On 31 Aug 2004 at 16:46, paulsnx2 wrote:

It is so amazingly
> long and detailed, but it is a lecture that every
> creationist should read before they presume to speak for God
>


Well, what do you EXPECT from people who worship a
Book About God instead of a God, and are too stupid to tell
the difference?

Creationists do not speak for God; they speak for a Book
About God.

Cretaionists do not try to prove that God exists; they try to
prove that their Book is God.

Idol worshippers.  Nothing more.




==========================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"

Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank

My Reptile Page:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html

On 1 Sep 2004 at 4:39, paulsnx2 wrote:

> The Options I presented were from a Christian perspective, and
> would have no meaning in the context of a discussion where the
> validity of the Bible was in question.


Please do not confuse "Christian" with "creationist".  Most
Christians think that creationists (and Biblical literalists) are
just as nutty as everyone ELSE thinks they are.


==========================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"

Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank

My Reptile Page:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html

Neil2:  The false dichotomy lies in using the Trinity as a sole representative
for God.

Thus, to chose between no God, or a God with characteristics described in the
Judeo-Christian Bible is a false dichotomy, as there are countless other
representations for God.
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: paulsnx2
   To: creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 11:39 PM
   Subject: [creationevolutiondebate] Re: Evolution vs. creationism :: Wheels vs.
Boxes


   --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "drvr2hrdwr"
   <drvr2hrdwr@h...> wrote:
   >
   >   ----- Original Message -----
   >   From: paulsnx2
   >
   >
   >   Option 2 seems to be without merit, as it would
   >   conflict with many scriptures that claim God's
   >   work can clearly seen in nature.
   > Neil:  False dichotomy.  Either there is no God, or God is
   represented by the Bible.  Thus, your choices collapse under the
   weight of a fundamental fallacy.

   What? Huh? Option 2 seems to be without merit from the *Bible's*
   perspective.

   The Options I presented were from a Christian perspective, and
   would have no meaning in the context of a discussion where the
   validity of the Bible was in question.

   Paul





   Yahoo! Groups Links








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

----- Original Message -----
   From: paulsnx2


   Of course they dispute the science behind Evolution.  My
   point is that even if you give in to them on every scientific
   arguement they make, what remains is still enough to invalidate
   Option 3.  Evolution is simply a theory,
Neil3:  No, Evolution is both fact and theory.  Gould explains it far better
than I can.
  http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html










[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On 1 Sep 2004 at 5:36, paulsnx2 wrote:

> There is no direct statement about evolution in the Bible.


But there are indirect statements:


Genesis 1:

[11] And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb
yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind,
whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
[12] And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding
seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed
was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

[20] And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the
moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above
the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
[21] And God created great whales, and every living
creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth
abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his
kind: and God saw that it was good.

[24] And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living
creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast
of the earth after his kind: and it was so.


Not the wording here:  it does NOT say that God created
life.  It says that God caused the EARTH to bring forth life.

In ancient times, anything that came from the earth was
called a "fossil".  Thus, the wording in this Genesis account
indicates that current life came from the things we find in the
ground.  From fossils.

From evolution.




Most fundies, of course, have never actually READ their
Bible.  They prefer to thump it instead.


==========================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"

Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank

My Reptile Page:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html

To Lenny:  Also note the wording.  Day.  Not billions of years.  Note
the order, not evolutionary.  Note the date, appr 6000 years ago.
Also note that 11 and 12 say that each seed yields 'their kind.'  It
went out of the way to be specific in that one plant does not lead to
another type of plant.  Also the etymology that you mention for
fossils doesn't translate.  When we say fossil today, we don't mean
'comes from the earth.'  We mean something, almost always organic,
that has been fossilized.  Their wording fits in much better with
other middle eastern religious creation accounts, where the earth
goddess begat gods x, y, and z, and they in turn begat animals,
planets, and such.  Thus the animals and plants are brought fourth by
divine intervention.  Not evolved over time.

I DARE you to find a SINGLE fundy who fits "have never actually READ their
Bible" and is capable of reading.  And I don't mean read it cover to
cover, many non-fundies have not done that.  I mean exactly what you
said.  Just having read the parts they are talking about(genesis here)
is sufficient.

Jared.

----- Original Message -----
From: lflank@... <lflank@...>
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 08:25:45 -0400
Subject: Re: [creationevolutiondebate] Re: Evolution vs. creationism
:: Wheels vs. Boxes
To: creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com

On 1 Sep 2004 at 5:36, paulsnx2 wrote:

> There is no direct statement about evolution in the Bible.


But there are indirect statements:


Genesis 1:

[11] And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb
yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind,
whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
[12] And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding
seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed
was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

[20] And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the
moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above
the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
[21] And God created great whales, and every living
creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth
abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his
kind: and God saw that it was good.

[24] And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living
creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast
of the earth after his kind: and it was so.


Not the wording here:  it does NOT say that God created
life.  It says that God caused the EARTH to bring forth life.

In ancient times, anything that came from the earth was
called a "fossil".  Thus, the wording in this Genesis account
indicates that current life came from the things we find in the
ground.  From fossils.

From evolution.


Most fundies, of course, have never actually READ their
Bible.  They prefer to thump it instead.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jared Richardson" <JaredR26@...>
To: <creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 10:04 PM
Subject: Re: [creationevolutiondebate] Re: Evolution vs. creationism ::
Wheels vs. Boxes


> To Lenny:  Also note the wording.  Day.

The author of Genesis was a priest in the7th to 6th century BCE who wrote in
ancient Hebrew. The Hebrew word yom also means "time" so syntactically it
can mean a period of time but it is still irrelevent. This is an Iron Age
text based on late bronze age myths.


