🚀 go-pugleaf

   REQUEST: if ANYONE on FidoNet sees this could they mail me?  I'm
beginning to suspect the gateway to my News system is one way...

In article <40762.2B609906@puddle.fidonet.org>,
Jessie.Bailey@p0.f14.n346.z1.fidonet.org (Jessie Bailey) writes:
> To all...
>  
> Hi.  My name is Jessie Bailey.  I have sent a variety of messages
> on this system, and today I would like to talk about my views on
> evolution.  First of all, I would like to define to you MY
> definition of evolution--the continuous change and adaption
> throughout the existence of this planet.  This definition, I
> believe!  However, I do not believe in DARWIN's theory of
> evolution. I have heard enough facts on this theory to prove to
> myself that it is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, untrue.

   That isn't possible.  The set of facts available to one and all
prove to about a shadow of a doubt that it is true.  I suspect that
you have been lied to by people you should have been able to trust.
Most of the "facts" floating around that tend to impeach the modern
version of Darwin's theory are religious propaganda having nothing
at all to do with fact or science (or Darwin's theory for that 
matter).

>  I am a
> believer in God, and I truly believe that he is our creator.  Many
> people do not believe in God simply because not EVERYTHING about
> our God can be explained by humans or "proved".  But it has been
> proved that humans only use between 10 and 20 percent of their
> brain.

   This is false.  You statement is what is called an "Urban Legend" 
a story that somehow got loose.  Since we don't understand terribly 
well how the brain functions it is 100% impossible to make a statement 
of the form "some fraction of the brain has been prooved to be
used or not used".

>  Isn't possible that we aren't "smart" enough to know an be
> able to explain EVERYTHING?  Then there are those who do not
> believe in God because they say that the Bible is contradictory to
> things that we as humans have proved (or almost proved).  For
> example, researchers are able to estimate the age of our earth at
> approximately 5 billion years old, however the Bible explains that
> God created the earth much more recent than that.  Well, God
> created Adam and Eve, and he created them as adults--not as
> children, so isn't possible that he also created the earth aged?

   Finish the thought; what is the difference between a five billion
year old world and a world that God created to be five billion years
old?  If the only difference is in the Bible then God is forcing us 
to choose between the reason He gave us and the Bible.  Given that
almost no-one believes the Bible to be literally true this means God
created us so that more than 99% of us would damn ourselves by thinking
with the brains He made?  Unlikely.  It is far more likely that the
timescale given in Gensis is the best that the guys that jotted it 
down could do.  They has no notion of 1,000,000,000 years; how do you 
expect them to write things down. 

> Just a thought.  You see, my belief is that human beings cannot
> explain everything.  I feel that there are some things that will
> just never be explained, until one day when we die, and God feels
> us with the knowledge that we all hunger for. 

   *sigh*  How do you tell the difference?  When do you give up?

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU

In article <40762.2B609906@puddle.fidonet.org>
     Jessie.Bailey@p0.f14.n346.z1.fidonet.org (Jessie Bailey) writes:

>First of all, I would like to define to you MY definition of
>evolution--the continuous change and adaption throughout the existence
>of this planet.

It's good that you state up front what your definition is.  However,
in science it is best to use terms with their commonly accepted
definitions unless you have compelling reasons to redefine them.  In
this case, contemporary biologists define evolution as the change
(over time) of allele frequencies in a population.  Evolution also
refers to the fact that organisms are related to each other by virtue
of common ancestry, and also to theories of how the changes (in allele
frequency and hence phenotype) come about.  If you'd like me to
elaborate on the meaning of any of these terms, please ask.

>...  However, I do not believe in DARWIN's theory of evolution. I
>have heard enough facts on this theory to prove to myself that it is,
>beyond a shadow of a doubt, untrue.

It is principally the above statements that made me respond to this
post.  Let me include also a similar statement from Rebekah Lawrence:

In article <40005.2B5E58FB@puddle.fidonet.org>, 
    Rebekah.Lawrence@p0.f14.n346.z1.fidonet.org (Rebekah Lawrence) wrote:

}...I am replying to your recent reply on my evolution article. ...
}You claimed that you were struggling with some of the same questions
}I was.  That is not the case.  You see, I have no questions. 

The sentiments that the two of you have expressed here are
antithetical to science.  If you wish to think as a scientist, you
must always be prepared to accept that whatever view you have on any
topic, that view may not be an accurate reflection of reality.  You
can always be wrong, so you should always be doubting, and you should
always have questions.  To close your mind is to cast science out the
window, regardless of how compelling your reasons for accepting a
conclusion. 

}uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!346!14.0!Rebekah.Lawrence
}Internet: Rebekah.Lawrence@p0.f14.n346.z1.fidonet.org

>But it has been proved that humans only use between 10 and 20 percent
>of their brain.

If you have any documentation of that anywhere, I'd like to know about
it.  Last fall I wrote an article for a newsletter in Arizona.  I was
asked to write the article in order to shed light on this commonly
held "fact".  I spent several hours pouring over many different
sources hoping to find even an inkling of where the "fact" came from,
and I was completely unsuccessful.  If you give me a snail mail
address, I can send you a copy of the article that I wrote.  I not
only described my search for the "fact", but I also explained why the
"fact" is currently unsupportable, and probably false.

>For example, researchers are able to estimate the age of our earth at
>approximately 5 billion years old,

Be careful with your terms.  It is not "estimated" that the earth is 5
billion years old; it has been *measured* that the earth is at least 5
billion years old.

>Well, God created Adam and Eve, and he created them as adults--not as
>children, so isn't possible that he also created the earth aged?  Just
>a thought.

It's a thought that many people have had.  As science, the prospect is
useless, because we can't distinguish between an "aged" universe and
an "apparently aged" universe by definition.  Many also think that the
prospect is bad theology, since it accepts as a premise that God is
deceptive. 

>uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!346!14.0!Jessie.Bailey
>Internet: Jessie.Bailey@p0.f14.n346.z1.fidonet.org

Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)