Follow up Alright, All You Dashing, Swaggering Bush Pilots

"Building The Perfect Beast" wrote in message
...

Hey Pac, you a Traveling Man? Any of you for that matter?

I can use the tools.

Rich S.

Valid points. As you say, the materialist worldview is an article of
faith. I've said it before and I'll say it again - neither the
existence nor non-existence of God can be proven or disproven. QED.
That said, the belief in macro-evolution does seem to be an
"unassailable belief." Just look at what happened in Kansas when the
state school board voted to allow teachers to discuss criticisms of
evolution. Not to mandate the teaching of only literalist Biblical
six-day-creationsism, just to allow teachers to present the fact that
not every scientist agrees 110% with Darwin. They were pilloried and
mocked, and ultimately driven out of office.

The term "intelligent design" was coined specifically to gain some
distance from the NON-scientific young-earth-ultra-literal crowd.
Saying that the universe shows evidence of intelligent design is NOT
the same as insisting that it was created in 144 hours. Though
materialists continually attempt to lump us together, but we're rather
different. I commend to you Don Stoner's book, "A New Look at an Old
Earth." If he hadn't written it, I probably would have had to,
someday.

Occam's Razor certainly applies. But the question is not merely
whether it's more logically simple that a universe preexisted or was
created by a preexisting diety; it's whether it's logically simpler
that an infinitely complex, beautiful, and *functional* universe "just
happened" or whether it was designed by some Cosmic Engineer. Occam's
Razor cuts the other way when you look at the question in that light.

I certainly agree with using inductive reasoning - to look at the
evidence and draw conclusions based on fact. Deductive reasoning -
beginning with a philosophical premise and then proceeding - only
leads in logical circles. The problem I see with most materialists is
that they claim to be inductive, but they begin with a deductive
assumption that the physical world is all that exists. That is simply
and demonstrably not true. Can you devise a scientific test for love?
How do you know that you love your children? How can you prove it -
scientifically?

Science is not the be-all and end-all. Those who put their whole
faith in science often claim that it has a pretty good track record
for explaining things. I beg to differ. For every question that
science answers, it raises three more. Science increases uncertainty,
enlarges the realm of that-which-is-not-known. (There's got to be a
pun somewhere in there about curiosity killing Schroedinger's cat...)

Not everything is scientifically testable. The origin of the universe
is not an experiment that can be repeated. That's where the tools of
the historian come into play.

For me, it all hinges on whether Jesus really rose from the dead. If
he didn't, then it's game over as far as religion is concerned. If he
did, well, that raises a whole 'nother set of questions. A
resurrection is not a repeatable experiment. Science is of minimal
value. (Beginning the investigation with, "he didn't because we know
that dead people stay dead" doesn;t work, because it's beginning with
an assumption that precludes one whole line of investigation. If an
all-powerful God really does exist, and Jesus really was His son, then
a one-time resurrection - to prove a point or to accomplish some great
work - is certainly possible.)

For me, Occam's Razor leads me to the conclusion that the Resurrection
was indeed a real, historical event. I'm leaving out the evidence and
reasonings, but I'll be happy to share them if you're interested. But
FWIW I started out as a skeptic, trying to disprove the historical
claims of Christianity. As I said, that leads to a whole other set of
questions, including the conclusion that the materialist worldview is
erroneous.

That doesn't mean I'm superstitious or non-scientific, and it's
insulting to suggest that I am. I have examined the evidence - more
objectively than a grreat many skeptics I've spoken to - and come to
certain conclusions based on that evidence. It's fine to disagree
about the evidence, reasoning, and conclusions - that's what
intelligent, civilized people do.


Corrie

"Eric Miller" wrote in message v.net...
"Corrie" wrote
Proponents of intelligent design theory don't engage in
pseudo-science. Like our materialist coutnerparts, we observe the
evidence and predict outcomes. (Testing evolutionary hypotheses is
done by observation, since you can't very well set up experiments over
timescales of millions of years, no matter what your persuasion.)

