzig
DATE: 26 Mar 92 11:03:24
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: ICR, science and credibility
..Chuck Maier, who should know enough to lay low after a TKO, said
to Marty Leipzig:
CM> Marty Leipzig, who trusts the ages of rocks, but not the Rock of
CM> Ages...
Yep. Sure do. I'll trust reality over fantasy every day of the
week.
ML> Here's the evidence, you can draw your own conclusions.
CM>
CM> Just one little thing , Comrade -
How creatively sophomoric, Chuck. Ever been to Russia? I have.
In my conversations with Russian scientists, I have found
they are remarkably intelligent and totally pragmatic. It was
quite refreshing, especially after prolonged exposure to a
certain group of religiously motivated pseudoscientists.
CM> Dr. Morris was citing a recent
CM> gallup poll about what the general public believes about creation or
CM> evolution the last time I heard the statements below...
ML> "...The problem lies in the fact that almost all
ML> university professors espouse this minority view [i.e.
CM>
CM> Care to produce the figures of that poll and redo the note?
Not unless anyone else in the Echo requests them. You don't
answer my (nor anyone else's) questions. Why should I answer
yours?
But, Chuck, while we're going about citing polls results;
shall we also quote the poll that notes that fully 50% of
Americans are functionally illiterate and 95% of the same
crowd are scientifically illiterate? And we wonder why so
many in America today swallow your particular brand of
pseudoscience.
ML> Morris continues "...But their real problem is that
ML> evolution is an illogical theory. Logical people know
ML> we didn't come from animals..."
CM>
CM> Morris used the illustration of children and how hard it is to get
CM> them to believe evolution. I heard of one account where an atheist
CM> told his son, "There is no God - we are the products of chance genetic
CM> mistakes. We came from apes." The little boy responded...
..."Gee, Dad. You don't know a thing about evolutionary theory, do
you? Because evolution does NOT maintain that we are products
of chance genetic mistakes nor we came from apes. Gee, whiz,
Dad, maybe you should put your Bible away for a while and read
an introductory text on biology or geology or zoology or
genetics....."
CM> Remember, 'ye must
CM> become as little children...'
Harken to thy own advice, Chuck.
ML> Morris concludes with an impassioned plea that all good
ML> Christians should flood the polls to elect "...those who
ML> stand for Biblical values..." He concludes with the time-
ML> honored swipe at homosexuals who "...vote at over a 90-
ML> percent rate. No wonder they have such influence."
CM>
CM> I think it's highly commendable that 90% of homosexuals vote. Now if
CM> everyone else would, too.
Gee...what a nice, warm fuzzy thought. You have a keen grasp of
the obvious, Chuck.
ML> Now, all this might be just fine if it was printed and
ML> distributed by some far-right, literalistic,
ML> fundamentalist group. But no! This is drawn up and
ML> espoused by the Institute for Creation Research; a group
CM>
CM> Well, of course we're... I mean , they're a literalist group.
CM> There's no hidden agenda.
Ha! Right, Chuck. Just say it often enough and hopefully
someone may believe you. No hidden agenda? How about trying to
inculcate their own particularly myopic and Biblically literal
viewpoints of ethics and morality into public school agendas
under the obviously invisible guise of so-called "Creation
Science"?
CM> Put up your dukes.
Why? Are you really that masochistic?
CM> Court decisions are turning around...
Right...Like Epperson vs. Arkansas, McLean vs. Arkansas,
Edwards vs. Aguillard...you know, where the Supreme Court
declared that the "Creationist Act" of Louisiana
unconstitutional? Hey, Chuck, that's a really nasty looking
hole in your foot there....
... They call him a neanderthal; something the neanderthals deeply resent
--- Blue Wave/Max v2.05
* Origin: HST/DS/v32bis 713-589-0308 (1:106/500.0)
==!
==* DIXON
FROM: Jim Dixon
DATE: 23 Mar 92 23:36:12
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: Leg lengthenings - u
From: CHUCK MAIER Refer#: NONE
To: MIKE WELCH Recvd: NO
___--------------------------------------------
CM> MW> CM> there's a lady in our congregation who has seen a leg grow out
CM> MW> CM> on a person at one meeting in Mexico.
CM> MW> That is one of the oldest tricks among faith healers. They either
CM>not a little slight of hand. I'm also reminded of an
CM>instance where Smith Wigglesworth, the old British
CM>evangelist, had a guy without feet go to a shoe store and
Hello Chuck;
If you have access to a religious leader who is willing, try this
experiment that has been done in the past;
Randomly select 6 to a dozen seeds of any quick to grow plant. Saves
time and effort. Randomly sort into two equal sections. Most
importantly, ensure that both groups are seeded into identical pots
with the same soil. Mark the boxes. Place these boxes at the front of
the congragation and ask, each week, that the congration seriously
pray that the seeds in the box/pot marked 'A' or '1' but not the
other, grow quickly and healthy. The results may prove interesting.
A similar *study was conducted and well documented of Reverend
Franklin Loehr. Dr. Loehr, interested in Cleve Backster's lab
discovery of similar design, placed flower seeds into identical boxes.
The care and conditions given both plantings was identical. Dr. Loehr
asked his congregation to "pray" for the seedlings in one box and
ignore (or even "curse" those in the other. The results were that the
prayed-over seeds produced sturdy, beautiful flowers while the seeds
in the other box produced yellowish, stunted growths. Of course, this
could be attributed to many things...just like some will atest that
'talking' to your plant improves their growth. Who is to say. There
are many things we don't quite understand. Perhaps it has something
to do with what Drs. Harold S. Burr and Leonard Ravitz of Yale
University's School of Medicine discovered of the "L-Fields" or Life
Fields.
*source...The Secret Science At Work Los Angeles:DeVorss
Jim
___
X SLMR 2.1a X
--- Maximus 2.01wb
* Origin: The Grape-Vine "Home of Ogopogo & Wine" Kelowna, B.C. (1:353/220)
==!
==* THOMPSON
FROM: John Thompson
DATE: 25 Mar 92 13:10:00
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Icr Triumphs - Christian
CM> John Thompson, who doesn't use ICR's Good Science Curriculum ...
...because they don't have one! :-b
CM> JT> In California, "unapproved" institutions (those not accredited by
CM> JT> an institution recognized by the US Dept. of Eduction) need
CM> JT> periodic approval...
CM>
CM> JT> The recent resolution of the case gives ICR temporary approval to
CM> JT> grant
CM> JT> degrees until the next CPPVE review date and pays about $225,000
CM> JT> of their
CM> JT> (ICR's) legal expenses incurred in the suit. It has *NOT*,
CM> JT> however, changed ICR's legal status to that of an "approved"
CM> JT> institution!
