Original Message Follows:
=========================
evolution-digest Wednesday, March 24 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1357
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 20:51:54 +0000
From: Vernon Jenkins <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
Subject: Re: Evolution's Imperative
To the Forum:
I appear to have stirred up a hornets' nest with my assertion that
theistic evolutionists are both complacent and ill-informed in believing
they can have both evolution and Christ. It is clear from the exchanges
I have had with a number of members that evolution is being accepted 'by
faith' rather than 'by sight'; the doctrine is based on the
interpretation of historica data, is untestable, and - as I have
attempted to demonstrate - because of its peculiar nature,
unfalsifiable.
While the atheist and agnostic recognize well enough that the theory
must be true, it is hard to understand - at least, on the human level -
why those claiming allegiance to Christ are prepared to allow it to
dictate the terms of their acceptance of God's word. It is clear to me
that what the TE understands by 'the gospel' is a matter of 'pick 'n'
mix'. Let me explain: any biblical passage (including even the words of
Christ) that appears to endanger their committment to evolution is
questioned, and thereafter excluded from further consideration. In such
circumstances what remains can hardly be seriously claimed to be the
inspired, inerrant, word of God!
A few years ago, John Stear, an atheist skeptic, wrote to the editor of
'The Skeptic' (the journal of the Australian Skeptics). The following
are excerpts from his letter:
"The Bible is the core of Christian belief and the question of whether
the Bible is inerrant or errant, the literal word of God or not, is of
prime importance when examining the credentials of Christian belief.
Fundamentalists believe totally in its inerrancy, while more moderate
Christians are selective of the areas of scripture they believe to be
the literal word of God. Because the Bible provides the basis for all
Christian beliefs it is plain to me that to be a truly devout Christian
one must be a fundamentalist. But the Bible is either inerrant or it is
not. It cannot be both. The authenticity of Christ and his teachings
relies on the Bible being the word of God and for contemporary
Christians to cease to believe that is to deny the important tenets of
their faith.
"It seems that modern theologians are prepared to deny what once were
immutable doctrines to suit the changing times and to attract previous
(and young) believers who have begun to question the relevance of the
churches...
"In our increasingly secular society the nature of the changes being
wrought by the mainstream churches, rather than attracting new converts,
must be cause for concern among believers...
"To further demonstrate that the question of biblical inerrancy is
pivotal to the acceptance or rejection of Christianity, I need only pose
a simple question. 'Do you believe in Darwinian evolution or do you
believe in creation according to the book of Genesis?' If the answer is
'I believe in evolution', the response one would expect from most,
though surprisingly not all, scientists, most members of mainstream
churches, particularly church leaders and most intelligent people, then
the following simple hypothesis easily establishes the case for an
errant Bible, which in turn exposes the fatal flaws in Christian dogma:
"If evolution is fundamentally correct then there was no Adam; no Adam,
no fall; no fall, no atonement; no atonement, no reason for Christ to
have died on the cross. If Christ died for no reason then he was not
divine and Christianity has no basis in fact."
Jonathan has suggested that our discussions of late have been somewhat
circular and has suggested that the time has come to move forward. I
agree. May I therefore hear how TEs respond to John Stear's thinly-
veiled suggestion that their views are intellectually bankrupt?
Vernon
"When I show a man he is inconsistent, I make him decide whether of the
two he loves better, the portion of truth he already holds, or the
portion of error." (J.H.Newman, Tract 85)
Vernon Jenkins
[Musician, Mining Engineer, and Senior Lecturer in Maths and Computing,
the Polytechnic of Wales (now the University of Glamorgan), 1954-87]
http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/index.htm
http://www.compulink.co.uk/~indexer/miracla1.htm
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 16:55:39 -0600
From: Susan Brassfield <susan-brassfield@ou.edu>
Subject: Re: Evolution's Imperative (was Def'n of Science)
>Susan wrote:
>> no, I think Jonathan is saying that these things are dangerous to use
>> without knowledge of evolution and natural selection.
