Jim Spaza wrote:

Matt Silberstein wrote:

On 11 Jul 2005 11:47:07 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Jim Spaza"
<spaza9@yahoo.com> in
<1121107627.593306.279940@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:

Matt Silberstein wrote:

On 7 Jul 2005 09:04:16 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "Jim Spaza"
<spaza9@yahoo.com> in
<1120752256.496547.195700@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> wrote:

[snip]

I have changed the newsgroups, removing alt.abortion,
rec.photo.digital and alt.military as irrelevant. I have added
talk.origins, but I am giving a warning here. Folks, Jim is the most
intellectually honest, direct creationist I have come across. He has
been reading (for comprehension) lots of stuff on the talkorigins.org
website. Enter the discussion, but if I see nonsensical attacks on his
character or religion I will respond.

Because there is no evidence for a global flood. There has not been a
valid scientific argument for such a flood for over 200 years. The
only people who propose a global flood (such as AiG, ICR, and CRS)
are, by their own word, religiously biased.

I always thought that the sealife fossils which were found on mountain
tops were pretty convincing.

Sorry, but the Flood would *not* produce that evidence. One year of a
flood, that is it. How do you get all those marine fossils, with so
many layers, on a mountain top in one year? Everest is almost entirely
fossil (limestone). One year is not enough to produce that. Further
more those fossils refute the creationist claim that the mountains
were made after the Flood. Fossils reefs and such would not move
intact in rapid mountain building. We have fossils that clearly show
bending of the fossils after fossilization (and other evidence showing
rapid movement of course). You don't get rapid bending of rock.

I would think that you get all the marine fossils on the mountain tops
the same way that you get "soft" sediment up there - a very deep flood.
I read that these fossils were relatively well preserved on all sides,
giving creedence to the idea that they were laid down and covered
rather quickly before future rain, wind, and dirt could wear away one
side of them.

Is uplift a logically better explanation? I'm not so sure. I would
have to compare the erosion rates of the mountains (and various
materials within) to the supposed age of those mountains. A 200
million year old mountain would tend not exist if the average erosion
rate of its composite soil and rock is 50 million years old. I'm no
geologist, but aren't most erosion rates much faster than
non-cataclysmic (earthquake) uplift rates?

I don't know what fossil reefs would be doing on a mountain. If you
mean marine reef (as in the Great Barrier Reef), then any flood would
probably crumble a reef's remains so badly that there is not much left
to fossilize. So, if a fossilized reef of any size (10 feet maybe?)
were found intact on a mountain top, it probably didn't get there via a
flood.

Look into the Guadalupe Mountains National Park.
http://www.nps.gov/gumo/pphtml/subnaturalfeatures14.html

Bending of the fossils after fossilization? I have never heard of such
a thing, so I can't comment or even offer a wild guess. Ah...more
learning to do.

Sometimes fossils are found in metamorphic rocks. The conditions that
created the metamorphic rock tends to greatly deform the fossils but
sometimes a fossil remains identifiable but is stretched and twisted.

[snip]

Because there is nothing behind any of the claims I have seen and I
have been at this for a long time. That said, I don't mean "full of"
to mean that every single creationist is a liar, but rather that the
leadership is full of dishonest people.

Really? Is it really your opinion that there is ZERO scientific bases
for what these creationism websites say?

Zero bias is a tough standard, I am sure if we scour the world we will
find some biased scientists. The neat thing about science, though, is
that the process removes the bias even if the individuals are biased.
Suppose Prof. A just has it out for creationists, a terrible bias and
hatred. What does he do? If he fakes the evidence he still has to make
it public. If the work is trivial no one will look at it, but then the
bias won't matter. If the work is significant then people will examine
it and build on it. If it is false then it will provide a weak
foundation and the fraud will be found out. The process of open peer
review and building upon previous work eliminates bias from science.
Not all bias and not all the time, but better than any other human
process I know of. There are real examples of real bias in science,
but creationism has nothing to do with it.

Sounds good. However, would you say that there is zero basis for any
of the arguments made on these creationist websites?

Second, the quotes...and I'd be interested to know why you (or anyone)
would think that these quotes were taken out of context.

# 1. Quote was NOT taken out of context. I would have included the
entire quote as it is more damaging to the macro-evolutionist stance
than the single quote by itself.

How so? Where we have the evidence it points to "macro-evolution",
where we don't have evidence, we don't have evidence.