CM>
CM> ICR is accredited by TRACS, which is recognized by the U.S. Dept . of
CM> Education. So John, as a science educator, how do you see the
CM> resolution of this case as it affects freedom of speech and science
CM> education in the U.S. ?
Hang on to your hats, folks! Chuck's *RIGHT* about this! -- at least
as far as he takes it.
ICR was recently accredited by TRACS (the Transnational Association of
Christian Schools, headed by one Henry M. Morris -- now where have I
heard that name before?), however, California regulations recognize
accrediting by WASC (Western Association of Schools and Colleges), not
TRACS. It was my mistake in stating that USDE recognition of the
accrediting agency was adequate for California approval.
The recent court decision referred to in this discussion includes an
agreement that the CPPVE recognize TRACS accrediting -- which will
likely lead to further legal squabbles since California recognizes the
WASC statement on academic freedom which appears to be in
contradiction to the ICR-required (and TRACS-required) oath of fealty.
If California leans to the TRACS position, I see it as a grave danger
to academic freedom and science eduction, since other schools could
thereby require dogmatic adherence to certain belief systems, as ICR
presently does.
qOne last point that should be stressed is that ICR is still *NOT*
recognized by California as an accredited institution, although it is
now permitted to grant degrees again.
BTW, why did you address this to Harlow when it appears you wanted me
to respond to it?
* KingQWK 0.11b # 39 * ERROR! Target Mind Not Open? Abort, Retry, Ignore?
--- SuperQWK 1.16 Gamma-2A (Reg)
* Origin: APPLEGATE; Appleton, WI. (COM2) (1:139/630)
==!
==* KNAPP
FROM: Dave Knapp
DATE: 25 Mar 92 12:31:37
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: ICR TRIUMPHS - CHRISTIAN EDUC
CM>>Speaking of court, ICR >has finally won its court case against the
CM>>humanists who are >really the ones trying to legislate how science
CM>>is taught >(contrary to Mr. Horn's remarks recently).
CM>Basically, I think what we've seen here is a great spiritual battle
CM>for control of the minds of our young people played out here.
I'm going to save this little gem, because it is the first time
that I can recall that a creationist has been this upfront about the
real motivation for "creation science." It is to gain control of the
minds of children. How sad. Thank you, Chuck, for being so honest
about it.
-- Dave
--- TBBS v2.1/NM
* Origin: Diablo Valley PCUG-BBS, Walnut Creek, CA 510/943-6238 (1:161/55)
==!
==* PARRINELLO
FROM: Pat Parrinello
DATE: 26 Mar 92 19:57:02
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: ICR, science and credibility
CM> Marty Leipzig, who trusts the ages of rocks, but not the Rock of Ages...
CM> Morris used the illustration of children and how hard it is to get them to
CM> believe evolution.
To little boy, here at this very instant, I am addressing these questions.
What is your name? Clinton.
How old are you? 6
Do you believe in God? Yes.
Why? (shrugs sholders)
Do you know what creation is? Means make something.
Do you know what evolution is? No.
Do yo now what change is? Means change something, like clothes.
Do animals change? No.
Why? Cause they have hair on.
What about birds? They fly?
Do you think birds at one time a long time ago could not fly? No.
Why not? Cause they got to let their wings grow.
Well couldent they fly before their wings grew? No cause they didnt have no
wings cause they had to let them grow where they can fly.
Do you believe in Santa Clause? Yes.
Why? Cause he brings me presents.
What does God bring you? Food.
How does he get it to you? (shrugs sholders)
Do you believe God believes in evolution? Huh?
Where did God come from? (shrugs sholders)
Have you ever heard of Darwin? Darwin? no.
Did God ever make anything? I dont know.
Judging from the above I would conclude that your Morris evolved a
rather cute conclusion. How do you think he would react if I were
to try & teach this 6 year old what the very well known E=MC2 means?
Chuck, you never responded to having Jesus Christ represented in your
creation theory as being half(?) man. Well, was he? If he was then you
are half wrong. If he was not then you are totally wrong!
-Pat-
--- MacWoof 1.2.1
* Origin: Creation; making things fit imagination. (1:3812/20.2)
==!
==* HANSEN
FROM: Greg Hansen
DATE: 29 Mar 92 20:36:33
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: Marty and Mt. St. Helens
GH> killer geologists. Who can forget the classic, and possibly most
GH> memorable message of all from Marty to Chuck (quoted in part):
[Quote deleted for brevity.]
> Greg, we (Henry Shaw and I) have documented the fact that Marty was
>in fact wrong regarding the upright deposition of floating logs in
>the sediments at Spirit Lake. Marty has repeatedly stated that the
>sheered off logs were in-place trees which were shorn off in the
>blast. Nowhere have I seen him admit that any other mechanism was
>responsible
>There is no question that logs are settling upright and being
>covered with sediment. Why hasn't Marty ever admitted this? It's
>time someone held his feet to the fire on this one.
Go ahead, I'll be happy to see what happens.
I'm not going to give an opinion or take a "side" on this one.
But I will say it was probably in poor taste for me to dredge up the
past. I apologize if you feel offended.
>Did you happen to get some Internet mail I tried sending you?
Nope. Haven't seen it yet.
--- Opus-CBCS 1.12
* Origin: Nick's Nest (612) 490-3415 - (612) 490-0341 HST (1:282/3.0)
==!
==* ANDERSON
FROM: Brian Anderson
DATE: 31 Mar 92 00:05:00
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: Marty and Mt. St. Hel
LR> Of course, it really doesn't matter, since the Earth's biosphere is
LR>quite an open system, and is not prevented by the Second Law from
LR>decreasing its entropy either locally or globally. Why you and your
LR>creationists friends are so hung up on this is beyond me.
Les is right, Chuck -- the Second Law has no bearing on an open
system, and can't be used in a creation/evolution argument by either
side.
SLMR 2.0 If this were an actual tagline, it would be funny.
--- WM v2.01/92-0140
* Origin: Modem Addictus Hospital 512-443-8941 USR DS 14.4K (1:382/10
==!
==* ELSBERRY
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry
DATE: 31 Mar 92 06:30
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Austin's coal thesis - one of the f
EID:9865 187fbbc3
> As for the specifics, I don't know. This is what his bio
> says in a recent Acts & Facts. I have no reason to
> believe that this is not the case .
Given the ICR's record for veracity, I have plenty of reason to suspect this is _not_ the case.
And given that you certainly don't accept things said by Marty, Jeff, Leslie, and others here unless substantiated, I see no reason to simply accept your belief in the ICR's veracity as sufficient to allow this statement to pass unchallenged. Until you do the homework, I'm going to call you on this one every time you bring it up.
--- TPBoard 6.1
* Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (509-627-6CNS) (1:347/303)
SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
PATH: 347/303
==!