We simply come to a different conclusion. But the materialist
orthodoxy is so entrenched - is mind-controlling too strong a term? -
than any deviation from Darwinian Holy Writ is labeled heretical.
Futher, the heretics are made the target of viscious, mean-spirited ad
hominem attacks. That's bigotry, plain and simple.


Evolution - macro-evolution between phyla or orders - IS only theory.
It is NOT proven. The evidence can be interpreted in more than one
way. But it is taught to children as established fact, and those who
dare deviate are persecuted. Yeah, I have a problem with that. It's
Scopes in reverse. Someone said something about people should be able
to make informed choices?

From a purist standpoint, *anyone* entrenched in a belief system, no matter
what their title or beliefs, is not engaging in science. Period. Science is
open to criticism. Faith (and that includes faith *in* science) is not. By
definition, there are no unassailable beliefs in science.

My comments about pseudo-science not observing and predicting was a general
comment directed especially at the pyramid-crystal-magnet-homeopathic crowd
that couldn't conduct a double-blind study if they performed their tests at
midnight in a coal mine after plunging red-hot spikes into their eyes...
(Now, ask me how I *really* feel )

Testability is a cornerstone of science. And while macro-evolution doesn't
lend itself well to testing, in theory it could be tested, demonstrated and
proven.You can *not* test and prove intelligent design, that's an article of
faith. Untestable hypotheses are useless and are the hallmark junk science.
The classic cases are mediums, spiritualists and mentalists whose powers
mysterious vanish when subjected to controlled conditions citing "hostile"
environments. "Some things have to be belived to be seen" is not an
acceptable tenet of scientific inquiry.

Personally speaking, I see no tautological difference between saying first
there was a creator who then created the universe and saying first there was
the universe which exists without a creator. For God's sake (pun fully
intended ), use Occam's razor and cut out the middle man!

We should find the anthropomorphic principle to be mutually acceptable.
Acceptable to me because I can interpret it to state that if conditions
*weren't* just right, we wouldn't be here right now (discussing evolution on
RAH).
Acceptable to you because you can interpret it to state that some higher
power made the conditions just right (so we can discuss evolution on RAH).

Remember the word "theory" has different meaning in the vernacular than it
does in the scientific community, and this causes a lot of confusion.
In common parlance, "theory" means unproven, could be true, who knows?
Scientifically, "theory" means a generally accepted principle without any
major contradictions.
You don't hear much controversy over the Pythagorean Theorem

I wouldn't exactly call creationists (honest question: is that the old term
for intelligent design theorists?) persecuted.
However, the fact is they *don't* practice science and for that reason have
excluded *themselves* from the scientific community. If you don't play by
the rules, you don't get to join the club; it's that simple. If I use
steroids, I can't try out for the women's Olympic track and field because a)
steriods aren't allowed b) I'm not a woman and c) I'd get my butt whooped
regardless of a) and b)... However, that doesn't equate my exclusion from
women's track and field with bigotry.

Again, personally speaking, I'd rather children were taught that the world
is subject to change and here is a mechanism which can explain it, than they
were taught the world was created 6007 years ago, hasn't changed since and
BTW God is a big trickster (for creating fossil records, background
radition, etc)... YMMV

Eric

Bryan Martin wrote:

It is quite clear even from a cursory examination of history that the
founders of the United States strongly believed that the State and the
Church should be separate entities; that the State should not dictate
religious beliefs to the people and the Church should not control the
political process. That was the situation in England; the Anglican Church
was the official religion of England all others were banned and their
adherents persecuted. This was one of the reasons people came to America and
one of the reasons for the revolution.

Ironically, it was New England Baptists who were concerned about separation
of church and state because those same original colonial Puritans held a
hegemony that wasn't in the Baptists' best interests.

On the other hand, it is not the job of government to keep religion out of
the public schools but the government may not sponsor religion in the public
schools nor allow religious displays to cause disruptions of classes in
public schools. In short, there is no low prohibiting prayer in public
schools but it is unlawful to stand up in the middle of class and start
shouting sermons.

Heck, I recall old Stormin' Norman Johnson doin' a lot of secular
hollerin'. A couple others too. Then there was the math teacher who used to
whack us on the head with his college class ring when we'd get out of line.