>
>I fail to see this. Can you elaborate.
Ever get some antibiotics and the doctor/nurse/pharmacist says "be sure and
take *all* of these. Don't stop taking them when you start feeling better"?
All organisms have some variation in their genetic structure. Some bacteria
will be somewhat more resistant to the antibiotic than others. If you stop
taking the antibiotic, before *all* the bacteria are dead, then only the
resistant ones will survive to reproduce. Next time you will have the very
same disease and be prescribed the very same antibiotic and it will not
work. (Unfortunately even doing what your doctor tells you doesn't keep
some strains of bacteria from evolving antibiotic-resistance. New
antibiotics must be constantly developed in order to stay a step ahead of
evolution. Pesticides have the very same problem.)
>Vernon wrote:
>> > Anti-God and anti-biblical views in were, of course, in existence
>> > long before Darwin (as Henry Morris points out in 'The Long War
>> > Against God'). However, there can be no denying that both Marx and
>> > Hitler were particularly inspired by Darwinian ideas
>
>Susan wrote:
>> they were inspired by *what they thought* were Darwinian ideas.
>
>I believe they fully understood Darwinism and its implications. What did
>you have in mind here?
as others have pointed out, Marx was not influenced by Darwin. Hitler (like
a lot of social darwinists) thought he could define "fittest." In
biological evolution "fittest" refers to whatever keeps the population
alive and reproducing. Hitler didn't know anything about how genetics
works. It is spelled out very clearly in Origin of the Species that the
more variation a population has the more "fit" it is to survive. Basically,
the more variation a species has, the more survival tools it has in its
genetic toolbox. Hitler identified a subgroup that he didn't like (a
scapegoat he needed politically), declared it "unfit" in an ad hoc fashion
and then attempted to eliminate that genetic variation. His attempt to form
a "pure" race directly contradicts even a casual reading of Darwin.
>But why, then, do you seek an alternative to the clear revelation of the
>early chapters of Genesis?
who was seeking? It landed on Darwin. Stop taking your antibiotics too soon
and it will land on you too.
Susan
- -----------
Life is short, but it's also very wide.
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 18:09:22 -0700
From: "Kevin O'Brien" <Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Evolution's Imperative
>To the Forum:
>
>I appear to have stirred up a hornets' nest with my assertion that
>theistic evolutionists are both complacent and ill-informed in believing
>they can have both evolution and Christ.
>
You've "asserted" more than that. You have in fact stated or implied that
evolutionists are cheats, liars, deceivers, blasphemers and idolaters; in a
word, evil. People do not object to you because you say they are wrong for
accepting both evolution and Christ; they object to you because you say that
they are evil for accepting both evolution and Christ. And for saying it in
an arrogant manner that suggests that you alone know the truth. I will be
criticized by others on this list for saying this, but I see no other
choice. Despite your claim to the contrary, your attitude has in my opinion
been very un-Christian and I am deeply ashamed to have you as a Brother in
Christ. On top of that, you have not shown the least bit of repentence for
this attitude, not even in so far as being sorry for the pain and
consternation you have caused in your fellow Christians. Indeed, with this
post you have simply chosen to dig in your heels and even try to dredge up
support from the very people you believe are in league with Satan. How you
can call yourself a Christian and yet claim the support of people you
believe are the enemy is beyond me.
>
>It is clear from the exchanges
>I have had with a number of members that evolution is being accepted 'by
>faith' rather than 'by sight'; the doctrine is based on the
>interpretation of historica data, is untestable, and - as I have
>attempted to demonstrate - because of its peculiar nature,
>unfalsifiable.
>
Which only convinces me that you are extremely self-deluded. Those who have
taken the time to address your claims -- whether politely as in the case of
Brian or belligerently as in my case -- have provided you with plenty of
reasons that demonstrate the falseness of your position, yet not only do you
refuse to examine these reasons, you pretend they were never even provided!
I agree with Jonathon: as long as you maintain your self-delusion, this
debate will only go around in circles.