==* THOMPSON
FROM: John Thompson
DATE: 31 Mar 92 12:38:00
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Icr, Science And Credibil
Chuck Maier writes in a message to Marty Leipzig
CM> It should be significant, then, if this Kouznetsov, with his
CM> three earned Ph.D. degrees goes over to creation based on the
CM> haaaard scientific evidence. I've pointed this out to several
CM> people. They immediately point out how far behind the Soviets
CM> are in science and/or the guy must be an idiot to hold such a
CM> position. Or that he was a Christian first.
Chuck, when you first posted about this fellow, I responded *NOT* by
"point[ing] out how far behind the Soviets are in science and/or the
guy must be an idiot to hold such a position [o]r that he was a
Christian first", but by 1) asking you WHAT SPECIFIC SCIENTIFIC
EVIDENCE LEAD HIM TO HIS NEW POSITION on this issue and 2) asking what
relevance a religious conversion has to a scientific issue. To my
knowledge you never addressed these issues -- to date, you still have
not given us *ANY* "haaaard scientific evidence" that could lead a
person to accept creationism as a scientific theory! Until you do so,
all your anecdotes about brilliant scientists becoming creationists on
the basis of "haaaard scientific evidence" are nothing more than hot
air!
* KingQWK 0.11b # 39 * Evolution: the unifying principle of Biology!
--- SuperQWK 1.16 Gamma-2A (Reg)
* Origin: APPLEGATE; Neenah, WI. (COM1) (1:139/631)
==!
==* LEE
FROM: Stephen Lee
DATE: 31 Mar 92 10:48:05
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Question?
I have one question. A simple one. Why do you want me (or anyone)
to believe in creation?
<] Nanaimo, B.C., Canada. (1:351/268)
==!
==* THOMPSON
FROM: John Thompson
DATE: 03 Apr 92 13:04:00
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: From Russia, With Oil
CM> He's an M.D. / Ph.D biochemist, and he picked up a D.Sc. in Molecular
CM> Biology for kicks. He was awarded the Lenin Komsommol Prize (given to
CM> the two most outstanding young scientists, annually) and the coveted
CM> Council of Ministries Prize later. He tells us he became a creationist
CM> and a Christian several years later. When asked if evolution is a
CM> viable scientific explanation of the evidence in his field, he gives a
CM> resounding, " Nyet!" One of his colleagues has even introduced
CM> mandatory creation science lectures in his course. And they're handing
CM> out free Bibles in some Russian schools these days.
This is all very entertaining, Chuck, but details concerning the
"haaard scientific evidence" that led your soviet friend to become a
creationist are still conspicuously absent. I'm surprised you haven't
posted it yet-- if this evidence is so powerful that it can convert a
hard-boiled atheist commie into a fundamentalist Christian just think
what it could do to the wimpy agnostic evolutionist hand-wringers
here! C'mon! I'm feeling brave! Lets's see the "haaard scientific
evidence!"
* KingQWK 0.11b # 39 * Evolution: the unifying principle of Biology!
--- SuperQWK 1.16 Gamma-2A (Reg)
* Origin: APPLEGATE_The_BBS (COM1) (1:139/631)
==!
==* ELSBERRY
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry
DATE: 5 Apr 92 06:19
TO: All
SUBJ: CM's request for Denton info
EID:e45a 1885332c
Since Chuck Maier is unable to upload postings from the talk.origins newsgroup and wants info on Denton distributed, I'll help him out by posting a couple of interesting t.o. articles. Here's the first, the second is a FAQ that will be split across two FidoNet messages:
talk.origins #23493 (41 more)
From: 00prneubauer@bsu-ucs.uucp (Paul Neubauer)
[1] Re: "Evolution, a Theory in Crisis"
Date: Thu Mar 12 16:15:11 CST 1992
Lines: 72
No doubt I am about to stick a big, fat foot into my big, fat mouth,
(since I have not read Denton's book) but here goes anyway. (And at
least I am confining myself to something I think I might understand :-).
In article <2876@daily-planet.concordia.ca>, gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca
(Gene Ward Smith) writes:
(And in another article, Gene writes:
>In case it isn't obvious, globally swap Dutton to Denton in my reply to
>Bruce Salem.
so I have.)
> In article
> salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) writes:
>>Also, men and mice might be substancially
>>similar when compared to tuna, by this measure? The former are placential
>>mammals and a tuna is a boney fish. The Primates and Rodants radiated
>>from ancestral stock at about the same time (50 Million years ago)
>>whereas the boney fish appeared about 150 million years ago.
>
> That is why I also brought in frogs and tuna, for which Denton
> claims the same phenomenon occurs. He also says a tuna is no
> more close to a shark than a human is, for instance.
Actually, I think that Bruce has a point here (not that I think Bruce
has never had points before, mind you). The point is that all of
humans, mice and tuna would have diverged from the common stock with
sharks at the same time so you should expect tuna, frogs, mice and
humans to be equally distant from sharks. I would also expect tuna
and mice to display approximately the same degree of difference from
each other as tuna and humans display and similarly, by this criterion
(as Bruce points out) mice and humans ought to display more similarity
than mice or humans to tuna.
Crudely, as far as I know, something like the following relationship
tree ought to hold. I would expect similarities to correspond to
closer branches on such a tree and I would expect (by the molecular
clock theory at least) that ALL leaf nodes that descend from a given
branching node would be equally distant from any particular leaf node
that does not descend from the specified branch node.
cartilaginous fish A sharks
--------------------+--------------------------------------------
|
| boney fish C tuna
+---------------+----------------------------
B |
| frogs
| +------------------------
| |
| | mice
| | +---------
| | |
+---+--------------+F
D E | humans
+---------
Now the question is "Does Denton's data show anything different that
would not be expected from such a tree?" I have already admitted that
I have not read the book, so I am prepared to be embarressed, but none
of the points you have cited so far have spoken to anything resembling
a problem for such a tree (which, after all, is pretty conventional).
That is, specifically, since tuna, and humans (for example) both
descend from node C and sharks do not, it should be expected that tuna
and humans are equally different from sharks, i.e., "a tuna is no more
close to a shark than a human is".
Or am I missing something big?
--
Paul Neubauer 00PRNEUBAUER@BSUVAX1.BITNET 00prneubauer@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu
00prneubauer@bsu-ucs.UUCP neubauer@bsu-cs.UUCP
--- TPBoard 6.1
* Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (509-627-6CNS) (1:347/303)
SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
PATH: 347/303
==!
