Oh, I don't know, I guess when you stated the following
At 04:41 PM 5/22/98 -0500, Ron Chitwood wrote:
> There are so many
>other historical examples of error. Nebraska Man, Piltdown man, the
>recapitulation theory, Neanderthal man, to name just a few. I understand
>that these examples were later found to be fraudulent by other scientists,
>but at the time they were considered the last, most up-to-date word on the
>subject.
I may be wrong, but I thought fraudulent had something to do with fraud.
What does your dictionary say?
>Come to think of it, many museums did NOT change their dioramas even though
>the truth was different from their exhibits. Isn't that fraud by your
>definition?
Then would you ascribe fraud to Christian apologists when they don't change
their mind even when data says they are wrong?
>
>>>>>Orgel??? an antievolutionist????? I think it is an atrocious
>> misrepresentation for anyone to claim that Leslie Orgel is an
>> antievolutionist considering that he is one of the leading origin of life
>> researchers. He was coauthor with Joyce of "Prospects for Understanding
>> the Origin of the RNA World" in The RNA World ed. R. F. Gesteland and J.
>F.
>> Atkins, circa p. 19<<<
>
>Quote from Hayward's book CREATION AND EVOLUTION, pp. 15.
I read that quote. But Hayward is wrong. Orgel is an evolutionist.
>Another is Erik Nordenskjold, an Scandinavian biologist, writing in THE
>HISTORY OF BIOLOGY, translated 1929, " Darwin's theory of Origin of Species
>was 'long ago abandoned. Other facts established by Darwin are all of
>2nd-rate value'. This quote came from CREATION AND EVOLUTION by Hayward,
>pp. 21. He specified the source of this quote, but not the page number.
>
Darwin believed in pangenesis, the view that various parts of the body sent
particles to the semen which then formed a new critter. That view has been
disproven, Darwin's gradualism is not believed by many. But these are
different from evolution itself. The two guys you are citing disagree with
Darwin's original views not with evolution.
>Darwinian gradualism, neo-Darwinism, PE or the 'hopeful monster' theory are
>just ideas at odds over the details of evolution. One really has only 2
>choices. A) chance+environment+time - or B) creation by design
There is a third option. God rigs the roulette wheel BY DESIGN and we have
RIGGED CHANCE so that C) designed creation via RIGGED
CHANCE+environment+time.
To reduce this to only two options leaves out some interesting possibilities.
>>>>You appeared to be claiming that the dove was proof of a global flood.
>I
>> merely pointed out that it wasn't.<<<<
>Agreed. The dove had nothing to do it. The scripture, as you are well
>aware, was pointing out the nature of the flood, how it covered the whole
>earth, or land, or whatever you want it to read. THAT was the point I was
>making but your somewhat sophomoric answer was a typical attempt to deflect
>that fact.
But Ron, you keep missing the fact that if 'eretz' the word used to
describe the 'whole land' or 'whole earth' in Genesis 6-9 is used in
regards to Abraham where he is told to get off the planet if eretz means
planet earth. Why did Abraham disobey God and move from Ur to Palestine
rather than to Mars? Why Ron?
>
>
>Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
> and do not rely on your own insight.. Pr. 3:5
>Ron Chitwood
>chitw@flash.net
>
>
>
>
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm