Sorry, Vernon, but I see nothing that responds to my request for "a lucid
and concise explanation." I have looked at your numerological claim about
parts of the scriptures and the way you arrive at the "data." I find them
without relevance. Consequently, I see no purpose in continuing the
exchange.
Dave
On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 23:44:20 +0000 Vernon Jenkins
<vernon.jenkins@virgin.net> writes:
You conclude, "Since you do not want to accept these conclusions, please
present a lucid explanation how a rational designer of living creatures
jams a lot of useless stuff into them, especially disconnected archaic
stuff." I believe I have answered the specific point. However, I will
press my case by providing a lucid and concise explanation of my general
view of how things really are:
The Bible - already a most remarkable Book - has recently been shown to
begin in a highly remarkable manner - in fact, so remarkable as to defy
all natural understanding! Perhaps equally remarkable has been the
universally negative response to this news! I interpret this as proof of
the biblical strictures concerning man (viz "creature of evil
imaginations from his youth, enemy of God, deceitful above all things and
desperately wicked" - appropriately sanitized and shrouded in the
euphemism "original sin"), and thus of our utter dependance on the truths
He has revealed to us in the Scriptures. This 'standing miracle' (it is
nothing less, as you will know from the evidences and arguments presented
on my websites) is clearly something that is feared by evolutionists
(and, strangely, also by creationists!) - otherwise it would be allowed
as a valid topic for reasoned debate in forums such as ASA. These being
the hard facts, I suggest it is highly reasonable that we look nowhere
else for a true account of origins than the early chapters of the Bible.
Vernon
http://www.otherbiblecode.com
http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/Letr_Sym.htm
"D. F. Siemens, Jr." wrote:
Vernon,I think I understand where you're coming from, an unqualified
commitment to recent creation. Since I didn't get my point across
earlier, let me try another example. Imagine that I show you my new car,
the most recent product of the best design minds in the business, and you
discover that, under the steering wheel is a spark advance lever and
under the hood is a magneto, though the car is equipped with electronic
ignition. There is a pull labeled "choke," and under the hood both a
carburetor and fuel ignition injectors. There is a hand throttle and
cruise control, generator and alternator. Does keeping all the archaic
devices, which of course have to be disconnected, demonstrate that the
designer was more intelligent than the ones behind the various 2002
production models? Since there is lots of disconnected stuff in the
genome of virtually every creature examined, did an intelligent Creator
directly produce things with all this nonfunctional stuff? Does this
manifest omniscience and omnipotence? Only a dogmatic insistence on God's
immediate production of all living things require the answer, "Yes,
though nothing about it makes sense." If the Creator is not in a hurry
but can use billions of years for the development of creation under his
providential rule, then what the various sciences discover in terms of
"junk" DNA, resemblances across genera and kingdoms, the age of the
fossils and universe, and all the rest, all fit into a reasonable whole.
Can God have produced the universe and all that is in it instantaneously?
Can he use a single design for various entries? Of course! But then,
given what we observe, he would be either as stupid as the hypothetical
designers of "my new car," or he would be deliberately misleading us into
thinking that he used ages and evolution. Since you do not want to accept
these conclusions, please present a lucid explanation how a rational
designer of living creatures jams a lot of useless stuff into them,
especially disconnected archaic stuff.Dave On Thu, 28 Mar 2002 15:14:12
+0000 Vernon Jenkins <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net> writes:
Hi Dave,I see nothing wrong with Allen's question. Surely it is one that
constantly needs to be asked, for people like yourself seem to regard
such developments as further proof of the truth of The Theory - always
ignoring the possibility of a reasonable alternative explanation. I am
surprised that you, as a logician, should regard the matter as
cut-and-dried.
Your questioning of the Creator's purposes is also quite out of place.
Surely, we shall never be in a position to read God's mind or fathom his
eternal purposes, and we are both foolish and presumptuous when we
pretend we can. Further, with respect to the possibility of our being
deceived by Him: may I suggest that it is rather the case that we first
deceive ourselves - and, thereafter, that God merely helps us on our way!
However, perhaps that is not the full story, for as you will no doubt be
aware, the Scriptures present us with certain problems in this area. I am
thinking particularly of that line in the Lord's prayer that reads
"...and lead us not into temptation..." (implying that He well might!),
and the account of the events which ultimately led to King Ahab's demise
(1Kings:22:1-40).
I hope you will reconsider your forthright objection and agree with me
that Allen's question is well deserving of a considered and reasoned
reply.
Vernon
http://www.otherbiblecode.com
"D. F. Siemens, Jr." wrote:
Allen,On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 20:53:27 -0700 "Allen Roy"
<allenroy@peoplepc.com> writes:
> Dr. Collins, why should the relatedness of living things point more
> to
> evolution than to a common Designer with distinct creational
> categories?
>
> Musical notes, for example, do not evolve one from another. They
> have
> relatedness, but they come from a Composer.
>
> An author may write many books, and there may be relatedness between
> them,
> but one book did not evolve from the other. The connection was in
> the mind
> of the author, etc.
>
> Why could this not be true for living organisms? Horses may have
> many
> similarities with catfish.
> Could not the Designer make both using similar ideas without having
> one
> evolve from the other?
>This is hardly a question for a geneticist, so I'll respond as a
logician with a question growing out of an earlier interchange. What
could be the purpose of the Creator's introducing a retroviral sequence
into the genomes of some of the great apes and man? Were they functional,
of course. But they have no function in gorillas, chimpanzees or humans.
Of course, God can do anything he pleases. But what could be the purpose
from God's side? to mislead us? That at least is more likely than that he
is incompetent and simply messed up, except that would make him
deceitful. What's your choice: incompetent inclusion? intentional
deception? using evolution to accomplish his purpose? If all the genetic
sequences were functional, coding for proteins, controlling coding,
providing connections for the filaments that pull chromosomes apart in
mitosis and meiosis, etc., you'd have a point, for it would all fit a
clear design concept. But the amount of non-coding DNA eliminates the
notion of intelligent design of much of the genome, even if we find that
some of it is not junk. As I see it, the situation in the genome is
similar to that of a demonstration by a mechanized British artillery
unit. During the demonstration, one soldier stood at attention off to one
side. Nobody could explain why. But investigation finally revealed that
his earlier counterpart had held the horses while the rest of the crew
fired the field piece. His position was left over, not designed in.
>
> Is the total number of genes in humans still around 30,000?
>
> Allen Roy
>
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 29 2002 - 23:20:01 EST