==* ELSBERRY
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry
DATE: 5 Apr 92 06:20
TO: All
SUBJ: More Denton info 1/2
EID:eaf4 1885332d
talk.origins #22820 (0 + 287 more)
From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
[2] Denton Rebuttal FAQ
Keywords: denton rebuttal cyt c arguments
Date: Sun Feb 09 21:03:33 CST 1992
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Lines: 161
Nntp-Posting-Host: gandalf.cs.cmu.edu
Article 3749 of talk.origins:
From: lew@ihlpa.ATT.COM (Lew Mammel, Jr.)
Subject: Re: Denton's book
Summary: I read it
Message-ID: <8948@ihlpa.ATT.COM>
Date: 15 Aug 88 22:42:03 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois
The main weakness I recall was a confusion between actual lines of
descent and the modern representatives of the stages along these
lines. This was most obvious in his discussion of cytochrome-c
analysis. He declared that evolution predicted that ( say ) fish,
frogs, and birds should have successively less correlation with a
common ancestor in their amino acid sequences.
This is not found, of course, since all these modern animals have
been diverging for the same length of time from any common ancestor.
Evolution predicts a hierarchy of groups, each of which is defined by
a constant correlation with that group's common ancestor, and with
the smaller more recently evolved subgroups having a higher
correlation with their more recent common ancestor. The data fits
this expectation very well, and this fit is rightly regarded as a
brilliant confirmation of the phylogenies based on morphology.
So if an author gets something THIS fundamental THAT wrong, where
does that leave him? Out in left field, I say. Nevertheless, the book
is coherent enough to make for some stimulating reading. That is, it
may be challenging to discover the errors of argument in each case,
but be aware of the author's predilection for unsound argument. I
actually saw Denton's cytochrome-c argument repeated by a creationist
( Richard Bliss ) before I saw Denton's book. I reported this on the
net several years ago.
Another interesting, but spurious, argument is based on homologies of
structures in the same organism. Denton states that hands obviously
can not be evolved from feet, or vice versa, so that their
similarities cannot be explained by descent with modification. Of
course, a little consideration of the importance of segmentation in
the development of individual organisms reveals the bankruptcy of
this argument.
------------
(continued)
--- TPBoard 6.1
* Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (509-627-6CNS) (1:347/303)
SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
==!
==* ELSBERRY
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry
DATE: 5 Apr 92 06:21
TO: All
SUBJ: More Denton info 2/2
EID:ea04 18853334
(continued)
[2] Denton Rebuttal FAQ
Keywords: denton rebuttal cyt c arguments
------------
Article 19567 of talk.origins:
From: WHAMILTO@cmsa.gmr.com (Bill Hamilton)
Subject: Comments on Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Denton)
Message-ID: <67819@rphroy.ph.gmr.com>
Date: 1 Nov 91 19:49:01 GMT
Organization: GM Research Labs
I came across the following letter in the December 1989 issue of
Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith (The American Scientific
Affiliation's Journal):
"
I am writing in response to the recent (December 1988) and lengthy
review of Michael Denton's "Evolution: A theory in crisis". The
reviewer, (T.E. Woodward) presented a very favorable account of a
book whose claims to scholorship or integrity are woefully deficient.
The book is praised as "an intellectual and spiritual delight," a
forceful critique," and a "careful historical review." Furthermore,
the impression is given that informed reviews likewise share the same
positive appraisal. I take serious objection to all these points.
To start in reverse order, five out of seven reviews I could obtain
in my university library pointed out the serious errors of logic,
synedoches, direct misquotes, gross factual mistakes, and even
spelling errors in Denton's book. The only slightly positive
comments came from the "Parabola" - an eastern mysticism journal -
and from Stephen Rose who approved the critique of the path of avian
evolution of flight even though he acknowledged the serious errors
and oversimplifications in the book.
Why are all these reviewers so irate? Basically, the same old
creationist tactics and ill-founded objections. Consider Denton's
facile explanation of why evolution - the object of critique is
macroevolution - is accepted by the scientific community: the
"priority paradigm." This Kuhnian notion (already problematic in
Kuhn's own work) is given the sole task of founding Denton's
protrayal of a theory in "crisis" which is nevertheless not
abandoned.
Denton's lack of precision - he conflates natural selection with
chance - and expertise is also evident in his treatment of technical
disputes within biology. These include the punctuationalists'
attempts to decouple macroevolution from microevolution, the cladist
attack on Darwinian phylogenes, Kimura's neutralism and discussions
of the paths of evolution (such as avian flight). The standard
creationist tactic consists of "research by exegesis" or eisogesis in
this case; quotations from oponents in some minor technical dispute
are judiciously chosen to make both positions seem untenable leaving
agnosticism or creationism the only remaining alternatives. Denton's
mishandling of these technical disputes enables him to conclude that
there is no reason to believe that evolution of the higher taxa ever
occurred.
Denton unearths the typological perception of nature which was
legitimately abandoned due to its lack of explanatory power. Denton
proposes that all mammals are derived from a mammalian "archetype",
fish from a fish archetype and so on. But how many archetypes will
Denton need to account for the incredible diversity past and present
species? Secondly how are these species "derived" and what are the
limits to change since he allows for microevolution? Thirdly, how can
this anachronistic typology account for the examples of species which
are not rationally explainable in terms of types and constitute
powerful evidence for the fact that evolution has occurred? Thus,
whales with femurs, Archaebacteria, strange animals on Madagascar,
marsupials, toothed birds, ..are either ignored or dismissed by some
sleight of hand - see Denton's treatment of Archaeopterix. The whole
discontinuous/continuous argument of Denton founders on his lack of
precision and his failing to take into account significant research
on the transitions between species or "types".
Perhaps the best example of Denton's lack of intellectual acuity can
be seen in his mishandling of molecular homologies. He confuses
cousin-cousin relationships with ancestor-descendant relationships
and comes up with the profound conclusion that both fish and humans
are "equidistant" from lamprey. From the gross differences that both
fish and mammals have from lamprey he fallaciously concludes that all
vertebrate groups are equidistant from one another. The remarkable
agreement of molecular data with traditional evolutionary phylogenies
beggars description. There is no reason why humans need to be more
closely related to chimpanzees than most other species of primates.
Ironically, even Denton's diagrams of nested sets point to the
hierarchical nature of taxonomy (already derived from paleontology
and comparative anatomy) which is yet another line of evidence for
the fact of evolution.
Denton's major flaws lie in his scholarship and integrity. Firstly,
his citations of leading biologists often distort and twist their
intent (his discussion on taxonomy where he makes Halstead sound like
a cladist!) Secondly he ignores arguments which he cannot criticize.
Thus, key evidences for the fact of biological oddities and
"imperfections," some of the better fossil transitions, comparative
anatomy, biogeography, and the remarkable congruence of the geologic
column with evolutionary hypotheses are not even addressed.