The fossils don't point to anything but their own existence and that of
the planet at a certain date.

That is kind of silly. By the same standard observations of the Moon
does not point to orbits. Taken to its logical conclusion you argue
for epistemological nihilism, the notion that no knowledge is
possible.

Well, the way I see it is that the existence of fossils is evidence
that there used to be certain kinds of plants and animals at one point
in time, period. Anything more from that is speculation. Now, if you
can extract DNA then we can learn more. I understand, from this forum
and from the recommended readings, that morphology is a scientific
method in widespread use by biologists who rely upon it to create
cladograms and evolutionary trees. I guess that I am just not
convinced that anyone, no matter how experiences and knowledgable, can
look at a fossilized organism, in whole or part, and tell accurately
from where it came.

Would you also deny that a modern skeleton can be correctly identified
as to the species of the organism based simply on the morphology of the
skeleton?

<snip>

If no one had
ever created the theory of evolution, what would these fossils mean to
the biologist?

It would mean that life in the past was very different from life
today. It would mean that life has been around for a very long time.
But beyond that without the theory of evolution we could not explain
the evidence. Do you understand that this supports the theory?

I understand that the discovered fossils lend some creedence to the
theory. But, they could just as well lend creedence to my theory that
there are genetic "islands" between which it is impossible to speciate.

The problem with this claim is twofold. First is finding a mechanism
that would function to limit evolution beyond some limit. Second is the
extensive fossil record of such transitions. Reptile->mammal,
dinosaur->bird, fish->amphibian are all fairly well documented in the
fossil record.

And the existence of fossils does NOTHING for the theory of
abiogenesis since fossils have nothing to do with how amino acids
theoretically combined and created the first life. I am trying to be
open to all theories. Honest. I am trying to look at each theory by
itself. Each theory should be able to stand on its own.

They certainly wouldn't point to a common ancestor.

If we did not have a theory of common ancestry then we would not think
that the evidence pointed to common ancestry. That is true, but I am
not sure why you think it is meaningful.

Well, the evidence would point to a conclusion, not a theoretical
conclusion being first created and then evidence comes along which
"obviously" points to it. If theory comes before discovery, then why
do some consider it logical foolishness to say that a Supreme Being
created all things and then look to science to prove it? My theory is
that the God of the Bible is real and that He created all life on
earth, by spontaneously creating life (Adam and Eve) and through
islands of evolution (everything other than humans from 3,000 (?)
initial life forms). I can reasonably state that the fossil evidence
bears this out as fossils do NOT show a smooth continuum of life from
bacteria through modern humans. I know that the response will be that
many species die off. Yet, this dying off explanation has no more
evidential validation than the idea that such in-between species never
existed in the first place. Anyway, this is my thinking...

Actually the fossil record does show a smooth continuum of life from the
earliest fossils to modern humans. Once you take into account the rarity
of fossil formation, preservation and discovery the quality and quantity
of fossil material documenting the history of life is astounding.

Evolution is the foundation of modern biology. Without evolution and
common descent biology would just be stamp collecting. It is only with
this grand explanatory theory that we can understand what we see.

I understand this position. If I didn't know about God through the
Bible and personal experience then I'd probably be creating like
theories myself in order to try to answer the questions of origin and
meaning in life. Perhaps there is so much opposition to this theory
because many opponents view the theory of evolution and abiogenesis as
an attempt to explain away our existence as purely natural and
meaningless. After all, I myself have told in this forum that theory
was created and then science was used to test the theory. Why, then,
did anyone create this theory with its atheistic implications?
Wouldn't pure objectivity dictate to look at science and THEN create
the theory? Perhaps I am confusing theory with conclusion.

What atheistic implications? How is the theory of evolution any more
atheist than basic chemistry?

They wouldn't lead the biologist to assume that their DNA was similar.

And so when they found the particular pattern of similarity they would
be surprised. You do understand that the DNA evidence stands on its
own. That the pattern matches the fossils make the theory better.

I wasn't aware that the DNA of life forms millions of years ago could
be recovered and analyzed. If so, then this DNA evidence (chemical)
would be MUCH more important than morphological (visual) evidence.

Million of years old DNA is not available for study but modern organisms
are. Studying existing organisms' DNA builds up virtually the same
nested hierarchy of relationships that is shown from the fossil evidence.

