Dave,
A couple of comments before I ring off:
1) It is strange that you, a Christian, dismiss my suggested "lucid and
concise explanation" of "junk" DNA as inadequate when you still have so
many transitional "skeletons" missing from the hypothetical "cupboard".
Does this no longer worry evolutionists? It certainly did Darwin! - and
with very good reason!
2) You follow a well-worn trail when you refer to the self evident
numero-geometrical features of Genesis 1:1 as "numerology". This, I
suppose, implies that you agree the phenomena to be of supernatural
origin - but of the _wrong kind_. But surely, a moment's thought must
dismiss that notion as illogical, for it requires the "powers of
darkness" to be involved in glorifying God and His Son, Jesus Christ
(whose name and title are directly linked numerically with this first
verse)!
Regards,
Vernon
http://www.otherbiblecode.com
http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/Letr_Sym.htm
"D. F. Siemens, Jr." wrote:
> 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 : Sun Mar 31 2002 - 16:45:01 EST