On a personal note, I must confess to the surface persuasiveness of
Denton's book. The selective treatment of evolutionary biology -
focussed on difficult transitions and especially abiogenesis - and
the impressive if fraudulent citations belie the true nature of the
book's argument. On a second and more perspicacious reading I was at
first disappointed and then finally infuriated by the unsustainable
attacks on evolution and the even more repulsive misuse of sources.
Denton rightly belongs with other misbegotten attacks on evolution
such as Ian Taylor's "In the minds of men" - their popularity is
inversely proportional to the biological or historical knowledge of
their readers. Unfortunately the desire to see evolution refuted
often grants evolution's critics a prior claim to truth. If we
should go about refuting evolution it will require sound arguments
and careful scholarship; nothing less is worthy of the evangelical
community.
Marvin Keuhn
48 Carling Street #1
Hamilton, Ontario L8S 1M9
Canada
"
--
Don D.C.Lindsay Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
--- TPBoard 6.1
* Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (509-627-6CNS) (1:347/303)
SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
PATH: 347/303
==!
==* PARRINELLO
FROM: Pat Parrinello
DATE: 04 Apr 92 00:02:57
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: Why I want you to believe in creation
CM> Charles Darwin said, " There is a grandeur to this view of life... ."
CM> However, recently, I had an altercation with an individual who wanted all
CM> of my money and asked for it with a tire iron. There for a few seconds, I
CM> was in a struggle for existence. Let me tell you, it was no "grand view
CM> of life." Yet, I could hardly fault the other person if he was
CM> exercising some natural evolutionary principles to further his own
CM> existence.
So what did you do? You left me hanging. Did you whip his ass or fork over
your money & some lug nuts? (I rather doubt you had a tire iron on you at
the time.) I also think you would have "hardly faulted" him if he was an
ardent creationist. Or am I wrong? You would have also whipped his ass
knowing he was a creationist, right? Or did you turn the other 'cheek'?
-Pat-
--- MacWoof 1.2.1
* Origin: go GO! H. Ross Periot... (1:3812/20.2)
==!
==* LAURION
FROM: OWEN LAURION
DATE: 04 Apr 92 01:01:00
TO: ALL
SUBJ: Non-ferric iron?
In a post from Chuck Maier, a passing reference is made to:
>... the distribution of ferric iron in sedimentary rocks...
This is out of context, but what would be "non-ferric iron"?
Curiously, %? Owen K. Laurion.
...would "Iron John" be a book about ferric toilets?
--- * MjrFIDO/1.60
--- ConfMail V3.2
* Origin: THE ELECTRONIC TRIB, Albuquerque, N.M., (1:301/200)
==!
==* LEE
FROM: Stephen Lee
DATE: 04 Apr 92 10:04:26
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Re: Why I want you to believe in creation
In a msg on , Chuck Maier of 1:233/13 writes:
SL> I have one question. A simple one. Why do you want me (or anyone)
SL> to believe in creation?
SL>
SL> < Stephen.
CM>
CM> I suppose there are many reasons. On one hand, I think it would
CM> be very beneficial for YOU because it would be a starting point
CM> for getting to know your Creator and your place in life.
I know my creator, my place in life, and even my place in the
universe. It's not very inspiring, infact it's somewhat humbleing, and
I wouldn't have it any other way. My beliefs are not up for analysis
however because I am not trying to inflict them on others. Yours
however are, and for exactly the oposite reason. I don't see how
forcing me to believe in a fairy tale, and give up my ability to think
for myself, is going to be benificial. In fact I CAN see how it could
be VERY detrimental and even dangerous! If everyone practices the
dogma, who is left to search for the truth.
CM>
CM> However, most people here aren't interested in such a
CM> proposition, so let me answer from a selfish perspective - why
CM> such beliefs would be good for ME.
CM> One principal of life is that we are what we think we are - as a man
CM> thinks in his heart, so he is. What a man beholds, he becomes.
CM> Many of us, today, are beholding parts, in movies and magazines and so
CM> forth, and becoming those parts. That's why 15% of the women are raped on
CM> our campuses nowadays.
You didn't say what you said you'd say in that paragraph, ie. why it
would be good for you. What you DID say is, that we are what we think
we are, and that if we emulate bad things we will be bad. How does
accepting creation change this? Am I to infere by that reasoning, that
you think emulating a closed minded, dictatorial, ignorant (of the
truth) role model, with the intention of forcing it's ways on others,
rather than emulateing a free-thinking, fare, reasonable, rational,
flexable and learning being, you will make life better for (among
others) 15% of female college students. I don't think young people (or
any people for that mater) should use cruel, violent movie characters
as role models, but what has this to do with teaching creation? I
don't see how closing my mind will help you either.
CM>
CM> Or, consider if you think you're a product of blind chance -
CM> that, as the prophet S. J. Gould teaches, - if we reran the tape
CM> of evolution, it may not result in mankind at all. We're just a
CM> product of some fortuitous environmental deviation which brought
CM> forth a particular set of random genetic mistakes. We're
CM> creatures who have resulted from the death and struggle amongst
CM> all the species. By death came man.
First... If we start the process all over again, with the same
'matrix', if you will..., the results would be the same. Even if not,
how would we know the difference. Second... Despite your grose over
simplification, you seem to have captured the gist of it. If somewhere
back along the 'tape', at a point when it was benificial, a mutation
had occured that gave us an extra edge beyond what which we already
had, it would have been 'selected for' and we'd be different than we
are now.
CM>
CM> Charles Darwin said, " There is a grandeur to this view of
CM> life... ." However, recently, I had an altercation with an
CM> individual who wanted all of my money and asked for it with a
CM> tire iron. There for a few seconds, I was in a struggle for
CM> existence. Let me tell you, it was no "grand view of life."
CM> Yet, I could hardly fault the other person if he was exercising
CM> some natural evolutionary principles to further his own
CM> existence.
This is a good example of natural 'selection' in action. If the lack
of inhabition to kill for money proves to be usefull in the long term,
and the ability to avoide or defend against such actions isn't
present, then the numbers of dumb, violent thugs will increase, there
populations growing to an optimum that the behaviour can support.
Within that group, certain genetic traits will be advantageous,
certain others will not. Just because you don't like this when it's
stairing you in the face, holding a tire iron, doesn't mean it isn't
so, or that it isn't 'grand' in one sence or another.
CM>
CM> Logical as this robber's actions may have been, they had
CM> unpleasant consequences for me. Therefore, I would just as soon
CM> everyone believed that they were created for the glory and
CM> pleasure of their Creator in the humble service of their fellow
CM> men.
CM>
CM> cm.