> Not billions of years.  Note
> the order, not evolutionary.  Note the date, appr 6000 years ago.
> Also note that 11 and 12 say that each seed yields 'their kind.'  It
> went out of the way to be specific in that one plant does not lead to
> another type of plant.  Also the etymology that you mention for
> fossils doesn't translate.  When we say fossil today, we don't mean
> 'comes from the earth.'  We mean something, almost always organic,
> that has been fossilized.  Their wording fits in much better with
> other middle eastern religious creation accounts, where the earth
> goddess begat gods x, y, and z, and they in turn begat animals,
> planets, and such.  Thus the animals and plants are brought fourth by
> divine intervention.  Not evolved over time.
>
> I DARE you to find a SINGLE fundy who fits "have never actually READ their
> Bible" and is capable of reading.  And I don't mean read it cover to
> cover, many non-fundies have not done that.  I mean exactly what you
> said.  Just having read the parts they are talking about(genesis here)
> is sufficient.
>
> Jared.

I am amused by Biblical literalists who are only literal in their own
language.  The Bible was written in ancient Hebrew.  If one does not read
and understand ancient Hebrew as well as Hebrew idiom...and often the
Ugaritic and Akkadian roots of Canaanite words....one cannot be a
literalist.  Go to Hebrew University or the University of Tel Aviv (really a
great school) and you will learn in any science  class that the earth is
billions of years old and that evoution covers the changes in allele
frequencies over time....about 3.5 billion years worth.  Now why is that?
These folks' ancestors wrote Genesis and they speak the language Genesis was
written in...as do I.

Jack

--- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "drvr2hrdwr"
<drvr2hrdwr@h...> wrote:
> Neil2:  The false dichotomy lies in using the Trinity as a sole
representative for God.
>
> Thus, to chose between no God, or a God with
> characteristics described in the Judeo-Christian Bible
> is a false dichotomy, as there are countless other
> representations for God.

One last time.  I am discussing the concept of creationism
within the context of the Bible.  I am not putting forth
the idea that there are no other choices, but rather discussing
the choices within the Bible's defined frame of reference.
The assumption of the discussion is the Judeo-Christain Bible,
and frames of reference outside that assumption are not
considered.

I'll help you with an analogy.  It is like we are discussing
equations in 2-D space.  None of our equations or proofs we
are discussing reference 3-D, 4-D, or even higher dimensional
spaces. The existance of other dimensional spaces is neither
being refuted or supported; the other dimension spaces just
are not referenced at all.   No "false dichotomy" here,
because there exists no claim to be discussing every possible
frame of reference.


Paul

--- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, Jared Richardson
<JaredR26@g...> wrote:
> To Lenny:  Also note the wording.  Day.  Not billions of years.
Note
> the order, not evolutionary.  Note the date, appr 6000 years ago.
> Also note that 11 and 12 say that each seed yields
> 'their kind.'  It went out of the way to be specific
> in that one plant does not lead to another type of plant.

You stomp on day as being literal.  Then you extend "after their
own kind" to mean that no changes are possible over time.  How
is it that you can't accept the use of day to denote a period of
time (as in, "the dawn of time", or "that is so yesterday", or
"the world of tomorrow", "in this day and age"?  How is it that
at the same time you extend this simple observation (which holds
true within the theory of evolution as well) to mean that no
genetic modifications will ever occur over any number of
generations?

If you are going to be quite literal, you have to admit that
"after their own kind" does not mean "no genetic modification
will ever occur, and God never again creates another species
from another."  If I were to guess, I'd say the statement
references other creation myths where the various actors give
birth to hosts of various animals and objects found in the world.

At the same time, this phrase does not predict evolution either.
The best one can do, literally, is admit that it doesn't
reference evolution at all.

Then about the approx 6000 years...  That doesn't hold up either
by the Bible and the culture within which the Bible is written.
To toss out the use of language and customs within which the
Bible is written is to miss understand what the writer intended.

1) The geneologies (from which the 6000 years is derived) and the
    lifespands they describe should not be taken literally.  Those
    included will be those of note.  Many ancestors will be left
    out since these genologies would have been maintained oraly
    and too many names cannot be remembered.  The ages will
    indicate trends and importance.
2) Many of the long lifespands occur in folks born after God
    limits the lifespan of man (literally Adam, i.e. Mankind, i.e.
    male and female) to 120 years (before Noah).  If we are going
    to take a direct and literal statement by God seriously, we
    have to come to an understanding as to why the Geneologies
    are not in conflict.
3) Passages in the Bible itself seem to imply a clear understanding
    of this nature of the genologies... Abraham is described as
    dying at a ripe old age of 175 (Gen 25:7-8).  Yet (I have
    done the math many times, but don't have the spreadsheet with
    me, so from memory) no less than 8 of his ancestors died
    during his lifetime with life spans far and away longer than
    175.  Yet none of them are mentioned (Other than Abraham's
    own father), and Abraham himself and those around him do not
    seem surprised in by his own loss of lifespan.
4) The Geneologies are incomplete (Not all of them provide an
    age for those listed) and in conflict (New Testement versions
    have an additional ancestor not included in the Old Testement
    versions).

Conclusion:  The Geneologies cannot be used to date creation.




  Also the etymology that you mention for
> fossils doesn't translate.  When we say fossil today, we don't mean
> 'comes from the earth.'  We mean something, almost always organic,
> that has been fossilized.  Their wording fits in much better with
> other middle eastern religious creation accounts, where the earth
> goddess begat gods x, y, and z, and they in turn begat animals,
> planets, and such.  Thus the animals and plants are brought
> fourth by divine intervention.  Not evolved over time.

BTW
This is the correct application of the phrase "after their
own kind".  At the time the Bible was written and even today,
this phrase points to the God of the Bible rather than the
creation myths of other religions in the Middle East.

