x-no-archive: yes
On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 06:43:50 GMT, "Tani Jantsang ©"
<tjsrNO@SPAMpost.com> wrote:
 copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
can be used elsewhere without expressed written consent of the author.
>
>"john w @yow.hoo>" <j-w<no> wrote in message 
>news:relak1l6rr3p46j9isp1eturdi5tb3k73a@4ax.com...
>
>>>"We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used, for
>>>He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural
>>>universe. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We
>>>cannot discover by scientific investigations anything about the
>>>creative processes used by the Creator."
>>>-Duane Gish, Evolution? The Fossils Say No!
>>
>>
>> Nor is the process by which our universe "evolved" still in effect.
>
>Not quite true.  We can still hear the Big Bang - background radiation makes 
>a sound.  Now, "where" the point singularity that later went "big bang" came 
>from is a whole other kind of question.  All the "where" and "when" was part 
>of that point - that point was all space/time, all matter/energy, all 
>sound/light - these things weren't even separate things in that point.  They 
>slowly became separate things - and that process is still going on.  Space 
>is expanding - there is not enough matter to make gravity enough to slow the 
>expansion down.  Stars die, new stars come into being.  We can observe this.

OTC, not all scientists agree even on what you have just said.  I have
heard from MANY that the universe as we know it is still expanding.

I have also heard from SEVERAL scientists that that data is OLD data;
that the universe is now COLLAPSING.



>>
>> So "evolution" cannot be observed in a lab.
>
>Yes, you can see  some kind of evolution - or you might call that 
>adaptation - in a lab.  EG, with bacteria.

I do not see adaptation as "evolution."  Humans adapt. In the winter,
in colder climates, we are quite capable of growing additional hair
that we don't wear in warm weather.

"Built in" susceptibility to change is not "evolution", but "growth."

"Evolution" in its truest sense is the amoeba becoming a trout.


The trout becoming a Gila monster, the Gila monster becoming a monkey.

There is NO evidence for that sort of evolution.  Only theory.


God bless!

john w

>>
>> Making it -- once again -- an unproven THEORY.
>>
>> I had a half-dozen profs show us a dozen or more experiments in the
>> lab that they performed and then declared "SO!  That shows you just
>> one more EVIDENCE for evolution!"  I'd ask how the experiment tied in
>> with evolution.
>>
>> "Well, we believe that...  and he'd go into a long-winded explanation
>> of 3 different theories..."  If that is correct, and if this is
>> correct, and if the other is correct, then this experiment would be an
>> example."
>>
>> I'd say, "sounds like  your theory is based on a whole bunch of "ifs",
>> when  no one was around 10 billion years ago to actually OBSERVE what
>> you are describing."
>>
>> He'd get pink in the face (evidently no one had previously challenged
>> his BS), and he'd say, "So how would YOU explain the process?"
>>
>> I'd start with "IN the beginning..."
>
>The actual text is not in English - and it has 4 layers of hidden meaning in 
>it.  Jews, who had it, never would give any of that to Christians, Martin 
>Luther complained about that - and he knew it.
>>
>> One particularly interesting experiment had the prof put a large
>> sample (some 5 pounds) of freshly dug up dirt into a large bucket
>> which consisted of a dozen different grades of sieves.
>>
>> He turned on two water jets and showed us how the rapidly moving water
>> would stir up the dirt and its contents would sort themselves through
>> the various sieves.
>>
>> Thus explaining how the various layers of fossils were deposited,
>> small first, then larger and larger on top.
>>
>> He didn't realize he was also demonstrating the effects of the
>> Universal Flood.
>
>Earth has gone thru many drastic climates.  Snow ball earth - which 
>destroyed most of the life that was around before the Cambrian.  Volcanic 
>slats (different from regular volcanos) that in 3 or 4 waves caused the 98% 
>of life Permian extinction.  And so forth.
>>
>>
>> Sadly, the "scientists" who poo poo special creation haven't even
>> bothered to educate themselves about what that means, so when they are
>> confronted, they erroneously claim "there's no evidence," when there
>> is.
>
>Not so.  There was a story of a flood that some American Indians told - and 
>a cave - scientists went up there and found it.  The study of the earth this 
>way is a relatively new thing.  As with all new things, there are theories - 
>and they often get overthrown by new theories when more is discovered.
>>
>>
>> They simply aren't aware of the evidence because-- as atheists-- they
>> simply aren't interested.
>
>They don't trust the source - because they see the source as having a 
>religious agenda. There are many religious people who are in the field of 
>evolutionary biology.  Take Gould and Eldredge.  I don't think they are 
>atheists.  But they don't mix religion/faith with the study of nature.
>>
>