Either, You want to force me to believe in creation, and give up free
will, just to make you happy, or, it is an intelectualy deprived and
emotionaly warped individual that will praise a god that 'for their
pleasure' will create a thug to humiliate, threaten, intimidate and
perhaps kill. If it's the former, how would accepting creation prevent
the thug from acting as he does. Do you think he acts the way he does
because he thinks of himself as a humanist and is therefore devoid of
social conscious.
Well, I can feel the moderators blood pressure riseing, and I
don't want to recieve any more netmail about appropriatness of
messages, even though there is a great deal of psychology involved
here-in, so I'll say fair well for now.
Later,
Stephen.
People who live in glass houses, shouldnt!
I'd rather have a bucket full of knowledge than a truck full of faith.
--- msgedsq 2.0.4
* Origin: [< The Spyder's Web >] Nanaimo, B.C., Canada. (1:351/268)
==!
==* OTTO
FROM: Jeff Otto
DATE: 5 Apr 92 10:04:30
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Communist Scientist: From evolution to creation
CM> Several dudes on UseNet have implied as much about Dr. K., as did
CM> Dave Horn. By the way, I also have on record an
CM> anti-evolutionist who has personally corresponded with
CM> distinguished Australian molecular biologist,Dr. Michael Denton,
CM> claiming that Denton is a molecular biologist and so forth ,
CM> contrary to your aspersions against the man. Also, there have
Chuck, a couple of things here. First, the only person I have ever
seen to claim that Denton was a molecular biologist (let alone a
distinguished one, was you.) I did a literature search for published
papers by him a while ago, and came up with nada. Hmmm, a
distinguished molecular biologist who doesn't publish. He does have a
MD degree, that much is clear. From what I have seen in his book, as
well as reviews I have seen elsewhere since my own critique, Michael
Denton has no grasp of molecular biology. Period. It is too bad that
he doesn't frequent this echo, because there are many things that I
would like to have opportunity to ask him.
CM> I've supplied Jeff with a very interesting paper on molecular
CM> phylogeny in which the author has junked the notion of an
CM> evolutionary tree and adopted a polyphyletic interpretation,
CM> which is quite in line with creation theory. Possibly we can get
CM> some feedback on that sometime.
As soon as you take the time to address the questions that I have sent
you (or even have some of your colleagues address them), I will be more
than happy to resume tackling your questions. Right now, continuing
this any farther is a one way street, I see no reason to address your
comments and criticisms while my own go unanswered.
Jeff
--- XRS!% 4.50+
* Origin: SciQuest BBS Science is our Specialty (RAX 1:154/32.32)
==!
==* ELSBERRY
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry
DATE: 7 Apr 92 06:14
TO: Jeff Otto
SUBJ: Outstanding questions
EID:7947 18880003
In a message from Jeff Otto to Chuck Maier:
> CM> I've supplied Jeff with a very interesting paper on molecular
> CM> phylogeny in which the author has junked the notion of an
> CM> evolutionary tree and adopted a polyphyletic interpretation,
> CM> which is quite in line with creation theory. Possibly we can get
> CM> some feedback on that sometime.
> As soon as you take the time to address the questions that
> I have sent
> you (or even have some of your colleagues address them), I
> will be more
> than happy to resume tackling your questions. Right now, continuing
> this any farther is a one way street, I see no reason to
> address your
> comments and criticisms while my own go unanswered.
Jeff, I'd like to collect the set of questions unanswered by Chuck that you and various others have. Could you post those once for me?
--- TPBoard 6.1
* Origin: C.N.S.: Home of the Neural_Net Echo (509-627-6CNS) (1:347/303)
SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
==!
==* THOMPSON
FROM: John Thompson
DATE: 05 Apr 92 13:17:00
TO: Owen Laurion
SUBJ: Non-ferric Iron?
OL> In a post from Chuck Maier, a passing reference is made to:
OL> >... the distribution of ferric iron in sedimentary rocks...
OL> This is out of context, but what would be "non-ferric iron"?
OL>
OL> Curiously, %? Owen K. Laurion.
"Ferrous", perhaps?
The suffixes are used to indicate the valance state of the atom,
either +2 or +3.
* KingQWK 0.11b # 39 * Evolution: the unifying principle of Biology!
--- SuperQWK 1.16 Gamma-3 (Reg)
* Origin: APPLEGATE_The_BBS (COM1) (1:139/631)
==!
==* ELSBERRY
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry
DATE: 8 Apr 92 07:43
TO: All
SUBJ: CM's mammoth plight
EID:c47e 18890009
Chuck Maier is perplexed on how to upload woolly mammoth info from talk.origins to this Echo. I'll give him a hand here.
On t.o., Erik "I'm Not a Creationist" Kiledal has posted a series of messages arguing that the woolly mammoth was not cold adapted. No one has yet deciphered his intent in this, since it obviously doesn't effect evolutionary theory. In any case, Kiledal has stated that his authoritative source is a book by a fellow named Krause. Recently, someone else checked out this book, and here's their review:
Article 24509 of talk.origins:
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Challenge: Cold-adaptation of the woolly mammoth? To Kurt.
Message-ID: <1992Apr5.174950@IASTATE.EDU>
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1992 22:49:50 GMT
Lines: 131
Okay, I went to the library and pulled out "The Mammoth - In Ice and Snow?" By
Hans Krause QE882.P8 K7 (1977) and read through it. I also pulled out some
reference work by people who actually studied the field rather than decided to
write a book outside their expertise.
First, a few notes of general warning: The author of "TM-IIAS?" admits from
page one that his intent is to disprove evolution. Most of his tables are
incomplete, alot of data is ignored in one table, and included in another. This
is highly suggestive that there is data he is trying to suppress (though not
proof). I gathered the missing data from "Mammoths, Mastadonts, and Elephants"
by Haynes QE882.P8 H39 (1991), which sits right next to Krauses book.
To first address your questions from the last post:
>I must say...you are saying that elephants are shaped as cubes? :)
>[(292.5)^3/(251)^3 = 1.5825. ]
Sorry, I am not assuming this. The volume of a solid *no matter what its
shape* always goes up with the cube of its scale. The only exception is when
the shape itself changes. Elephants and Mammoths are of similar enough shape to
consider them scaled versions of each other. So let us finish the table:
Type Volume Ear surface Volume/Ear surface
African Savannah 1.5825 1.5000 1.0550
Indian (Asian) 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000
Mammoth (Sib.) 1.3882 0.6667 8.3292
This is strongly suggests that ear size is atypical to an extreme amount in
Mammoths. Since heat dissipation is the primary function of Elephant ears it
*strongly* suggests that Mammoths had almost no need for heat dissipation.
> I think you need to do more than this (to begin with, toss the cube shaped
>elephants). Does this mean that you are going to ignore the rest of the
>evidence against cold-adaptation if your ear size/body volume calculations
>suggest cold-adaptation?