>
>While the atheist and agnostic recognize well enough that the theory
>must be true, it is hard to understand - at least, on the human level -
>why those claiming allegiance to Christ are prepared to allow it to
>dictate the terms of their acceptance of God's word.
>
The reason is very simple: though inspired, the Bible was not written by
God, nor is it entirely literal history. It was written by men, who added
far more than what was simply God's message of salvation. You are simply
confusing the words of men for the Word of God (Christ Himself), because the
words of men say what you want to believe.
>
>It is clear to me
>that what the TE understands by 'the gospel' is a matter of 'pick 'n'
>mix'.
>
The Gospels say nothing about natural history, so I for one at least do not
"pick and choose" on the basis of evolution, and the fact of evolution has
not impact on the truth of salvation.
>
>Let me explain: any biblical passage (including even the words of
>Christ) that appears to endanger their committment to evolution is
>questioned, and thereafter excluded from further consideration.
>
Neither Christ nor the New Testament says anything that would "endanger" any
committment to evolutionary science. As for the Old Testament, only the
first eleven chapters of Genesis challenge evolutionary science, but these
chapters do not add anything significant to the concept of salvation. In
the final analysis, there simply is no conflict between the Bible and
evolutionary science.
>
>In such
>circumstances what remains can hardly be seriously claimed to be the
>inspired, inerrant, word of God!
>
Here are several examples of God's "inerrancy", but only if you assume that
God wrote the Bible Himself word for word:
So I guess that when God says that the moon is a "light" like the sun, the
moon must really be a miniature star. How can you possibly question this?
So I guess that when God says that Joshua commanded the moon and the sun to
stand still, both actually move around the earth. How can you possibly
question this?
So I guess that when God says He holds all things together, gravity, the
strong nuclear force and electromagnetism must be false sciences. How can
you possibly question this?
So I guess that when God says He is the source for all illness and the
source for all curing, the germ theory of disease and immunology must be
false sciences as well. How can you possibly question this?
So I guess that when God says that Solomon had a circular tub built that was
thirty cubits in circumference and 10 cubits in diameter, the value of pi
must really be 3 (otherwise the circumference of a 10 cubit-diameter circle
would have been 31.5 cubits, or the diameter of a 30 cubit-circumference
circle would have been 9.5 cubits). How can you possibly question this?
So I guess that rabbits must chew the cud, insects must have only four legs
and bats must be birds, since God said so. How can you possibly question
this?
>
>A few years ago, John Stear, an atheist skeptic, wrote to the editor of
>'The Skeptic' (the journal of the Australian Skeptics). The following
>are excerpts from his letter:
>
[snip]
>
>Jonathan has suggested that our discussions of late have been somewhat
>circular and has suggested that the time has come to move forward. I
>agree. May I therefore hear how TEs respond to John Stear's thinly-
>veiled suggestion that their views are intellectually bankrupt?
>
I can see no difference between you and Stear, except how each of you label
yourselves. You both make the same mistakes, you both believe the same
fanatical dogmatism, you both come to the same wrong conclusions. In fact,
had I not known you were the Christian and he was the atheist, I would have
not been able to guess who was what (either that or I would have assumed you
were both atheists). You are both dead wrong; that's all there is to it.
Kevin L. O'Brien
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 21:43:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Bodester <jbode77@calvin.edu>
Subject: Re: Evolution's Imperative
>The reason is very simple: though inspired, the Bible was not written by
>God, nor is it entirely literal history. It was written by men, who added
>far more than what was simply God's message of salvation. You are simply
>confusing the words of men for the Word of God (Christ Himself), because the
>words of men say what you want to believe.
In the interest of fairness, I'm going to comment on some of what Kevin
said:
That it is or isn't a literal history is a matter of debate, and what or
how much was added is the same. By asserting this you are yourself making
some assumptions. These are assumptions YOU want to believe.
>Neither Christ nor the New Testament says anything that would "endanger" any
>committment to evolutionary science. As for the Old Testament, only the
>first eleven chapters of Genesis challenge evolutionary science, but these
>chapters do not add anything significant to the concept of salvation. In
>the final analysis, there simply is no conflict between the Bible and
>evolutionary science.