I've seen a couple preachers as demonstrative as these guys, but I dunno if
I'd care to see 'em again. ;-)

- Scott

Great Stuff Eric,

This Rah "firing line" is a good diversion from all the broken things
on my honey-do list. She's starting to get jealous though.... since
I'm having such a good time with the computer. Oh well, when the sun
goes Red Giant, who's going to care anyway? :-]

pacplyer



Eric patiently explained

Well, saying that teachers in Kansas "couldn't discuss criticisms of
evolution" is a bit disingenuous. The Kansas State Board of Education voted
to eliminate teaching the theory of evolution entirely... it wasn't exactly
the time to get into the fine points

The theory of evolution is established and accepted. Does that means it's a
complete and finished work? No, nothing in science ever is. Does that mean
it's above and beyond critique? Of course not. But it is the "state of the
art" and I'd *expect* teachers to teach what's current, not about
phlogiston, the four (or five) elements of nature, the four humers of the
body nor the world being supported by pillars which are resting on the back
of a tortoise. And if they *don't* teach what's current, they deserve to
pilloried, mocked, and fired for being incompetent of performing their jobs
in a responsible fashion.

I'm sure 6-day creation was "state of the art" at one time, but that time
has past. Fundamentalist countries are known for burying their heads in the
sand, ignoring the present and attempting to force the clock to simpler
times. But guess what? Tempus Fugit (woot! a flying reference!), and you
can't legislate sand to make it flow up an hourglass.


Occam's razor certainly does *not* mandate the existence of a creator. I
refer you again to the Anthropomorphic Principle.
Start with an infinite number of universe, each with their own sets of rules
and eliminate the ones that are inconducive to the existence of RAH (which
is, after all, the highest form of life as we know it).
Ice gets denser as it freezes and doesn't float (making bodies of water
freeze from the bottom up)? Gone!
Cosmological constant too large and big bang collapses too soon? Later!
Carbon doesn't have the correct angle and number of covalent bonds? Vamos!
Hey, there are a million complex and interdependent values. I can't design a
plane much less a universe (another obligatory flying reference ), but
does that mean there's an intelligent force behind it all? Not at all.
The exact set of rules necessary for intelligent life might also necessitate
the inarguably complex, beautiful, and functional universe.
If everything is just right, we exist to banter about it; if not, we don't;
it's that simple.
But the beauty of the AP is that it comes in two flavors, one of which says
you're free to believe in intelligent design, the other says I'm free not
to.

I believe that the physical world is all that exists. If there's more, and
it can be demonstrated, "Boom!" it's part of the physical world. If not,
it's mumbo-jumbo and can safely be ignored.
Can you devise a scientific test for love? Of course.
Would any sane person put themselves into jeopardy, whether short and
immediate - like running into a burning building, or long and protracted -
like the fiscal hardship that children cause, otherwise?
You say "love", I say "survival trait", to-MAY-to, to-MAH-to

Regardless, I don't recommend faith in science, it's spiritually devoid (for
those seeking spirituality) and subject to change. Faith is best left to
dogma.

The fact that science raises more questions than it answers is a *good*
thing! That's a strength, not a weakness! And it does *not* mean that
science increases uncertainty because the questions raised are about more
and more minute things. Haven't you heard the expression "the more you know,
the more you realize you don't know"? That's not an argument against
learning in the first place!

Meanwhile, religion has brought us such logical wonders as: discussing about
how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and testing for witchcraft by
water immersion (if she sinks and drowns, she's innocent; if she floats and
lives, the water is rejecting her because she's a witch, kill her!). Though
the Muslim's did do some good things with religion... witness how it drove
them towards better math and astronomy.

The other thing which confuses non-scientists (the first being the usage of
the word "theory") is that there is no single, central, scientific authority
that decides what is and isn't correct/accepted. If one theory is more
useful, can explain/predict more things, more accurately, and has fewer
deficiencies then it "survives" (sorry, couldn't resist) while others fade
into obscurity. This doesn't have to be all or nothing either. The Bohr
model of the atom is simple and still useful, even though Quantum Mechanics
is more comprehensive (at the expense of complexity).