Nope. First I will address the book in general:
p16a. Compares ear size to body length rather than volume. Since Krause
admits he is aware of the square/cube law [p60] this should be considered
deliberate.
p19. Assumes south=hotter. This is not true, as Californias costal position
makes it cooler than the prarie.
p22. Exhibits a complete lack of comprehension of natural selection is. The
cold weather did not force the genes to change, it merely killed off those who
were not warmer.
p29. I carefully cross referenced the tusks he examined. I could not locate
other references to all the Mammothes he examined, but in every case that I
could the original tusks had been lost. So what was he looking at. Apparently
the tusks attached to these mammoths were taken from modern elephants, just to
make them look better. If I may quote Haynes, p45:
"Garutt thought that [mammoth] tusks were used to scrape snow off the ground,
in order to expose grass; wear facets on the mammoth tusks are often deeply
scratched, but also smoothed, a type of wear that could have resulted from
scraping against gravel, grass, and snow. . . . Beacause mammoth tusks grew with
a strong spiral twist, older wear facets continually moved around the tusk tips
during normal growth, terminating on a different side than where originally
produced."
This also opens the question about why Krause only observed wear on *one*
side, the wear should have been even all about because of the growth pattern.
p42 Claims the table disproves leg length hypothesis without listing a single
leg length? According to Haynes the tibia of the mammoth was shorter and
thicker than modern elephants.
p47 Guard hairs were as much as 100cm long, they did not have to be densely
packed to give complete coverage. I have not been able to find a reference one
way or the other as to sebaceous glands, but a frozen, mummified corpse does not
usually give much detail.
p60 Presents knowledge of the square/cube law and completely ignores it.
p67 Forgot the possibility that the cavemen just didn't draw the hair. When
I was a child I drew a picture of the family dog, and didn't put on any distinct
hairs. Does this mean my dog was bald?
p91 "many but not all" refers to the hair color, not the existance. The hair
color of mammoths is under dispute, Britannica was just taking that into
account.
Now I will adress the points you specifically bring up:
>Let me quote half a page or so from [Krause], starting with a quote from
>[Mobius]:
[quote from p61-62]
The long guard hairs wwere 4-5mm apart by his calculations, but with an
average length of 50cm this would have provided quite a dense layer.
I quote:
>Its skin surface is, moreover,
>relatively large and loses more heat, compared to body volume, than a larger
>mammal. That is why it does not overheat easily. It is able, therefore,
>to keep the temperature at its skin surface and in its limbs so low that
>they will not melt the snow, touching them.
>With the mammoth it was just the opposite. Its coarse, sparse hair-cover
>was not able to trap the body heat like an arctic fur, because its skin
>surface was rather small, compared to its body volume. Since an animal
>with relatively small skin-surfaces [and small ears :)] loses relatively
>little heat, it must have been quite difficult for this elephant in the
>winter to keep the temperature at its surface below the freezing-point.
He is saying it couldn't have been in the cold because it looses so little
heat? The fat (as you pointed out) may not insulate. Perhaps, but it still
keeps the elephant from freezing inside if it is cold on the outside. This
seems to support cold adaptation, not refute it.
When I first read this quote, I felt it made many assumptions, now I am sure
about it. Let us just consider some of them:
1) Mammoths lie down in the snow rather than clearing an area.
2) The guard hair had no function.
3) Snow falls onto the underside of a mammoth ?!?! (or did we suddenly switch
which side of a mammoth we are talking about)
4) Mammoths had no oil glands (not proven, granted, but not disproven either)
5) Heat radiation in a mammoth is assumed to be high enough to heat water
faster than it can be produced (as well as assuming 4 again)
6) Body heat will suddenly stop so that the water can freeze again.
7) The weather was 50-60 below zero (why not migrate south when the cold came,
stay in siberia during the (relatively) warm times)
8) Freezing to death rate of the mammoth is known, and listed as "a few
hours".
An expert in the field could probably find even more assumptions, but 8 in 2
paragraphs is a bit much already.
The experts list a few pieces of evidence for cold-adaptation. I suggest you
read a book by someone who knows the field before assuming Krause is correct.
-Kurt
--------
--- TPBoard 6.1
* Origin: C.N.S.: ftp me.uta.edu:/pub/neural (509-627-6CNS) (1:347/303)
SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
PATH: 347/303
==!
==* THOMPSON
FROM: John Thompson
DATE: 07 Apr 92 12:28:00
TO: Chuck Maier
SUBJ: Dr. K & Dr. D
CM> ***ALL*** gone mustang till the 8th **** save postage or send email
CM> to cmaier@uiuc.edu
"mustang?" Didn't they close that place down? :-)
CM> By the way, I also have on record an anti-evolutionist who has
CM> personally corresponded with distinguished Australian molecular
CM> biologist,Dr. Michael Denton, claiming that Denton is a molecular
CM> biologist and so forth , contrary to your aspersions against the man.
By now you may have read Wes Elsberry's reposts of internet material
on Denton, and Jeff Otto's response to the molecular homology
material. I think it is pretty clear that whatever else Dr. Denton
may be (MD, clinical microbiologist), he is *NOT* distinguished as a
molecular biologist, at least (according to Jeff), not in the
*SCIENTIFIC* literature. All accounts seem to agree that Dr. Denton
is laboring under some pretty serious misconceptions as to just what
his molecular homology data represents.
CM> As I understand it, Kuznetsov basically quit trying to make up excuses
CM> for all the flaws in molecular phylogenetic trees. He also claims to
CM> have done research investigating substances suppressing expression of
CM> mutant genes (very sketchy - I have only a few sentences from an
CM> interview on this).
While I appreciate this attempt to provide some evidence supporting
Kuznetsov's "conversion" to a creationist viewpoint, I cannot help but
feel disappointed that he apparently has not seen fit make this
evidence available himself. The fact that you are only able to
provide "very sketchy" details on this suggests to me that it is the
*RELIGIOUS* conversion that is of particular interest to the
"scientific creationists", not the scientific data that purportedly
led to it. If and when details become available, I would be
interested in learning of them.
* KingQWK 0.11b # 39 * Evolution: the unifying principle of Biology!
--- SuperQWK 1.16 Gamma-3 (Reg)
* Origin: APPLEGATE_The_BBS (COM1) (1:139/631)
==!
==* ELSBERRY
FROM: Wesley R. Elsberry
DATE: 16 Apr 92 01:32:28
TO: All
SUBJ: CM is mistaken
MSGID: 1:347/303 29ECD92C
First, let's give the background to history: Jeff Otto and John Thompson do
literature searches looking for Denton's molecular biology reputation, and
find that as far as molecular biology goes, Denton casts a zero-length shadow.