Just one question. How do the Fall and surrounding covenants with God NOT
have relevance on salvation?
>So I guess that when God says that the moon is a "light" like the sun, the
>moon must really be a miniature star. How can you possibly question this?
Why does that follow? Light gets to the earth via the moon does it not?
>So I guess that when God says He holds all things together, gravity, the
>strong nuclear force and electromagnetism must be false sciences. How can
>you possibly question this?
Why does that follow? Noone said God wasn't the force BEHIND other forces.
>So I guess that when God says He is the source for all illness and the
>source for all curing, the germ theory of disease and immunology must be
>false sciences as well. How can you possibly question this?
Same problem. Just because God is the SOURCE doesn't mean He doesn't allow
us to discover what the cures he has provided us with are.
>So I guess that rabbits must chew the cud, insects must have only four legs
>and bats must be birds, since God said so. How can you possibly question
>this?
Where does this come from? Just curious.
>I can see no difference between you and Stear, except how each of you label
>yourselves. You both make the same mistakes, you both believe the same
>fanatical dogmatism, you both come to the same wrong conclusions. In fact,
>had I not known you were the Christian and he was the atheist, I would have
>not been able to guess who was what (either that or I would have assumed you
>were both atheists). You are both dead wrong; that's all there is to it.
So there is no chance YOU are the incorrect one? That appears to me to be
the exact reverse of the fanaticism you accuse them of. Be careful!
Jason
- -------------------------
Jason Bode
jbode77@calvin.edu
http://www.calvin.edu/~jbode77/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 21:37:26 -0700
From: "Kevin O'Brien" <Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Evolution's Imperative
>In the interest of fairness, I'm going to comment on some of what Kevin
>said:
>
Fire away; at least you are more coherent than "Cummings".
>
>That it is or isn't a literal history is a matter of debate, and what or
>how much was added is the same. By asserting this you are yourself making
>some assumptions. These are assumptions YOU want to believe.
>
Hardly. Saying, "the Bible is literal history" is a testable hypothesis;
all you have to do is compare the "historical" accounts of the Bible with
known history determined by paleontological and/or archaeological and
scholastic research; no assumptions are needed. When that is done, we
discover that the events described in the first eleven chapters of Genesis
are contradicted by paleontological, archaeological and scholastic history.
As such, the logical conclusion is that this part of the Bible is not
literal history.
>
>>Neither Christ nor the New Testament says anything that would "endanger"
any
>>committment to evolutionary science. As for the Old Testament, only the
>>first eleven chapters of Genesis challenge evolutionary science, but these
>>chapters do not add anything significant to the concept of salvation. In
>>the final analysis, there simply is no conflict between the Bible and
>>evolutionary science.
>
>Just one question. How do the Fall and surrounding covenants with God NOT
>have relevance on salvation?
>
Simple. First of all, there was no Fall; at least not in the way you mean
it. An objective reading of the Bible, with no attempt made to read into
the verses non-biblical doctrines like the Fall, demonstrates that the
sinning of Adam and Eve and their subsequent expulsion from the Garden of
Eden is a creation myth meant to explain why snakes crawl on their belly,
why women have painful childbirth, and why men have to toil to feed
themselves and their family, among other things.
Secondly, the covenants were conditional treaties set up between man and God
to address contemporary concerns, which did not include salvation. None of
the covenants said that men would be saved if they obeyed them, only that
God would watch over and protect them.
>
>>So I guess that when God says that the moon is a "light" like the sun, the
>>moon must really be a miniature star. How can you possibly question this?
>
>Why does that follow? Light gets to the earth via the moon does it not?
>
Try reading the Bible again. In Genesis it says that God made two lights, a
greater light to rule the day and a lesser light to rule the night. The
difference between the lights is one of degree, not kind. It is therefore
obvious that both were meant to be the same kind of object, but that one
shed less light than the other. That means that either the sun is simply
another satellite or the moon is supposed to be a miniature sun. Since we
know that neither is true, then either this reference to lights in Genesis
is supposed to be figurative or (if literal history) God got it wrong.