Without attacking Christianity one iota.... it doesn't make sense to hinge
your belief in creation on Jesus, seeing as how he didn't show up until
somewhere between 4,000 and 15 billion years after the universe was made
(depending on who's counting). And certainly no Jesus is *not* the end of
religion... it's not even the end of religions based on variations of the
Old Testament.
And frankly, if resurrection isn't a repeatable experiment, then it can't be
used to make further predictions, rendering it useless.
On the other hand, nothing about cosmology says other universes cannot be
created, so it *may* be repeatable. Stay tuned!

BTW you *do* know that the two differing stories of Genesis were stolen from
the Egyptians and Babylonians (who didn't believe in one god), and that the
story of Eve is based on an ancient Sumerian pun, right?
OTOH I saw a great show which used some passages of Genesis to pinpoint the
probable location of the Garden of Eden

If you read again, you'll see I didn't call you either superstitious or
unscientific (and still am not)...
I never make ad hominem attacks, as they a sure signal you've already lost
the argument

And I'll finish (somewhat insensitively) with...
Winning an argument on the Internet is like winning the Special Olympics...
in the end, we're all still retarded.

Eric

(Corrie) wrote in message . com...
Let me repeat myself Mr. Zealot

just how prey tell was YOUR GOD refining HIS people
when those other teenage boys and girls were shot dead.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
May I predict....
No way will you ever receive an acceptable explanation.
Barnyard BOb --

Actually, I do expect to get an explanation someday, at that Great
Video Party in the Sky when all the questions get answered. Our
anonymous heckler seems to be hell-bent on refusing the invitation,
though.

Thanks for the support, Bob. I've had months-long running debates
with nonbelievers - most of them remarkable civil - and it boils down
to this: it is neither possible to prove nor disprove either the
existence or non-existence of God. There's plenty of supporting
evidence, but conclusive proof would preclude faith. And faith is
important.

I guess it's like the difference between building a plane and raising
a child. The airplane is a machine, and does only what it is designed
and built to do. The child is an independent being with free will of
his or her own. Your kids don't HAVE to love you. They have a
choice. Your VP1 hugs you because that's the way it's designed and
built. It doesn't have a choice.

You're quite right, Bob. If a person is determined to disbelieve,
then no evidence can possibly change their mind. Their worldview
forces them to either discount or reinterpret every piece of evidence
shown to them. Likewise, it's not possible to convince the informed,
thoughtful believer that they are wrong, because they can answer the
skeptics from within their worldview. (The skeptics may not be
satisfied with the answers, but that's not the point.)

I adopted a Christian worldview after a long period of study and
reflection, and after considering every oher major worldview (and a
few minor ones). My studies convinced me that Christianity is
coherent, explanative, predicitve, internally consistent, externally
verifiable, and even - like any good scientific hypothesis -
falsifiable.


Corrie




************************************************** ******************************



I agree with you Corrie;
If you're wrong you have NOTHING to lose and EVERYTHING to gain.
If the "Scientist" is wrong he loses EVERYTHING! Eternity is a LOOOONG time!!

Bob Olds RV-4 flyer
Charleston,Arkansas

do not archive


************************************************** ******************************

"nafod40" wrote
Good books, both. Wolfram has the world's biggest ego.

The big questions is... was his ego created or did it evolve over time?

"Bob Olds" wrote
Corrie wrote
There's plenty of supporting evidence [for the existence of God],
but conclusive proof would preclude faith. And faith is important.

There is no such supporting evidence. And to quote my previous post, "you
have to belief to see" is unacceptable.
If you step off a cliff, gravity doesn't care what you believe, you're gonna
fall.

You're quite right, Bob. If a person is determined to disbelieve,
then no evidence can possibly change their mind. Their worldview
forces them to either discount or reinterpret every piece of evidence
shown to them. Likewise, it's not possible to convince the informed,
thoughtful believer that they are wrong, because they can answer the
skeptics from within their worldview. (The skeptics may not be
satisfied with the answers, but that's not the point.)

I don't think you can choose to believe or not. Either you do or you don't.
I think people stop believing because they've seen the light of truth and
have finally learned something.
I'm sure you feel the same way about people who start believing.