All they would mean is that such creatures existed at a certain point
in time. Because the theory of a common ancestor has now been
presented publicly, the existence of these fossils now somehow point to
the creedence of that theory

Sort of like how because we have a theory of orbits observations of
the Moon somehow point to that theory. I don't see your point here.

I am concerned that scientific discovery is considered evidence of the
accuracy of a premade theory when such discovery may, in fact, mean
nothing one way or the other.

I'm confused by this, you reject scientific theories that make
predictions and later discoveries support those predictions?

...without a DNA sample much less a trace
of DNA from one species to another...without knowing anything else
about the life form in question. And I know that my analysis and
conclusions are different than most biologists.

Sorry, but you have no analysis. You have lots of ignorance of the
evidence. Ignorance you have admirably worked to correct, but
ignorance none the less. You don't know enough to analyze the evidence
in question. Your conclusion is not based on the little evidence you
have, you started with that conclusion and have tried to keep the
conclusion in the face of the evidence.

I don't think that is a fair or accurate statement about my intentions.
My honest desire is to understand the science, gain knowledge of the
raw data of scientific discovery, and draw my own conclusions. I have
my beliefs in the Bible; but, I have seen no scientific discovery in
this forum or in my readings which would contradict anything in the
Bible. I have seen conclusions which would contradict, but no
discovery itself.

I am not trying to judge your intentions; but, it seems to me that you
believe that everyone is sure to come to the same conclusions that you
and evolutionists come to IF only they had the same knowledge and
analytical skills. I was berated several times in another forum by
atheists for saying that the sheer number of Christians who believe the
Bible is a piece of evidence that the Bible is accurate. While the
name of this logical fallacy eludes me, I hope that I am not being told
that I should place more faith in abiogenesis and evolutionary theory
simply because the vast majority of biologists believe in it.

This is one of the problems at hand. What do the discoveries mean? To
you, then might mean that we evolved from two amino acids. To me, they
mean that life, at least partially, evolves over time through
speciation and mutation. This is where the contentions lie in the
Evolution/Intelligent Design debate; although it would be more accurate
to describe it as the Abiogenesis/Intelligent Design debate.

The history of geology is a useful counter argument to this. In the 18th
and 19th centuries geologists started exploring the Earth's structure
and history as revealed by the stones all around us. Most of these
geologists expected to find evidence for a young earth and a global
flood. In their own opinions they didn't find any such evidence. These
men could not maintain their own integrity without acknowledging that
the evidence indicated an ancient earth and no global flood.

"For most lineages we have to employ more indirect methods of
phylogenetic reconstruction."

So? We don't have as much evidence as we would like. We analyze the
evidence we do have, not complain about what we don't have. This is
irrelevant to the question of common ancestry. There have been
billions of species on Earth, we don't have good evidence for the
specific ancestry of most of them. That is, for most of them we don't
have a good fossil lineage. SFW? The fossils are one of four lines of
evidence. And we have some much evidence that points to common descent
that the only reasonable conclusion is that all life descends from a
common ancestor. If you think that some particular organism does not
you need to provide evidence for that. And H. sapiens is a bad choice,
we clearly descend from a common ancestor with P. bonobo.

I see your position here. Yet, here is a problem that became apparent
to me as I read it. Maybe it is just my own problem. You said that we
have "four lines of evidence". I know, from a previous discussion with
you, what the four lines are. But, these four lines of evidence are a
product of the proponents of evolution themselves. That is,
evolutionists organized what they believe is evidence into four systems
of organization. Now, they talk about the four lines being evidence as
though nature itself presented the four lines.

What would happen if I said that evidence for the existence of God can
be seen in four lines of thought: origin, meaning, morality, and
destiny. Then, upon skeptical response, I replied that the skeptics
are ignoring these four lines of evidence showing that God exists.
Well, the four lines are nothing more than human attempts to explain
and organize their thinking. The bottom line is that each piece of
scientific discovery by itself is all that matters. Anything more is
an attempt to present all these individual pieces of evidence as having
been organized beforehand by nature, thus giving more creedence to the
underlying theory since organization seems to be evidence in and of
itself.

I'd like a little more assurance if we are to base our entire existence
on a common ancestor whose theoretical existence is partially derived

from "more indirect methods".

I don't plan on basing my entire existence on a common ancestor.

Just asking...would a conclusion that there were 1,000 common ancestors
that just appeared one day give more or less creedence to the idea of
an Intelligent Designer?

# 2. Quote was NOT taken out of context. In fact, the entire quote
seemed to indicate that author Futuyma expected more "transitional"
fossils than was found if macro-evolution really occurs.

You mean it was not out of context to leave out "Contrary to
Creationist claims, the transitions among vertebrate species are
almost all documented to a greater or lesser extent."? I see nothing
about his expectations.

What other people or groups believe is irrelevant. All that matters in
this article is the science and what the author believes.

His "beliefs" do not support creationism at all. The line you don't
like is a warning to not misunderstand what he was saying.

And the
quote said that the author was disappointed that more "transitional"
fossils were not found if the theory of evolution is as accurate as the
author believed it to be.

I am disappointed about lots of empty spaces in our knowledge. That
does not mean that the things we do know are wrong, only that we would
like to know more.

Agreed.

Maybe the expectation is not what is in play
here. Maybe there is a hope ("disappointingly" = evidence of bias?)
which was motivating the author. I hope not.

Your hopes are satisfied, he was not presenting any bias.

I guess that the author was merely speaking to his hope for the
existence of more fossils to discover and analyze regardless of the
implications.

# 3. It would have been better for author Sunderland to provide more
background about evolutionists' ideas of the "Cambrian explosion".
Yet, was the idea of Sunderland's inclusion of this quote to show that
Eldridge didn't really believe in evolution or just that the proponents
of evolution could answer a big gaping hole in their theory? You see,
for evolutionist theory to be accurate, it has to be consistent across
all time periods.

If by "consistent" you mean proceeding at a constant pace, you are
wrong. There is nothing that says that gross morphological evolution
has to occur at a constant rate (and plenty to say that it does not).

It is well within the theory of evolution that, physiologically,
evolution could proceed somewhat faster or slower.

For various populations at various times, sure.

However, how does
the theory of evolution explain the Cambrian explosion,

It is a very interesting time, but it is not unexplained or
unexplainable. The two ideas that I have seen most recently are the
"discovery" of calcium carbonate as a structural material. This both
allows much better preservation as a fossil and gives a big advantage
for both offense and defense. This change leads to rapid
diversification into new niches. Similarly I have read about a
significant change in the oxygen levels which would full dramatic
shifts in balance and opening up of new niches.

especially in
light of the fact that the theory of evolution necessitates "small"
amounts of speciation or mutation over time.

All it requires is that the generation to generation changes are
within the capability of DNA mutation. That is what the "small" means
in the "small successive changes". There is nothing in the 10+ million
years of the "explosion" that conflicts with that.

It's just kind of strange to see an across-the-board "sudden" increase
in life forms. What are the odds that all types of life would suddenly
advance as opposed to just plants or just fish? Is the theory of an
increase in oxygen driven by discovery or by a desire to explain this
explosion in natural (non-intelligent) terms?

The so called Cambrian explosion is probably the result of a multitude
of factors. The end of a global ice age and the ongoing collision of the
tectonic plates resulted in new shallow seas which were ideal habitats
for life. The expansion of available living space would have resulted in
new ecological niches being open for organisms to adapt to. Coupled with
the emergence of hard body parts which made preservation of fossils more
likely these factors may account for much if not all of the "explosion".

To handle the Cambrian
Explosion, did the theory of evolution change any of its precepts?

No. It is a fascinating time period and an active area of research,
but it did not lead to any "precept" level changes. The day to day
evolution is still the same, imperfect reproduction and differential
reproductive success (mutation and selection).

It's just that there seems to be a slow and steady rate of speciation
and mutation, according to the theory of evolution, and then this
unexpected increase in life forms for reasons that speciation and
mutation can't explain...hence the look into the theoretical increase
in environmental oxygen levels. At least, this is my thinking. I'm
not saying that these evolutionists seem desparate in their attempts to
explain this unexpected explosion. It's just that this explosion was
indeed unexpected. It makes skeptics like me a little more skeptical.
And I am trying to learn as opposed to some diehard creationists who
see this as proof that evolutionists are making this up as they go
along. No wonder there are these political clashes in the courthouse
and at school board meetings

A major issue here is a misunderstanding of the time scales involved.
The Cambrian "explosion" took at least 10 million years, assuming that
the emergence of hard body parts coincides with the emergence of novel
body plans. Examine the terrestrial fauna from 65 million years ago
(just after the extinction of the dinosaurs) and 55 million years ago to
see what can happen through evolution in that amount of time.
Ken