Chuck Maier, sensing that the felt effect of Denton's opinion might slip
given that Denton does not actually perform the work he critiques, says,
Hey, I've got _real_ evidence of Denton's expertise -- so-and-so says
he _is_ a molecular biologist.
Chuck's statement, as given by Chuck, is reproduced here:
Quote:
Let me quote James Lippard, a most avowed evolutionist - he despises
creationists - w/r/t Dr. Denton :
"As far as I can tell , he is a molecular biologist. ... He is actually
*not* an anti-evolutionist. He is an anti-Darwinian (I posted some quotations
here from a letter he sent me about six months ago; [here meaning t.o.] ...)"
Jeff and you are both on record (Jeff for sure) going so far as claiming the
man is not even an evolutionist! And here is an evolutionist who has
corresponde with him backing up everything I've said. Want a little ketchup
with that crow, John?
Unquote.
First off, nowhere is it stated that Lippard has done a literature search.
Chuck has argued in the past that we ought to credit a SciCre'ers word until
it is proven false; perhaps Lippard is simply giving Denton the benefit of
the doubt here (Note: I am not calling Denton a SciCre'er.). In any case,
Thompson's original reasoning is intact: there is no evidence that Michael
Denton has any experience, academic or otherwise, in molecular biology as it
pertains to evolutionary mechanism theory. The lack of a publication record
is a big clue, and the nearly universal negative reviews of his book finish
off what small compunction to suspend disbelief existed. Character witnesses
aren't a factor in this assessment.
And second, there is the not-so-small matter of what Lippard thinks of Chuck's
characterization. If I had as little personal integrity as Chuck Maier, I
might quote Lippard thusly:
"Maier is completely incorrect..."
But since I, at least, preserve some amount of personal integrity in regard
to quotations, I'll give the complete context of Lippard's comments on
Chuck's post to John Thompson:
From LIPPARD@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Wed Apr 15 15:31:44 1992
Received: from CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU by CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU (PMDF #12663) id
<01GIVMBQWRE88WWCOC@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU>; Wed, 15 Apr 1992 13:31 MST
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 13:31 MST
From: "James J. Lippard"
Subject: Re: Dr. Denton
To: elsberry@cse.uta.edu
Message-Id: <01GIVMBQWRE88WWCOC@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU>
Hi there.
Somebody else phoned me today about Chuck Maier "taking my name in vain."
Let me say that while I have been quoted correctly, my view has been
misrepresented by Maier. John Thompson's literature search and conclusions
about Denton coincide well with my opinion--that he is competent in
his area, but that his book goes well beyond his area of competence and
is filled with elementary mistakes.
Maier is correct when he says that I said Denton isn't a creationist.
That's correct. Denton believes that evolution has occurred, but he
rejects the Darwinian explanation for evolutionary change and thinks
that there are probably aspects of physical law which place constraints
on evolutionary change. (I suspect that his view may be something along
the lines of Brooks and Wiley's _Evolution as Entropy_, but I'm not
sure.)
Maier is completely incorrect when he says that I despise creationists.
It is my opinion that most people who believe in creationism are guilty
only of being too trusting in people like Henry Morris and Duane Gish and
of failing to check up on their claims.
Jim Lippard Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Unquote.
Now that Chuck has been informed that his "anti-creationist" positive
reference for Denton isn't actually a positive reference, do you suppose
that Chuck will stop claiming so?
For myself, it isn't Jeff and John who should be treated to corvid
and ketchup, but the ever resourceful Chuck Maier. Thank you, Chuck,
for this newest chapter in the Chuck Maier Whopper Database.
Just in case anybody missed it, Lippard on Denton: "... his book goes well
beyond his area of competence and is filled with elementary mistakes.
- Text2Msg v.1.01
b
--- QM v1.00
* Origin: Central Neural System (1:347/303.0)
SEEN-BY: 347/17 303
PATH: 347/303
==!
==* SINCERO ARCHAEOPTERYX
DATE: Mon Jun 01 1992 15:13:00
From: Roscoe Sincero
To: Chuck Maier
Subj: Evolution: Religion without revelation
Attr:
science -------------------------------
I am still waiting for your reply concerning Archeopetryx which you have not
responded to for about 10 months now...
Dishonesty is your specialty isn't it...
--- GEcho 1.00/beta
* Origin: The North Star - RA/FD - (410)974-9503 (1:261/1108)
SEEN-BY: 1/217 13/13 105/27 44 138/1 347/0 17 303
==!
==* PEARSON
DATE: Tue Jun 02 1992 12:42:18
From: Steven Lee Pearson
To: Chuck Maier
Subj: Evolution: Religion without revelation
Attr:
science -------------------------------
In a message to Wesley R. Elsberry <30 May 92 15:22> Chuck Maier wrote:
CM> In the multitude of endosymbiotic events and formation of
CM> non-alleles from pre-existing genes, all of which are based on
CM> circular reasoning and have not a shred of objective evidence to
CM> support any of them. As these countless nature myths and
CM> fortuitous genetic mistakes have little basis in reality one can
CM> only marvel at the double-speak used to pass off population
CM> genetics as proof of elsberry from boisenberry.
there is a subtle difference here: we can observe these 'endosymbiotic
events and formation of non-alleles from pre-existing genes' leading
to something akin to an evolutionary change. the same can not be said
of religion, unless you take the ISS theorem to heart (the ISS theorem
was used frequently in my geometry class in high school. it stands for
'i said so.').
place some bacteria in an environment that allows strong growth. then
throw something in that either competes for resource or space (probably
both). a good portion of the time, the better competitor wins, but
quite often, the underdog can come out on top. look at bacterial
resistance to antibiotics.
i can't say with absolute certainty that man evolved from some proto-
ape/human. i can't say that the boisenberry is the mother of all
elsberries. then again, i can also say that the bacteria in the culture
dish aren't true descendents of the first bug i threw in there. but
statistically it is highly improbable that every bio lab in the country
is wrong.
endosymbiotic events? what about obligate intracellular parasites
such as chlamidia or even viruses. is it such a leap of faith to think
that a once parasitic relationship can prove beneficial? take lichens
for example. they've had a few billion years to try.
if you accept evolution (which i'm assuming you don't), life is a big
experiment. what works prospers. what doesn't goes the way of the
dinosaurs. as the old expression goes, if you stuck six monkeys in a
room full of typewriters, they'd eventually turn out the works of
shakespeare. we are not a statistical annomaly. just an improbability.
and a devine purpose doesn't fit into the equation.
--- XRS! 4.50
* Origin: -stevelee- (anarchist, atheist, & militant caffie (RAX 1:154/32.32)
SEEN-BY: 1/217 13/13 105/27 44 138/1 347/0 17 303
==!