I adopted a Christian worldview after a long period of study and
reflection, and after considering every oher major worldview (and a
few minor ones). My studies convinced me that Christianity is
coherent, explanative, predicitve, internally consistent, externally
verifiable, and even - like any good scientific hypothesis -
falsifiable.

Corrie

Just what exactly does Christianity explain and predict that's useful?
And if it's falsifiable, what evidence would be accepted which could prove
it false?

If you're wrong you have NOTHING to lose and EVERYTHING to gain.
If the "Scientist" is wrong he loses EVERYTHING! Eternity is a LOOOONG
time!!

Bob Olds RV-4 flyer

Again, there's no choice in what you believe.
And I would hope that a higher power could see through any posers

Eric

I agree with you Corrie;
If you're wrong you have NOTHING to lose and EVERYTHING to gain.
If the "Scientist" is wrong he loses EVERYTHING! Eternity is a LOOOONG time!!

Bob Olds RV-4 flyer
Charleston,Arkansas
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hardly a unique response or argument.
But, certainly a very predictable self serving one,
if you are obliged to hedge your bet.

It is quaintly known as.....
fire insurance.

Do not pass go.
Do not collect $500.
Go directly to..... Hell. 8-D


Barnyard BOb --

Clever anonymous handle.

Thanks, I choose to remain so at this time. Not so I can snipe or gripe, I
just prefer to do it this way. Heck, it's not like you're just the picture of
honesty and openness yourself. You wanna prang me about anonymity you really
oughta sign your posts yourself. Mturner ain't gonna get the mail delivered.
I've posted under my own name for years. And it was verifiable. And some on
this board have actually met me in person. Can you write the same?

You really are a spineless common loser
aren't you?

Whoa big boy! To quote John Belushi in the Blues Bros, "Well what did I do to
**** you off this time, baaaaby?" Do you read some threat or slight in my
asking a simple question? Which, by the way, I think your response answers.
But spineless? Me? Hehe, you don't know what you're writing. If anything I
push the envelope a little too hard at times. And no, I am not a loser, and by
no stretch of the imagination common. I just found it to be a humorous
anti-spam device. I actually tried common winner first, but there aren't
enough fields in the AOL spam block.

Probably didn't get enough cool-aid at the Jim Jones camp.
You can kiss my highly-traveled ass.

I'm just gonna assume that you woke up on the wrong side of the bed. Either
that or your anger management classes were cancelled and you were upset. :^)

I asked because you had referenced the Masons in one of your posts. I thought
I knew the answer to my question because you wrote of them as Free Masons. Not
to quibble, but it is Freemasons.

Since you did reference the Freemasons in the designing of the United States
Government, in particular the Separation of Church and State, I find it
interesting to point out that at no time has a man been allowed admission into
a Lodge of Freemasons if they did not profess belief in a Supreme Being. Same
for the early patriots. Atheists need not apply.

Interleaved responses lead to long posts. Oh, well - it's the nature
of the beast ;-D


"Eric Miller" wrote in message t...
"Corrie" wrote:
Your (deductive) argument on the Anthropomorphic Principle still begs
the questions of why and how this particular universe came to be.

Well, like I said before, there's no tautological difference between
starting with a creator and starting with one or more universes. How and why
does the universe(s) exist? How and why does the creator exist? It's the
exact same question.

The difference being, I don't think the universe cares one whit about us,
whereas a hypothetical creator cared/was compelled at least enough to create
in the first place.

Agreed. It seems that in your worldview, the question "why are we
here?" has no meaning. And if you ask it, the answer is, "there's no
reason - we just are." But if the question and its answer are both
meaningless, then why can we even ask it? Augustine dealth with the
same point - if it cannot possibly exist, how can it be imagined?


What is the probability of intelligent life existing in the universe?
Impossible to calculate

Actually, the Drake equation breaks this down quite nicely. Now, all the
coefficients might not be known, but that's just a detail


Ahh, and you know who's hiding in the details ;-


(The term species is pretty vague, btw. Last I counted
there were 17 separate, sometimes mutually exclusive, definitions.)