>
>>So I guess that when God says He holds all things together, gravity, the
>>strong nuclear force and electromagnetism must be false sciences. How can
>>you possibly question this?
>
>Why does that follow? No one said God wasn't the force BEHIND other forces.
>
As a matter of fact, lots of creationists have said that. Randy Bronson on
this list has said something very much like that, and Vernon has come very
close to saying it at times. In any event, if the Bible is literal history
written directly by God Himself, then should He have not said that He uses
natural forces to hold all things together? Since He did not say this,
should we not therefore conclude that God was EXCLUDING the possibility that
He used natural forces to hold all things together?
Now here's a question for you: why cannot God be the force behind evolution
as well as the force behind gravity?
>
>>So I guess that when God says He is the source for all illness and the
>>source for all curing, the germ theory of disease and immunology must be
>>false sciences as well. How can you possibly question this?
>
>Same problem. Just because God is the SOURCE doesn't mean He doesn't >allow
us to discover what the cures he has provided us with are.
>
Same answer. Again, the Bible does not say that God is the source of all
illness or health through natural forces; it says that God is the source,
period. Implying that illness or health are the result of God's direct
interaction, not His interaction through natural proxies. Therefore, either
the Bible was written by men who knew nothing of germs and immunology or the
Bible was written by a rather ignorant or egotistical god.
>
>>So I guess that rabbits must chew the cud, insects must have only four
legs
>>and bats must be birds, since God said so. How can you possibly question
>>this?
>
>Where does this come from? Just curious.
>
Leviticus, as part of the dietary laws.
>
>>I can see no difference between you and Stear, except how each of you
label
>>yourselves. You both make the same mistakes, you both believe the same
>>fanatical dogmatism, you both come to the same wrong conclusions. In
fact,
>>had I not known you were the Christian and he was the atheist, I would
have
>>not been able to guess who was what (either that or I would have assumed
you
>>were both atheists). You are both dead wrong; that's all there is to it.
>
>So there is no chance YOU are the incorrect one? That appears to me to be
>the exact reverse of the fanaticism you accuse them of. Be careful!
>
I arrived at my assessment with help from the Holy Spirit. If I am wrong,
then the Holy Spirit is wrong as well.
Kevin L. O'Brien
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 00:50:33 -0500 (EST)
From: Bodester <jbode77@calvin.edu>
Subject: Re: Evolution's Imperative
>Fire away; at least you are more coherent than "Cummings".
Exactly the kind of personal attack I'm warning against! Please focus on
issues and not people.
>Hardly. Saying, "the Bible is literal history" is a testable hypothesis;
>all you have to do is compare the "historical" accounts of the Bible with
>known history determined by paleontological and/or archaeological and
>scholastic research; no assumptions are needed. When that is done, we
>discover that the events described in the first eleven chapters of Genesis
>are contradicted by paleontological, archaeological and scholastic history.
>As such, the logical conclusion is that this part of the Bible is not
>literal history.
Are they really? I personally have not been convinced evolution is the
answer. I think the possibility is intriguing, but after all the evidence
for and against still see holes in the logic used on BOTH sides of the
issue. I still maintain that most of those 11 chapters ARE NOT
contradicted. In fact, for much of it there IS no way to prove it right or
wrong (leading to the q of falsification which I don't want to go into).
>>Just one question. How do the Fall and surrounding covenants with God NOT
>>have relevance on salvation?
>
>Simple. First of all, there was no Fall; at least not in the way you mean
>it. An objective reading of the Bible, with no attempt made to read into
>the verses non-biblical doctrines like the Fall, demonstrates that the
>sinning of Adam and Eve and their subsequent expulsion from the Garden of
>Eden is a creation myth meant to explain why snakes crawl on their belly,
>why women have painful childbirth, and why men have to toil to feed
>themselves and their family, among other things.
Personally the Fall is VERY Biblical. That doctrine is based explicitly on
the Bible is it not? If Genesis 2-3 are a story, what does Gen 1 explain?
(just curious w/ that last q)
>Try reading the Bible again. In Genesis it says that God made two lights, a
>greater light to rule the day and a lesser light to rule the night. The
>difference between the lights is one of degree, not kind. It is therefore
>obvious that both were meant to be the same kind of object, but that one
>shed less light than the other. That means that either the sun is simply
>another satellite or the moon is supposed to be a miniature sun. Since we
>know that neither is true, then either this reference to lights in Genesis
>is supposed to be figurative or (if literal history) God got it wrong.
Well, greater could refer to volume as well, and I think we'd all agree
the moon is smaller than the sun. Maybe that's the obvious meaning? Maybe
it indeed refers to their intensity, regardless of actual light source
(the sun in both cases as we know).
>>Why does that follow? No one said God wasn't the force BEHIND other forces.
>As a matter of fact, lots of creationists have said that. Randy Bronson on
>this list has said something very much like that, and Vernon has come very
>close to saying it at times. In any event, if the Bible is literal history
>written directly by God Himself, then should He have not said that He uses
>natural forces to hold all things together? Since He did not say this,
>should we not therefore conclude that God was EXCLUDING the possibility that
>He used natural forces to hold all things together?
Have they really? I think you're excluding the possibility that a part of
God is these forces. Or another view, God wouldn't be incorrect in stating
that He holds everything together whether or not He uses natural forces to
do so. Since He DID say he holds things together, we should stop there and
not overanalyze the passage.
>Now here's a question for you: why cannot God be the force behind evolution
>as well as the force behind gravity?
He can. I just don't think it's been established satisfactorily from all
evidence I've seen, so therefore I conclude that God CAN be, but didn't
choose that method. This sounds like the pointless question asked of both
sides of this issue:
Why limit God to 6 days?
or
Why limit God to natural means?
Noone's limiting God, just presenting the method they believe was actually
the way it was/is.
>>Same problem. Just because God is the SOURCE doesn't mean He doesn't allow
>us to discover what the cures he has provided us with are.
>Same answer. Again, the Bible does not say that God is the source of all
>illness or health through natural forces; it says that God is the source,
>period. Implying that illness or health are the result of God's direct
>interaction, not His interaction through natural proxies. Therefore, either
>the Bible was written by men who knew nothing of germs and immunology or the
>Bible was written by a rather ignorant or egotistical god.
Again, why are you limiting God to supernatural measures? I think you're
being a bit facetious, but these strawman questions which only concern the
limitations that can or cannot be placed on God should be cautiously
approached. What if I think God being the source implies sometimes or
mostly using natural proxies?
>>>So I guess that rabbits must chew the cud, insects must have only four
>legs
>>>and bats must be birds, since God said so. How can you possibly question
>>>this?
I understand the rabbit and bat thing, but the insects thing is a kinda
if-then situation and doesn't say they have four legs. (sorry, being
technical with what the English appears to say)
>>So there is no chance YOU are the incorrect one? That appears to me to be
>>the exact reverse of the fanaticism you accuse them of. Be careful!
>I arrived at my assessment with help from the Holy Spirit. If I am wrong,
>then the Holy Spirit is wrong as well.
Otherwise called "Name-Dropping" or "appeal to authority". A simple
response to that is "how do you know the help wasn't from quite an
opposite source?" I think I understand why you said that, but again,
watch your assertions. I'm talking to BOTH sides of this issue again, and,
seriously, as I am a Christian and gather that many on this list are, the
friuts of the spirit are respected and perhaps should be more closely
followed. You're welcome to jump at me if/when I violate this myself, my
roommate does all the time! Just thought we should be more respectful,
Jason
- -------------------------
Jason Bode
jbode77@calvin.edu
http://www.calvin.edu/~jbode77/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 00:16:39 -0600
From: Bill Payne <bpayne15@juno.com>
Subject: Re: Evolution's Imperative
On Tue, 23 Mar 1999 21:37:26 -0700 "Kevin O'Brien"
<Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>I arrived at my assessment with help from the Holy Spirit. If I am
wrong,
>then the Holy Spirit is wrong as well.
