[Rockhounds] National Academy of Science evolution /creationism brochure

[Alan Goldstein]

There are a variety of gradations between the eye spot (the eye patch is 
something you where over it) and the eye we know, love and use to read 
computer monitors with.

Alan

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "J Bryan Kramer" <codeburner at gmail.com>
To: "Rockhounds at drizzle.com: A mailing list for rock and gem collectors" 
<rockhounds at lists.drizzle.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 7:06 PM
Subject: Re: [Rockhounds] National Academy of Science evolution 
/creationismbrochure


> There are all sorts of proofs of the age of the planet, one of my 
> favorites
> is the Oklo reactors:
>
> <http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0010.shtml>
>
> The real extremists in the creationism wing deny that the earth is 
> billions
> of years old and deny the fossil record for the existence of ancient life.
> Those people are impossible to reason with but IMO are a tiny fraction of
> Christians in the US.
>
> There are plenty of people who have a rational approach and who believe 
> that
> God is Truth and he can never lie. The fossil and isotopic evidence exists
> and, barring some very outre explanation, are the proof of the age of the
> planet. To believe otherwise would say that you thought God had lied by
> placing these proofs before us.
>
> Now the point where people like me differ from the humanist line is that 
> we
> believe that while evolution was taking place it was being guided by God.
> For those that deny this they are just acting as proponents of their own
> religion. There is no proof either way and assuming one or the other way 
> is
> true is just a decision based on faith. If the science community just
> followed the proper course, that of exploring the mechanisms of evolution 
> or
> cosmology then they would eliminate a lot of the conflict. Science is 
> about
> HOW and should not be about WHY. Why is theology.
>
> There are plenty of discrepancies in evolution and in cosmology. The
> evolution of the eye is, IMO, unexplained since there don't seem to be any
> intermediate forms between the simple eye patch and the fully developed 
> eye.
> I've seen a number of sarcastic essays written by evolutionists about this
> subject but they all seem to be lacking in any sort of proof. They all 
> seem
> to take the 'only a moron could say something like that' line but don't
> provide any explanation of the 'missing links'.
>
> In cosmology of course the Anthropic question is unanswered:
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle>
>
> The odds of a randomly selected universe having the precise physical
> constants that permit life is something like 1 in 10^50th. A very very 
> small
> number. String theory has proposed that there are something like 10^50th
> parallel universes and we just happen to live in the one and only one that
> supports life. Talk about the universal lottery. Of course string theory 
> is
> totally untestable and thus is not science anyway.
>
> But IMO there is no reason to let fanatics on either side influence us. If
> we just stick to the hows of why things happen then there is no argument.
>
> BK
>
>
>
> So, instead of risking a flame I would wonder how you can dismiss fossil
>> records without denying the existence of tectonic plate movement.
>> Or do they do that too?
>> Tectonics deliver existing proof of the age of our planet, right?
>>
>> Axel
>>
>
>
> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> multipart/alternative
>  text/plain (text body -- kept)
>  text/html
> ---
> -- 
> _______________________________________________
> Rockhounds at drizzle Mailing List
> Subscription Services:
> http://lists.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/rockhounds
> List Home Page, with a link to the List Usage Policy:
> http://www.eclecticlapidary.com/Rockhounds/index.html