As for the discussion of fossils, well, it was new to me so I
can't speak to it.

Paul

On 1 Sep 2004 at 23:04, Jared Richardson wrote:

> To Lenny:  Also note the wording.  Day.  Not billions of years.



That, of course, depends utterly on which Biblical scholar
you talk to.  actually, the Bible says "yom", not "day".  A
"yom" is a period of time.  An undefined period of time.


   Note
> the order, not evolutionary.



So what.  It is after all not a science book.  <shrug>



  Note the date, appr 6000 years ago.
> Also note that 11 and 12 say that each seed yields 'their kind.'  It
> went out of the way to be specific in that one plant does not lead to
> another type of plant.


That depends entirely on what one emans by "kind".  No
creationsit has been able to define it.  can you?



Also the etymology that you mention for
> fossils doesn't translate.  When we say fossil today, we don't mean
> 'comes from the earth.'  We mean something, almost always organic,
> that has been fossilized.



What we mean today has absolutely nothing to do with what
it emant in the first century of the common era.



  Their wording fits in much better with
> other middle eastern religious creation accounts, where the earth
> goddess begat gods x, y, and z, and they in turn begat animals,
> planets, and such.  Thus the animals and plants are brought fourth by
> divine intervention.  Not evolved over time.



It says "the earth brought forth".  It doesn't get any clearer
than that.



>
> I DARE you to find a SINGLE fundy who fits "have never actually READ their
> Bible" and is capable of reading.  And I don't mean read it cover to
> cover, many non-fundies have not done that.  I mean exactly what you
> said.  Just having read the parts they are talking about(genesis here)
> is sufficient.
>


Maybe they better read it again, then.  And have an
educated person explain to them what the words "the earth
brought forth" mean.


==========================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"

Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank

My Reptile Page:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html

On 2 Sep 2004 at 14:28, paulsnx2 wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, Jared Richardson
> <JaredR26@g...> wrote:
> > To Lenny:  Also note the wording.  Day.  Not billions of years.
> Note
> > the order, not evolutionary.  Note the date, appr 6000 years ago.
> > Also note that 11 and 12 say that each seed yields
> > 'their kind.'  It went out of the way to be specific
> > in that one plant does not lead to another type of plant.
>
> You stomp on day as being literal.  Then you extend "after their
> own kind" to mean that no changes are possible over time.  How
> is it that you can't accept the use of day to denote a period of
> time (as in, "the dawn of time", or "that is so yesterday", or
> "the world of tomorrow", "in this day and age"?  How is it that
> at the same time you extend this simple observation (which holds
> true within the theory of evolution as well) to mean that no
> genetic modifications will ever occur over any number of
> generations?
>
> If you are going to be quite literal, you have to admit that
> "after their own kind" does not mean "no genetic modification
> will ever occur, and God never again creates another species
> from another."  If I were to guess, I'd say the statement
> references other creation myths where the various actors give
> birth to hosts of various animals and objects found in the world.
>
> At the same time, this phrase does not predict evolution either.
> The best one can do, literally, is admit that it doesn't
> reference evolution at all.
>
> Then about the approx 6000 years...  That doesn't hold up either
> by the Bible and the culture within which the Bible is written.
> To toss out the use of language and customs within which the
> Bible is written is to miss understand what the writer intended.
>
> 1) The geneologies (from which the 6000 years is derived) and the
>    lifespands they describe should not be taken literally.  Those
>    included will be those of note.  Many ancestors will be left
>    out since these genologies would have been maintained oraly
>    and too many names cannot be remembered.  The ages will
>    indicate trends and importance.
> 2) Many of the long lifespands occur in folks born after God
>    limits the lifespan of man (literally Adam, i.e. Mankind, i.e.
>    male and female) to 120 years (before Noah).  If we are going
>    to take a direct and literal statement by God seriously, we
>    have to come to an understanding as to why the Geneologies
>    are not in conflict.
> 3) Passages in the Bible itself seem to imply a clear understanding
>    of this nature of the genologies... Abraham is described as
>    dying at a ripe old age of 175 (Gen 25:7-8).  Yet (I have
>    done the math many times, but don't have the spreadsheet with
>    me, so from memory) no less than 8 of his ancestors died
>    during his lifetime with life spans far and away longer than
>    175.  Yet none of them are mentioned (Other than Abraham's
>    own father), and Abraham himself and those around him do not
>    seem surprised in by his own loss of lifespan.
> 4) The Geneologies are incomplete (Not all of them provide an
>    age for those listed) and in conflict (New Testement versions
>    have an additional ancestor not included in the Old Testement
>    versions).
>
> Conclusion:  The Geneologies cannot be used to date creation.
>
>
>
>
>  Also the etymology that you mention for
> > fossils doesn't translate.  When we say fossil today, we don't mean
> > 'comes from the earth.'  We mean something, almost always organic,
> > that has been fossilized.  Their wording fits in much better with
> > other middle eastern religious creation accounts, where the earth
> > goddess begat gods x, y, and z, and they in turn begat animals,
> > planets, and such.  Thus the animals and plants are brought
> > fourth by divine intervention.  Not evolved over time.
>
> BTW
> This is the correct application of the phrase "after their
> own kind".  At the time the Bible was written and even today,
> this phrase points to the God of the Bible rather than the
> creation myths of other religions in the Middle East.
>
> As for the discussion of fossils, well, it was new to me so I
> can't speak to it.
>
> Paul





With all due respect, I'm not sure why any of us should
CARE what the Bible does or doesn't say about evolution
(or about nuclear physics or meteorology or the treatment of
bubonic plague).

The Bible is not a sciecne book.  <shrug>



==========================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"

Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank

My Reptile Page:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html

We would like to remind you of this upcoming event.