Would it not be possible that you might be wrong, but the Holy Spirit
right?
Bill
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 00:11:14 -0600
From: Bill Payne <bpayne15@juno.com>
Subject: Re: Evolution's Imperative
On Tue, 23 Mar 1999 18:09:22 -0700 "Kevin O'Brien"
<Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>So I guess that when God says that Solomon had a circular tub built that
was
>thirty cubits in circumference and 10 cubits in diameter, the value of
pi
>must really be 3 (otherwise the circumference of a 10 cubit-diameter
circle
>would have been 31.5 cubits, or the diameter of a 30 cubit-circumference
>circle would have been 9.5 cubits). How can you possibly question this?
I think if the 10-cubit measurement was an inside diameter and the
circumference was measured around the outside, and if the wall was ~ an
inch thick, then the value of pi would work out.
>So I guess that rabbits must chew the cud, ...
cud. They munch fecal pellets. As Gothard said, "The critics were
looking at the wrong end of the rabbit." :-)
Bill
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 00:35:19 -0600
From: "Cummins" <cummins@dialnet.net>
Subject: RE: Evolution's Imperative
> [mailto:evolution-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Vernon Jenkins
> I appear to have stirred up a hornets' nest with my assertion that
> theistic evolutionists are both complacent and ill-informed in believing
> they can have both evolution and Christ.
There's nothing like the truth to bring protests from the wicked.
> It is clear from the exchanges
> I have had with a number of members that evolution is being accepted 'by
> faith' rather than 'by sight'; the doctrine is based on the
> interpretation of historica data, is untestable, and - as I have
> attempted to demonstrate - because of its peculiar nature,
> unfalsifiable.
I have a number of fundamental challenges to Evolutionists. If Evolution is
to
be considered scientific, these challenges must be met. So far, they haven't
come close.
One of those challenges is for them to describe a viable animal that cannot
be
explained by Evolution. Maybe Kevin O'Brian will again show us his measure
of
intelligence by again totally twisting plain and simple challenge as if he
needs
a remedial course in the English language.
Even outside of that challenge, Evolutionists come up with a fat nothing
when
it comes to explaining how Evolution could be falsified. Darwin came up
with some
ways, and holding to Darwin's word, Evolution has been shown false (e.g.
there
aren't "innumerable" transitional forms in the fossil record.) But, because
Evolution is a nonscience, any time a prediction (no matter how fundamental
to
the theory of Evolution) is found to be false, they just create a new theory
to
get around the problem (the lack of transitionals is because of Punctuated
Equilibrium -- a solution that is as blatantly false as the false theory it
seeks
to save Evolution from).
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 08:35:31 GMT
From: etlgycs@etluk.ericsson.se (Gary Collins)
Subject: Re: Evolution's Imperative
> From: Bill Payne <bpayne15@juno.com>
>
> On Tue, 23 Mar 1999 18:09:22 -0700 "Kevin O'Brien"
> <Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> >So I guess that when God says that Solomon had a circular tub built that
> was
> >thirty cubits in circumference and 10 cubits in diameter, the value of
> pi
> >must really be 3 (otherwise the circumference of a 10 cubit-diameter
> circle
> >would have been 31.5 cubits, or the diameter of a 30 cubit-circumference
> >circle would have been 9.5 cubits). How can you possibly question this?
>
> I think if the 10-cubit measurement was an inside diameter and the
> circumference was measured around the outside, and if the wall was ~ an
> inch thick, then the value of pi would work out.
>
I think not - surely if the *inside* diameter were 10, the outside diameter
would then be 10+2x (where x is the thichness of the wall). Then the
circumference would have to be pi*(10+2x) which would be even more in excess
of 30 than if the outside diameter were 10.
/Gary
------------------------------
End of evolution-digest V1 #1357
********************************