I've never heard any disagreement over the basic definition of species,
which is "a population which can interbreed".

That's just the biological defninition. But it doesn't always work.
For example, dogs and wolves are generally considered two separate
species, but they can interbreed. Same with horses and donkeys,
though the offspring are sterile. Also, you can't apply the
biological test to extinct creatures; you have to use other
definitions.


But I haven't seen any evidence that the same process results in
changes to phylum or order. That's an assumption based on a
faith-belief in macro-evolution.

It's a much smaller leap in logic to state that we can observe evolution on
a smaller scale and conclude that macro-evolution occurs in the same/similar
fashion than to state "Haven't seen any macro-evolution today," give up, and
conclude a creator made everything.


You would expect to see a LOT of evidence for macro-evolution, but you
don't.


You know, this is *exactly* what ancient, superstitious and unscientific man
did, because he was controlled by (instead of controlling) his environment.
Whenever he came across a phenomenon he didn't understand, he created a god
and credited the deity with causing it. Sun, moon and eclipses in the
heavens? Lightning kill your uncle? Storm sink the family fishing boat?
Drought wipe out the harvest? All gods and more gods.

And you know what? As we learned about how things work, gods started
disappearing one by one. Now there's just one mystery left "Where do we come
from?", which is why there's just one god left. (Where we go after we die
isn't a mystery... people just don't like the answer )

We have genetic evidence of a common ancestor for modern humans -
the so-called "genetic Eve.

No need to discuss, since a genetic Eve is consistent with both materialism
and intelligent design (to use your terms).

Similar evidence for a common ancestor for birds and reptiles has yet to
turn up AFAIK.

Now come on, are you deliberately ignoring the evidence of Archaeopteryx?
Not one, but at least eight different fossil specimens from around the world
of an organism which is neither dinosaur nor bird but has some of the
features of both. This is *exactly* what you'd expect from a transitional
fossil.

Is the platypus a transitional creature? Or just an example of a
wierd combination of features (a designer playing around?)
Archaeopteryx is an interesting creature, but it is a true
transitional form? Maybe it was the platypus of its time. You'd
expect to see a lot more transitional forms, say, right above the KT
boundary, when the small surviving dinos began to grow feathers. But
they're not there.


Another topic - I've asked this question in a number of forums, and
have yet to get an answer - why is it that according to the fossil
record, the pace of "evolutionary" change seems to increase the more
complex that life forms become? One would think that as complexity
increases, the likelihood of a random genetic mutation resulting in a
large-scale beneficial change would decrease, yet we see just the
opposite. How does materialist evolution explain that?

Can't speak with authority here, but there's nothing inconsistent with that;
in fact, I'd think you'd expect it.
Start with one "specie", apply change, get two. Apply change to two, get
four etc.

No, this isn't a matter of arithmetic progression. It's a question of
complexity. A single change to a complex system will be less visible
than the same change to a simpler system. Now, then, the mathematics
of complexity and chaos can come into play here - a small disruption
can have an unpredictably large effect - but the fundamental principle
remains. It's easier to change a simple system than a complex system.

Not all mutations are beneficial, but neither are all so detrimental that
they result in the end of line for the mutation.

True. My point exactly. A single mutation to a simple organism is
likely to have a much greater effect than a single mutation to a
complex organism. Yet the fossil record shows that simple organisms
remain stable for scores of millenia, while complex organisms mutate
rapidly.

Further, the worth of a mutation may not be demonstrated until long
after it occurs.

If *that's* the case, then natural selection doesn't work! Either
that or you're buying into Lamark's notion that animals will
themselves to change in order to achieve some future goal. Say it
ain't so, Joe!


Also, be very careful of trying to figure things out by common sense,
because not everything is intuitive. That's why we perform experiments.
In orbit, you have to slow down to descend and speed up to reach a higher
orbit, if you try to move up/down only the shape of your orbit will change.
Inflate two balloons, one 25% full, the other 75% full and connect them with
a closed valve. What happens when you open the valve?
Two balloons 50% full? No, one balloon 5% full, the other balloon 95% full.