WEEKLY MODERATION POLICY REMINDER

Date: Saturday, September 4, 2004
Time: All Day

This is a moderated group. Every member is expected to behave
themselves and act as adults in a discussion about science,
religion and related topics. Each member is expected to treat
the others with dignity and respect regardless of your private
opinions of each other's character, IQ, parentage or bathing
habits.

You will never be banned for your ideas. It is perfectly okay to
attack anyone's ideas but it is NOT okay to attack a person. If
you insist on flaming someone who has irritated you or have
engaged in personal attack you will be warned. If you ignore
moderator warnings, you will be moderated.

When you are moderated your posts will be sent to the moderators
and if they contain flames or personal attacks they will be
returned to you for rewrite. If they consist of nothing *but*
flames or attacks they will be deleted without comment. If this
becomes a common and repetitive occurrence,  you will be asked
to unsubscribe or be unsubscribed forcibly.

Moderation is not necessarily permanent. A period of good
behavior will end the moderation.

If you are being attacked and neither moderator has noticed,
please privately e-mail one of the moderators: Susan Cogan
(susan-brassfield@...) or Tim Fairchild (amosf@...)
with "**private**" in the subject header and a sample of the
offending remarks.

> Michael Tong: Where does the Bible talk about racial purity?

Randy:
> Let me tell you Michael, I grew up and still live in the south.
> When I was a kid, I could have gone to nearly any church within a
10
> mile radius of my house on a Sunday morning and listened for an
hour
> to bible verse after bible verse that the preacher claimed was a
> command to uphold racial purity.  I guess you're saying that the
> fact that I can't do that now, is due to the fact that they found a
> new, more accurate bible.

Eric: Let me help you out here.  Here are just a few quick passages from
the Bible which touch directly on the racial purity issue.
Disgusting.

"After these things had been done, the leaders came to me and
said, "The people of Israel, including the priests and the Levites,
have not kept themselves separate from the neighboring peoples with
their detestable practices, like those of the Canaanites, Hittites,
Perizzites, Jebusites, Ammonites, Moabites, Egyptians and Amorites.
They have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and
their sons, and have mingled the holy race with the peoples around
them. And the leaders and officials have led the way in this
unfaithfulness." When I heard this, I tore my tunic and cloak, pulled
hair from my head and beard and sat down appalled."
   Ezra 9:1-3

"We promise not to give our daughters in marriage to the peoples
around us or take their daughters for our sons."
    Nehemiah 10:28-30

"Parent all children separate from murmurers and disputers, in order
that they may be born perfect in our kind: pure blooded and
nonmongrelized, faultless children of God, amidst a race perverse,
and having been corrupted, among whom we appear like luminaries in
the orderly arrangment."
   Philippians 2:14-15 (AST)

Michael: Note that the neighboring peoples are associated with detestable
practices.  Remember the story of David and Bathsheba?  Bathsheba's
husband, Uriah,  was a Hittite.  If these people followed the God of
Israel, they were accepted.
The book of Philippians is in the New Testament.  In the New Testament,
Gentiles were accepted as Christians.  The race being referred to is
probably the race of believers.  What race do you think is being referred
to?

Michael: It is irrelevant whether there are  any women or minorities in
the leadership of AIG, ICR, and DI.  The  important thing is that there
isn't any rules preventing these groups from  joining the leadership.
****
Pi:
Just as it whether or not Hitler, et. al, used evolution to promote their

ends is irrelvant to the validity of evolution as a scientific theory.

Michael: But the question is, "Why did early evolutionists conclude that
Caucasians were the superior race?"  Weren't the evidence there to
suggest otherwise?  Why should one believe that the thinking which led to
evolution be any different?

Yours truly,
Michael

> Michael: You said that the random number generator illustrates
collective
> probability.  Consequently, if evolution is a matter of individual
> probability rather than collective probability, your example is
> irrelevant.

Tin:  Are you really this confused or are you just pretending ?

    The random number generator example has both individual and
collective probabilities. The individual probability for each
individual string is p = 10^-3000. This demonstrates that random
processes can produce extraordinarily low probabilities.  This
reality disproves the anti evolution rhetoric to the contraray.

   Collective probabilities are always p = 1.00.  Collective
probabilities are irrelevant to the bogus claim made by IDers
described above.

Michael: Individual probability is when a number is specified before the
random number generator is turned on.  Evolution is a matter of
individual probability.  The evolution of the eye would require specific
mutations.  Your random number generator example illustrates collective
probability, which is irrelevant to evolution.

> Michael: Provide a reference for your claim that "the probability
that
> some beneficial mutation will occur (i.e., a collective
probability) *IS*
> essentially one."

Tin:  My conclusion is supported by two lines of reasoning. First, we
have many documented examples of beneficial mutations.  Even many
creationists acknowledge that beneficial mutations are real.
Secondly simple logic indicates that random change will eventually
produce a change in an adaptive direction.  Much like a game of
cards, random draws will sometimes improve one's hand.  It is
inevitable.

Michael: Then you should have no problem providing a reference to support
your claim that the probability of getting a beneficial mutation is one.
Below I will again post an excerpt from the Encarta Encyclopedia 2001
showing that beneficial mutations are rare.  The difference is that IDers
provide an actual figure rather than simply claim that beneficial
mutations are rare.

Whatever their cause, mutations are a rare but slow and continuous source
of new genes in a gene pool. Most mutations are neutral, that is, they
have no effect. Other mutations are detrimental to life, causing the
immediate death of any organism that inherits them. Once in a great
while, however, a mutation provides an organism with an advantageous
trait.

Yours truly,
Michael

> Michael: This is further support for my hypotheses that Caucasian
>   physical features are genetically considered attractive by all
races,
>   something which only ID can explain.

