Follow up Alright, All You Dashing, Swaggering Bush Pilots

gringomasloco thundered from the pulpit:

Read this book, then come back and we can discuss it
from a more educated perspective.

Title: The Fingerprint of God
Author: Hugh Ross
ISBN: 0883686279

I've already read all that "Late great planet earth, biblethumping
drivel by psedo-scientists and I haven't got time to waste on that.
I've got objective books by Steven Hawkins, A brief moment in time,
Robert Jastrow etc to read.

But why don't you educate yourself on this one:

Title: On the Origin of Species
Author: Charles Darwin

It's available at *all* bookstores everywhere.

Evolutionarily, Your distant relative,

pacplyer

(pac plyer) wrote in message . com...
gringomasloco thundered from the pulpit:

Read this book, then come back and we can discuss it
from a more educated perspective.

Title: The Fingerprint of God
Author: Hugh Ross
ISBN: 0883686279

I've already read all that "Late great planet earth, biblethumping
drivel by psedo-scientists and I haven't got time to waste on that.
I've got objective books by Steven Hawkins, A brief moment in time,
Robert Jastrow etc to read.


IOW, don't confuse you with facts; your mind is made up.
Whassamatter, are you scared of a scientific worldview that allows for
the possibility that the universe didn't just happen by accident? Or
is your entire self-worth bound up in believing that you are merely
the product of random molecular collisons? But that's ok, go ahead
and keep your Foggles on. Just keep a watch out for a vacuum failure.

But why don't you educate yourself on this one:
Title: On the Origin of Species
Author: Charles Darwin

You're a little behind the times. Most evolutionary scientists have
moved beyond Darwin's simplistic "survival of the fittest" model,
seeing as it fails to adequately explain the evidence. Stephen Jay
Gould had to invent the concept of "punctuated equilibria," but
recently that's come under fire, too.

But evolution is beside the point. Whether or not species
spontaneously transform into other species (and there's precious
little hard evidence to support the notion) has nothing whatsoever to
do with the existence or non-existence of a trancendent Supreme Being.
A lot of folks - believers and non-believers alike - don't get that.
But it's true.

And before someone starts ragging on me that this isn't
alt.talk.origins, please note that *I didn't bring up the subject!*

(Corrie) wrote in message . com...
(pac plyer) wrote in message . com...
gringomasloco thundered from the pulpit:

Read this book, then come back and we can discuss it
from a more educated perspective.

Title: The Fingerprint of God
Author: Hugh Ross
ISBN: 0883686279

I've already read all that "Late great planet earth, biblethumping
drivel by psedo-scientists and I haven't got time to waste on that.
I've got objective books by Steven Hawkins, A brief moment in time,
Robert Jastrow etc to read.


IOW, don't confuse you with facts; your mind is made up.
Whassamatter, are you scared of a scientific worldview that allows for
the possibility that the universe didn't just happen by accident? Or
is your entire self-worth bound up in believing that you are merely
the product of random molecular collisons? But that's ok, go ahead
and keep your Foggles on. Just keep a watch out for a vacuum failure.

Corrie, Corrie, Corrie,
Nope, in fact, if you'll re-read I said quite the opposite. I said it
appears to me the universe is part of a greater grand design. See?
You're so sucked into this bianary view of an argument you can't
comprehend what's being said. Pac's not a biblethumper huh? O.K.
that means he's one of them then! Get out the holy water and exercize
his ass!

Now it's true I can't spell "pseudo." But my comprehension of history
is concentrated on accepted science, not mythology which you keep
using for reference.


But why don't you educate yourself on this one:
Title: On the Origin of Species
Author: Charles Darwin

You're a little behind the times. Most evolutionary scientists have
moved beyond Darwin's simplistic "survival of the fittest" model,
seeing as it fails to adequately explain the evidence. Stephen Jay
Gould had to invent the concept of "punctuated equilibria," but
recently that's come under fire, too.

You simply don't know what your talking about Corrie. Darwin was and
is considered a giant today not because of the details of the new the
embryonic science which he gave birth to, but because: in the face of
Christian intolerance, he dared to print his observations about
finches in particular and his conclusions about natural selection to
the rest of the fanatical and ignorant world. I can tell you have not
read this great work.


But evolution is beside the point. Whether or not species
spontaneously transform into other species (and there's precious
little hard evidence to support the notion)

Let's just say God transforms species then, O.K? Oh Ye of little
faith! Do you own a cat or a dog? Those weren't around till man
started selectively breeding coyotes and wildcats. Send me one of
their puppies and I will cross-breed it with my little Dahshound (sp?)
You will witness a micro example of natural selection in action.
Pigeon breeders in England invent new forms of life all the time.
Birds with feathers on their feet etc. Evolution, my good Christian
is all around you, but you are bound and determined to convince us
that it is a simple tree you are embracing and not the first leg of a
much much more complex giant elephant. ;-)

pac "rather be related to a monkey" plyer

(pac plyer) wrote:

Let's just say God transforms species then, O.K? Oh Ye of little
faith! Do you own a cat or a dog? Those weren't around till man
started selectively breeding coyotes and wildcats. Send me one of
their puppies and I will cross-breed it with my little Dahshound (sp?)
You will witness a micro example of natural selection in action.
Pigeon breeders in England invent new forms of life all the time.
Birds with feathers on their feet etc. Evolution, my good Christian
is all around you, but you are bound and determined to convince us
that it is a simple tree you are embracing and not the first leg of a
much much more complex giant elephant. ;-)

Two things...

One - you're saying that intelligent control and manipulation of
species can beget new species. I think you agree with the bible then.
The only thing you have wrong about evolution is you think it's
random.

Two - the examples you give are clearly NOT evolution. They're
adaptation and selective breeding.

What's unclear (and Darwin hisownself even admitted he didn't have a
clue why) is why there aren't fossils or other records of all the
transitional life forms between the species we DO know about. And do
you ever wonder why there is SO much proof of species coming and going
at a frantic pace even as recently as the last ice ages, but that
nowhere in the history of mankind has there ever been any observed
evidence of evolution?

Kind of a conundrum - if it happens really fast, we'd see it. If it
happens really slow, we'd see the fossil evidence.

Think about a bat. Evolutionists claim it all started when a rat got
into homebuilding (rah content). Thing is, you'd end up with
thousands of generations that couldn't walk very well and couldn't fly
very well in between (kind of like some of the rah regulars).

Heh.

Mark Hickey

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, pac plyer wrote:

Title: The Fingerprint of God
Author: Hugh Ross
ISBN: 0883686279

I've already read all that "Late great planet earth, biblethumping
drivel by psedo-scientists and I haven't got time to waste on that.

Wow. So much for your concerned-about-scientific-truth facade. I've seen
some real misguided religious zeal in my time, but you're right up there
with the best of them. Betcha don't think of yourself as a religious
zealot, do you? Well, I don't know any other term for hanging
dogmatically to a viewpoint while knee-jerk ridiculing anything you think
might be opposed to it, without even bothering to make sure you understand
what it is you're ridiculing.

I haven't got time to waste on the things you mention either, they have
absolutely nothing to do with me or Hugh Ross, and I have no interest in
discussing them. Sorry.

I've got objective books by Steven Hawkins, A brief moment in time,

(I assume you mean Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time?) Isn't he an
atheist? As such, how is he going to write anything objective about God's
existence or lack thereof? Or do you think he's objective _because_ he's
an atheist? What an objective, scientific paradigm _that_ would be.

-Dan

P.S. I am now out of this discussion. I only got into it in the first
place because I thought I saw some interest in the scientific aspect of
the question at hand. Clearly I was mistaken.