If you know all the laws of physics involved, you'd figure those out.
Same with pitch-for-speed, power-for-altitude. (Gotta get an aviation
reference in!) And by looking at the evidence, you'd be able to
figure out the laws involved. So that's what I'm asking - how is it
that complex prganisms evolve more rapidly? I've yet to see an
explanation.


Microbes have developed drug resistance over a period of about 200,000
generations. (50 years @ 12 generations/day). Now, those are not new
species - penicillin-resistant E. Coli is still E. coli. It's like
the difference between a wolf and a German Shepherd. Less, actually,
since we're talking about the difference of a few molecules in the
cell wall. The oldest hominid fossil (Sahelanthropus tchadensis) is
about 470,000 generations old (7 million/15). Only twice as many
generations, with a vastly more complex organism, but the physical
differences between us and "Toumai" are far, far greater than the
differences between normal E. coli and penicilin-resistant E. Coli.
It just doesn't add up.

First of all, bacteria develop drug resistance a *lot* quicker than 50
years; try a week if you're irresponsible and quit taking your antibiotics
as soon as you feel better instead of emptying the bottle as instructed by
your physician.

I'm talking about the general worldwide population of microbes. Fifty
years ago, the resistant mutation was very rare. If you stopped
taking your meds early, there might not be enough of them to reinfect
you - your body's defenses would take over and finish the job. Today,
the resistant mutation is a lot more common, so you have to really
hammer the bugs in order to kill them off.


And to the best of my knowledge, the oldest recognized hominid is
Ardipithicus ramidus, dated at 4.4 my.

I'm using Toumai in an attempt to be conservative, giving the "human
mutation" more generations to come out. Time is *your* ally, right?
If we use A. ramidus, then my argument actually gets stronger.

Remember what I said about common sense.. it doesn't have to seem to add up.
2 hr vs 15 yr long generations. Simple vs complex organisms. All things
aren't created equal.

Whoah now. If that is the case, then you've just made MY argument
stronger: that the process that gives us weiner-dogs from wolves DOES
NOT explain the difference between cats and dogs. Can't have your
cake and eat it, too. :-D


Short generations allow for rapid adaptation to the environment.
Simple organism - there's less there, less to change, less that *can* change
and still be viable.


Oooh, you're treading on very dangerous ground, now. :-) Ever hear of
"irreducible complexity?" A system that, if you try to "devolve it" -
come up with a simpler antecedent - simply stops working? Some folks
use the eye as an example - bad example. Very simple photo-sensitive
cells can convey a survival advantage. But look at something like
mitochondrial protein transport. That's a VERY complex little series
of chemical reactions inside your cells, and it's necessary for life.
Further, you can't make it any simpler and have it keep working.

Complex organism - we share 99% the genetic structure with chimpanzees, and
Ardipithicus ramidus is the point where we branched off, so we can't be more
than 1% different from him.

That's a statement of faith until there's a genetic study of A.
ramidus. AFAIK all we have is fossilized bone.

Perhaps the same 1% difference between bacteria 50 years ago and now... in
about the same number of generations?

Except that the difference in bacteria only resulted in drug
resistance. Resistant E. coli is still E. coli. It's still a
facultative anaerobe, still flourishes in the same environments. It's
simply more resistant to a certain threat. But the difference in
primates is HUGE! Enough to call us and ramidus not only separate
"races" or "breeds" or "strains" and not only different species, but a
different genus!


As far as us having 99% genetic commonality with chimps - is that
evidence of a common ancestor, or evidence of a conservative designer
reusing proven systems?

What I don't understand is... how can the previous statement be acceptable
but yet somehow the idea of an intelligent designer that created everything
*using* the mechanism of evolution is somehow so repugnant?

I don't have a problem with that, philosophically. The problem is
that it's a statement of faith that's been presented as fact. If you
gave me ironclad proof tomorrow of clear common ancestors, obvious and
numerous transitional forms, etc., it wouldn't shake my faith one
whit. And clearly the lack of proof doesn't seem to affect the faith
of secular fundamentalists. It's just so ironic that they mock people
who believe in God. Talk about missing the log in your own eye...

Enjoying the conversation!

Corrie