Tin: We have frequently noted the errors in your approach.  Let's
review them again.

1) you have failed to demonstrate that caucasian features are
universally preferred.

2) you have failed to demonstrate the imagined preference is genetic.

3) you have failed to demonstrate that the imagined preference which
imagine to be genetic could not have evolved.

4) you have failed to provide any meaningful explanation of why ID
theory anticipates these imagined traits.

Michael
1) Rather than simply make such a claim, you should attempt to address
some of the points brought up in the article.   For instance, that many
young Chinese women who choose plastic surgery want a classical Western
look.
2) During the Cultural Revolution, individual beauty was condemned.
China did not began reopening up to the West until the 1970's.  China did
not become economically prosperous until perhaps the 1990's.   How could
Western culture have such an influence so quickly unless genetically
Chinese found Caucasian physical features attractive.
3) You are the evolutionist.  Explain how all races evolved to find
Caucasian physical features attractive.
4) ID does not anticipate these traits.  Rather ID is the only
explanation for why all races would genetically find Caucasian physical
features attractive.

> Michael: First, you have to provide evidence that the tanning salon
> business is booming.

Tin:  The mere existence of tanning salons refutes your nonsense
about the superiority of whites in physical attractiveness.   Think
of the booming nature of these salons as icing.

Michael: Then the mere existence of homosexuality refutes the idea that
people are genetically attracted to members of the opposite sex.

Didn't you read in the news recently that salon
> tanning produces a kind of high?  That is the reason why some people
> continue tanning even though their skin has become blotched.

Tin:   Wow, this is might a low point for Mr. Tong.  In order to
defend his previous nonsense he is now making up new nonsense.
Tanning Salon's exist because they make their clients high.

   Tong is sad.

Following is an article titled Addicted to Tanning from www.abc7.com

HEALTHY LIVING — Lots of people like the way they look when they get that
bronze glow, but is there also something physically addictive about
tanning?
New research says: yes.
Experts at Wake Forest Medical Center say exposure to UV light may
produce a "relaxing" effect that actually lures tanners back to the
tanning beds.
One doctor says UV light has such an effect on lightening the mood that
it reinforces people's desire to regularly visit tanning salons.
The problem is: while it may be good for your mood, UV light has been
linked to the development of skin cancer.
Go inside
> an Abercrombie and Fitch clothing store.  Do any of the pictures of
> models on the wall have dark skin?  I uploaded a picture of Kathrine
> Soerland, Norway's delegate for Miss Universe 2004 to the "photos"
for
> our group.  Does anyone think that Kathrine Soerland would look
better if
> she had darker skin?  Miss Australia, Jennifer Hawkins won the
pageant
> but I don't think her face is as pretty.

Tin: Beauty comes in many forms. The fact that some beautiful people
are caucasian doesn't support your ludicrous idea that it is
universally preferred let along that it is genetic.

   If you ideas were accurate tanning salons wouldn't exist. Face
reality tanned appearance is commonly considered attractive.

Michael: The fact that creased eyelids, thinner noses, and larger breasts
are among the biggest sellers of cosmetic surgery in China is evidence
that Caucasian features are genetically considered attractive.
If you think that tanned skin is attractive, put a photo of someone with
a tan in the "photos" for our group.  Then everyone can compare it to
that of Kathrine Soerland, who at least in the photo, has very light
skin.
> Michael: Racial differences is not racism.

Tin:  Your deeply mistaken, notto  mention highly bizzare, notions of
attractiveness require white superiority. That's racist. Not to
mention really weird.
Michael: Brad Pitt is more attractive than Bill Gates.  Does that mean
Brad Pitt is superior to Bill Gates?
Yours truly,
Michael



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> > I have uploaded a picture of high heels
   >
   >
Neil:  Tong, maybe you are on to something here, but I think it requires
much more detailed study.  Since our hardwired preferences were developed
many years ago when people wore little or nothing, I think that for
scientific reasons all future picture posts should be of the unclothed
variety.  Also, to be fair, you should include a large number of women of
all races in a wide variety of poses that are analogous to female
mammalian mating display rituals.  This way we can scientifically gauge
the arousal factors generated by viewing such displays.  To eliminate
statistical errors I estimate that at least 1275 photos will be needed,
but an initial trial of 42 photos should give us a spot check of the
principles involved.

Michael: Then start uploading these photos.  If you think that high heels
aren't attractive, upload a photo of a woman with barefeet or tennis
shoes.  If you think that Kathrine Soerland skin is too light, upload a
photo of a woman with darker skin.  If you think that is was a mistake
for Toyota to use Brad Pitt in a commercial in Asia, upload a photo of
someone you think they should have used.

Yours truly,
Michael

Michael: Since ID does not speculate on the nature of the creator, it
does not claim that the creator is omniscient.


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

Randy: But Michael, speculating on how creation occurred necessarily
involves speculation on the nature of the creator. By saying that
there are things which can be done by an intelligent desinger that
cannot be accomplished by natural processes, WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS
SPECULATING ON THE NATURE OF THE CREATOR.  By any reasonable
standard of omniscience, one would be forced to infer that an
omniscient creator would NOT have to "experiment".  When you say
that the appearance and disappearance of species in the fossil
record indicates a creator experimenting with designs, you are
indirectly speculating on the nature of that creator.  Furthermore
you are pretty directly saying that that creator is NOT omniscient
and therefore does not meet the Islamic-Judeo-Christian conception
of God.

Michael: I did not say that the creator was experimenting with designs.
The fossil record reveals life forms being created and destroyed.  The
reason for this is unknown.  Remember even according to the Bible life
forms were destroyed during Noah's Flood.  From observation, the creator
is powerful, intelligent, and artistic.  Unlike religion, that is about
all ID can determine about the nature of the creator.

Michael: Evolutionists are going to run into the same problem. Where
did
matter come from? Don't say energy, because I will then ask, where
did
energy come from? When did time begin? How far is far? There are
certain questions that are beyond the human mind to answer.
*********************************************************************

Randy: But Michael, the origin of matter and energy has NOTHING to do
with
evolution!  The origin of the creator has EVERYTHING to do with ID.
Evolution works just as well as an explanation of the origin of
species if matter and energy came about by divine fiat, have always
existed etc.  However, the whole argument of ID is that living
things are to complex to have arisen by natural processes, if this
is true of living things then it MUST be true of the ID'er.  So was
the designer designed, and if not, why did you stop where you did?

Michael: No.  You are going to run into the same problem.  If
evolutionists claim that matter and energy came about by divine fiat,
then where did this divinity come from?  If you say that matter and
energy always existed, then I will say that the creator always existed.

Yours truly,
Michael

Following is an article from Audubon, 10-2004:

This summer Singapore Airlines launched the world's longest nonstop
commercial flight, between New York and Singapore--18 hours, which covers
more than 10,000 miles.  For record airtime, though, nothing comes close
to bar-tailed godwits, which scientists recently discovered fly nonstop
for six days during their yearly migrations.  The godwits, which are
slightly larger than pigeons, breed in the summer in western Alaska,
where they put on more than half their weight as fat by gorging
themselves on little clams and worms.  "They look like flying boxes,"
says Robert Gill, a wildlife biologist with the U.S. Geological Survey,
who helped piece together proof of the long-distance prowess by using
historical records of godwit sightings, flight simulations, and body
weight/energy calculations.  One to three days prior to their
record-breaking migration, the godwits absorb part of their digestive
system to save on weight.  In autumn the birds hitch onto the tails of
typhoons and fly for almost 8,000 miles to eastern Australia and New
Zealand.  On their own power, the godwits can reach speeds of 45 mph, but
with the help of storm winds, they can accelerate to almost 100 mph. When
the birds reach their final destination, they practically fall down from
exhaustion, says Gill.

Michael: Now, how did this behavior evolve?  Note that there wouldn't
have been too much time for this to evolve since during the last ice age
which ended around 15,000 year ago, Alaska was covered with snow and
probably presented an unsuitable environment for the godwits.  Also, the
typhoons may have been in a different location.  The best explanation is
that godwits were created with this migration ability.

> Michael: But one of the researchers also pointed out that Archaeopteryx
> was advanced, consequently, its ancestors must have been flying
millions
> of years earlier.  Where are these ancestors?

Lenny: Caudipteryx, Protoarchaeopteryx, Sinosauropteryx.

I know, Tong -- you've never heard of any of them, right?

Michael: But there's always the Internet.  One of the researchers noted
that since Archaeopteryx was an advanced flyer, its ancestors must have
been flying millions of years earlier.  Candipteryx, Protoarchaeopterx,
and Sinosauropteryx had feathers but were unable to fly.  Moreover,
Candipteryx and Protoarchaeopterx appear in the fossil record after
Archaeopteryx.  Sinosauropteryx was either a contemporary of
Archaeopteryx or appeared afterwards.

Yours truly,
Michael

Michael: Let the students  decide what is the cut-off in the probability.

*****
Pi:
Absurd.  ID claims to have determined that "probability" demonstrates
the
presence of a designer.  It is not to (high school) students to
determine what
that probability is, it is to ID advocates to determine it.

Michael: Textbooks should simply present the probabilities that IDers
calculate and give students some idea of the meaning of the number.  For
instance, Spetner in his book, Not By Chance! gives the figure 10^-45,
which is the probability of flipping 150 coins and having them all come
up heads.  Students would then be able to relate lower probabilities to
this figure.

Michael:
The school textbook will mention what the probability  is.  For instance,
Spetner's calculation that the probability of  getting a new species is
2.7x10^-2739.
*****
Pi:
Why 2.7*10^(-2739) and not 2.7*10^(-2738) or 2.7*10^(-2740)?
*****

Michael: Because that is what Spetner's calculation comes up with.  He
didn't pull the number from the air.

Pi:
If the probability of the nylon bug mutation arising randomly is less,
then
the mutation must have been designed.  Now, it is necessary to show HOW
it
was designed ... note, that is the very same standard (ie: HOW) that
Michael
expects evolution to meet.

Michael: I answered these questions, but you keep deleting my responses
and then ask the same questions over again.  To show how mathematics can
detect intelligent design I mentioned the case of Nicholas Caputo, but
you simply claimed that it was irrelevant without explaining why.  If you
note a problem with my response, then you must explain what that problem
is.  I will repeat my example of the obelisk.

Suppose that one of the Martian rovers discovered an obelisk with an
accurate sketch of the Solar System etched on it.  According to your
reasoning, one cannot infer that it was created by some intelligence
unless one can determine by what mechanism the obelisk was created.  Now
suppose a scientist said that the obelisk
was created by water and wind erosion.  According to your reasoning, this
is sufficient; it is unnecessary for this scientist to show how water and
wind erosion could have produced an obelisk, much less a sketch of the
Solar System.

Now explain why scientists would have to know how the obelisk was
designed in order to infer intelligent design.

Pi: Further, I don't recall an explanation of why that particular
mutation was
designed while other (equally "improbable") mutations are not.

Michael: If you read what Spetner said about the nylon bug, many
mutations are involved.  That is why Spetner was able to calculate that
the probability of all these mutations taking place is very low.  The
lower the probability, the easier it is to detect intelligent design.
I've already given the example of the recent discovery of ancient
seashells with holes.  Some scientists speculated that ancient people
made these holes in order to create a necklace.  Other scientists however
believed that natural processes might have produced the holes.  In
contrast, nobody believes that the Venus figurines were formed by natural
processes.  The reason is that the Venus figurines are more complex and
consequently too improbable to have been created by natural processes.

Yours truly,
Michael

Michael: For another viewpoint, go to www.discovery.org and read the
article, The Scientist reports on Meyer's peer-reviewed journal article.

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 16:01:08 -0500 Susan Cogan <sbcogan@...> writes:
> Dear Friends of NCSE,
>
> A paper by Stephen C. Meyer, Project Director of the Discovery
> Institute's Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture,
> recently
> appeared in the journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of
> Washington (2004; 117 [2]: 213-239).  PBSW is a small legitimate
> scientific journal, specializing mainly in taxonomical articles.
> But
> Meyer's "The origin of biological information and the higher
> taxonomic
> categories" is a review article (as opposed to a research article)
> arguing, in usual "intelligent design" fashion, against the
> sufficiency of evolutionary processes to account for life's history
> and diversity.  The article is supposed to be available shortly on
> the
> Discovery Institute's web site:
> http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177
>
> The crew at the Panda's Thumb blog has already posted a preliminary
> critique of the paper, under the title "Meyer's Hopeful Monster":
> http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000430.html The critique
> identifies a large number of errors, confusions, and omissions in
> the
> paper, concluding: "There is nothing wrong with challenging
> conventional wisdom -- continuing challenge is a core feature of
> science. But challengers should at least be aware of, read, cite,
> and
> specifically rebut the actual data that supports conventional
> wisdom,
> not merely construct a rhetorical edifice out of omission of
> relevant
> facts, selective quoting, bad analogies, knocking down strawmen,
> and
> tendentious interpretations. Unless and until the 'intelligent
> design'
> movement does this, they are not seriously in the game. They're not
> even playing the same sport."
>
> NCSE has already heard from a number of members of the Biological
> Society of Washington (which has about 250 members in all), who are
> concerned about the reputation of the society and its journal after
> the publication of such a piece of substandard work in the apparent
> service of a non-scientific ideology.
>
> As always, be sure to consult NCSE's web site:
> http://www.ncseweb.org
> where you can always find the latest news on evolution education
> and
> threats to it.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Glenn Branch
> Deputy Director
> National Center for Science Education, Inc.

On 4 Sep 2004 at 15:33, mtong5@... wrote:

> Michael: Individual probability is when a number is specified before the
> random number generator is turned on.  Evolution is a matter of
> individual probability.




No it's not.

The evolution of the eye would require specific
> mutations.



No it doesn't.




Your random number generator example illustrates collective
> probability, which is irrelevant to evolution.
>


No it isn't.

>
> Michael: Then you should have no problem providing a reference to support
> your claim that the probability of getting a beneficial mutation is one.
> Below I will again post an excerpt from the Encarta Encyclopedia 2001
> showing that beneficial mutations are rare.  The difference is that IDers
> provide an actual figure rather than simply claim that beneficial
> mutations are rare.
>




That's nice.  So what.



> Whatever their cause, mutations are a rare but slow and continuous source
> of new genes in a gene pool. Most mutations are neutral, that is, they
> have no effect. Other mutations are detrimental to life, causing the
> immediate death of any organism that inherits them. Once in a great
> while, however, a mutation provides an organism with an advantageous
> trait.
>


So genetic informaiton can increase . . . .?


==========================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"

Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank

My Reptile Page:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html

On 4 Sep 2004 at 15:38, mtong5@... wrote:
>
> Michael: Textbooks should simply present the probabilities that IDers
> calculate



Why.

And why is it that no two IDers seema ble to calculate the
same "probabilities".



  and give students some idea of the meaning of the number.  For
> instance, Spetner



Who, by the way, thinks that Tong is a "disturbed individual"
. . . .



>in his book, Not By Chance! gives the figure 10^-45,




Why is his figure better than all of the others I' have seen.



> Pi:
> Why 2.7*10^(-2739) and not 2.7*10^(-2738) or 2.7*10^(-2740)?
> *****
>
> Michael: Because that is what Spetner's calculation comes up with.  He
> didn't pull the number from the air.


Apparently he DID, since other IDers come up with other
"probabilities".

Why is that, Tong.


==========================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"

Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank

My Reptile Page:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html

On 4 Sep 2004 at 15:43, mtong5@... wrote:

> 1) Rather than simply make such a claim, you should attempt to address
> some of the points brought up in the article.   For instance, that many
> young Chinese women who choose plastic surgery want a classical Western
> look.
> 2) During the Cultural Revolution, individual beauty was condemned.
> China did not began reopening up to the West until the 1970's.  China did
> not become economically prosperous until perhaps the 1990's.   How could
> Western culture have such an influence so quickly unless genetically
> Chinese found Caucasian physical features attractive.
> 3) You are the evolutionist.  Explain how all races evolved to find
> Caucasian physical features attractive.
> 4) ID does not anticipate these traits.  Rather ID is the only
> explanation for why all races would genetically find Caucasian physical
> features attractive.




As noted, I find Asian women much more attractive than
Caucasian.

When is the last time you got laid, Tong?  You seem awfully
fixated on this whole "beauty" thingie . . . . . .







==========================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"

Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank

My Reptile Page:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html

On 4 Sep 2004 at 15:32, mtong5@... wrote:

> Michael: But the question is, "Why did early evolutionists conclude that
> Caucasians were the superior race?"


For the same reason all the churhces at that time did.
Because they were all white.



  Weren't the evidence there to
> suggest otherwise?



Yes.



  Why should one believe that the thinking which led to
> evolution be any different?



Hey Tong, why don't you go to all the racist-group websites
that you can find.  Count how many times they cite "darwin"
or "evolution" as justificaiton.  Then count how many times
they cite "God", "Jesus Christ" or "the Bible".

Tell us what you find.


==========================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"

Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank

My Reptile Page:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html

On 4 Sep 2004 at 15:27, mtong5@... wrote:

> Following is an article from Audubon, 10-2004:
>
> This summer Singapore Airlines launched the world's longest nonstop
> commercial flight, between New York and Singapore--18 hours, which covers
> more than 10,000 miles.  For record airtime, though, nothing comes close
> to bar-tailed godwits, which scientists recently discovered fly nonstop
> for six days during their yearly migrations.  The godwits, which are
> slightly larger than pigeons, breed in the summer in western Alaska,
> where they put on more than half their weight as fat by gorging
> themselves on little clams and worms.  "They look like flying boxes,"
> says Robert Gill, a wildlife biologist with the U.S. Geological Survey,
> who helped piece together proof of the long-distance prowess by using
> historical records of godwit sightings, flight simulations, and body
> weight/energy calculations.  One to three days prior to their
> record-breaking migration, the godwits absorb part of their digestive
> system to save on weight.  In autumn the birds hitch onto the tails of
> typhoons and fly for almost 8,000 miles to eastern Australia and New
> Zealand.  On their own power, the godwits can reach speeds of 45 mph, but
> with the help of storm winds, they can accelerate to almost 100 mph. When
> the birds reach their final destination, they practically fall down from
> exhaustion, says Gill.
>
> Michael: Now, how did this behavior evolve?


Through natural selection.

How do you think it was intelligently designed?




==========================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"

Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank

My Reptile Page:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html

On 4 Sep 2004 at 15:40, mtong5@... wrote:

> Michael: Since ID does not speculate on the nature of the creator, it
> does not claim that the creator is omniscient.
>
>
> *********************************************************************
>
> Randy: But Michael, speculating on how creation occurred necessarily
> involves speculation on the nature of the creator. By saying that
> there are things which can be done by an intelligent desinger that
> cannot be accomplished by natural processes, WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS
> SPECULATING ON THE NATURE OF THE CREATOR.  By any reasonable
> standard of omniscience, one would be forced to infer that an
> omniscient creator would NOT have to "experiment".  When you say
> that the appearance and disappearance of species in the fossil
> record indicates a creator experimenting with designs, you are
> indirectly speculating on the nature of that creator.  Furthermore
> you are pretty directly saying that that creator is NOT omniscient
> and therefore does not meet the Islamic-Judeo-Christian conception
> of God.
>
> Michael: I did not say that the creator was experimenting with designs.
> The fossil record reveals life forms being created and destroyed.  The
> reason for this is unknown.  Remember even according to the Bible life
> forms were destroyed during Noah's Flood.



Who cares what the Bible says.  After all, ID is not about
god, right?

Right?

RIGHT!!!????!!!!????!!!????




From observation, the creator
> is powerful, intelligent, and artistic.  Unlike religion, that is about
> all ID can determine about the nature of the creator.



So you keep saying.  <yawn>




>
> Michael: Evolutionists are going to run into the same problem. Where
> did
> matter come from? Don't say energy, because I will then ask, where
> did
> energy come from? When did time begin? How far is far? There are
> certain questions that are beyond the human mind to answer.
> *********************************************************************
>
> Randy: But Michael, the origin of matter and energy has NOTHING to do
> with
> evolution!  The origin of the creator has EVERYTHING to do with ID.
> Evolution works just as well as an explanation of the origin of
> species if matter and energy came about by divine fiat, have always
> existed etc.  However, the whole argument of ID is that living
> things are to complex to have arisen by natural processes, if this
> is true of living things then it MUST be true of the ID'er.  So was
> the designer designed, and if not, why did you stop where you did?
>
> Michael: No.  You are going to run into the same problem.  If
> evolutionists claim that matter and energy came about by divine fiat,
> then where did this divinity come from?  If you say that matter and
> energy always existed, then I will say that the creator always existed.
>





No one said that matter and energy always existed, Tong.

Now why don't you go ahead and tell us where your
Designer came from.



==========================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"

Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank

My Reptile Page:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html

On 4 Sep 2004 at 15:39, mtong5@... wrote:

> > Michael: But one of the researchers also pointed out that Archaeopteryx
> > was advanced, consequently, its ancestors must have been flying
> millions
> > of years earlier.  Where are these ancestors?
>
> Lenny: Caudipteryx, Protoarchaeopteryx, Sinosauropteryx.
>
> I know, Tong -- you've never heard of any of them, right?
>
> Michael: But there's always the Internet.  One of the researchers noted
> that since Archaeopteryx was an advanced flyer, its ancestors must have
> been flying millions of years earlier.  Candipteryx, Protoarchaeopterx,
> and Sinosauropteryx had feathers but were unable to fly.  Moreover,
> Candipteryx and Protoarchaeopterx appear in the fossil record after
> Archaeopteryx.  Sinosauropteryx was either a contemporary of
> Archaeopteryx or appeared afterwards.



That's nice.

So what.



==========================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"

Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank

My Reptile Page:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html

On 4 Sep 2004 at 16:03, mtong5@... wrote:

> Michael: For another viewpoint, go to www.discovery.org and read the
> article, The Scientist reports on Meyer's peer-reviewed journal article.
>




Does Meyer's peer-reviewed journal article contian a
scientific theory of intelligent design that can be tested
using the scientific method?


Why not?


==========================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"

Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank

My Reptile Page:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html

In a message dated 9/4/04 6:16:18 PM Central Daylight Time, lflank@...
writes:

Hey  Tong, why don't you go to all the racist-group websites
that you can  find.  Count how many times they cite "darwin"
or "evolution" as  justificaiton.  Then count how many times
they cite "God", "Jesus  Christ" or "the Bible".

Tell us what you find.


*****
Pi:
LOL


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]