The following is a standing offer made by a Christian Science Evangelist....

I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.* My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.

Got Proof=Get $250,000.00

-- I believe in Him (Jesus is King@Kingdom.come), April 17, 2000

Answers

The problem with these scams is that the christian in question always gets to decide what counts as "proof."

-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@About.it), April 17, 2000.

E.H.

"The problem with these scams is that the christian in question always gets to decide what counts as "proof." "

Hmmmmmm....thats the same thing the Christians have said about evolution in the classroom for the past thirty some years.

-- I believe in Him (Jesus is King@Kingdom.come), April 17, 2000.

I believe in evolution but I am a Creationist. I think evolution is part of Creation. What's the big deal? Evolution vs Creation strikes me as a straw man; it's arguing how many angels fit on the head of a pin. We're here, wherever here is. Something beyond our finite minds put us here.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), April 17, 2000.

Here is a quote from the Christian offering $250,000.00....

Evolution is positively anti-science. Science deals with things that are testable, observable, and demonstrable and evolution has none of those qualities.

-- I believe in Him (Jesus is King@Kingdom.come), April 17, 2000.

Lars, a few questions for your evolution theories...

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?

2. Where did matter come from?

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?

7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)

10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

-- I believe in Him (Jesus is King@Kingdom.come), April 17, 2000.

I have several more questions to ask if you care to hear them. I thought ten would suffice for now.

-- I believe in Him (Jesus is King@Kingdom.come), April 17, 2000.

Let me get this straight. You, who call yourself "I believe in Him", are offering me $250,000 for "Proof of Evolution", right? Assuming that I provide said proof, where do I send the bill? I don't think the Post Office is likely to forward a letter I address to "Jesus is King@Kingdom.come)" I mean, MAYBE they will, but I'm just a bit skeptical. So I'm not going to give you the proof you desire under those conditions.

I DO have proof that evolution is a true phenomenon, but I'm going to set a different set of conditions, to wit: send me $20 to

Malcolm Drake Jumpoff Joe Grants Pass, Oregon 97526

"Your satisfaction is assured"

Here's something to brighten your day. Enjoy!

"MARTHA STEWART'S TIPS FOR REDNECKS

> >IN GENERAL > >1. Never take a beer to a job interview. > >2. Always identify people in your yard before shooting at them. > >3. It's considered tacky to take a cooler to church. > >4. If you have to vacuum the bed, it is time to change the sheets. > >5. Even if you're certain that you are included in the will, it is still > in > >poor taste to bring a U Haul to the funeral. > > > >DINING OUT > >1. When decanting wine, make sure that you tilt the paper cup, and pour > >slowly so as not to "bruise" the fruit of the vine. > >2. If drinking directly from the bottle, always hold it with your > fingers > >covering the label. > > > >ENTERTAINING IN YOUR HOME > >1. A centerpiece for the table should never be anything prepared by a > >taxidermist. > >2. Do not allow the dog to eat at the table ... no matter how good his > table > >manners are. Even if they are better than yours. > > > >PERSONAL HYGIENE > >1. While ears need to be cleaned regularly, this is a job that should be > >done in private using one's OWN truck keys. > > 2. Proper use of toiletries can forestall bathing for several days. > >However, if you live alone, deodorant is a waste of good money. > >3. Dirt and grease under the fingernails is a social no no, as they tend > to > >detract from a woman's jewelry and alter the taste of finger foods. > >4. Try to keep the toothbrush you use for tooth cleaning separate from > the > >one used for cleaning sparkplugs. > > > >DATING (Outside the Family) > >1 Always offer to bait your date's hook, especially on the first date. > >2. Be aggressive. Let her know you're interested: "I've been wanting > to go > >out with you since I read that stuff on the bathroom wall two years ago." > >3. Establish with her parents what time she is expected back. Some will > say > >10:00 PM. Others might say "Monday." If the latter is the answer, it is > the > >man's responsibility to get her to school on time. > > > >THEATER ETIQUETTE > >1. Crying babies should be taken to the lobby and picked up immediately > >after the movie has ended. > >2. Refrain from talking to characters on the screen. Tests have proven > they > >can't hear you. > > > >WEDDINGS > >1. Livestock, usually, is a poor choice for a wedding gift. > >2. Kissing the bride for more than 5 seconds may get you shot. > >3. For the groom, at least, rent a tux. A leisure suit with a > cummerbund > >and a clean bowling shirt can create a tacky appearance. > >4. Though uncomfortable, say "yes" to socks and shoes for this special > >occasion. > > > >DRIVING ETIQUETTE > >1. Dim your headlights for approaching vehicles; even if the gun is > loaded, > >and the deer is in sight. > >2. When approaching a four way stop, the vehicle with the largest tires > >always has the right of way. > >3. Never tow another car using panty hose and duct tape. > >4. When sending your wife down the road with a gas can, it is impolite > to > >ask her to bring back beer, too. > >5. Do not lay rubber while traveling in a funeral procession, and > refrain > >from excessive use of "Dixie" air horns unless it is in compliance with > the > > >decedent's wishes to do so. > > > >It's a good thang. > > > >

-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@echoweb.neet), April 17, 2000.

>> Lars, a few questions for your evolution theories... <<

Your questions show an almost perfect lack of understanding of the theory of evolution, as proposed by Charles Darwin and developed by later biologists.

The title of Darwin's ground-breaking book was The Origin of Species. It was not The Origin of the Universe. His theory is not a theory of the origin of matter, nor of the origin of time or space, nor a theory of the universe. It explains, with remarkable clarity and power, how one species evolves from another species.

You are mistaking Darwin's biology for cosmology. OTOH, cosmology is a fascinating field of science, dominated recently by Dr. Stephan Hawking. You might want to read his books on the subject.

However, it is equally true that no theory of cosmology is as well-attested by observation and experiment as Darwin's theory of the evolution of species. Hawking is controversial. Darwin is unassailable.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), April 17, 2000.

1) Where did God come from?

2) Why is monotheism anymore logical then pantheism?

As we all know the universe was created by Woman Who Walks (Navaho). Or if you are a Hindu, by Vishnu. Or maybe it was the Titans?

If you go to Victoria British Columbia visit the museum of Natural History. They have the all the links of evolution of a particular species clearly displayed. You can give them the money.

-- The Engineer (spcengineer@yahoo.com), April 17, 2000.

Didnt we have this discussion in Indiana a few years ago?

-- H (Darrow@by.golly), April 17, 2000.

jumpoff joe,

You may wat to RE-READ the first line in my original note again. :)

The following is a standing offer made by a Christian Science Evangelist....

BTW: What are your answers to the 10 questions I placed here?

-- I believe in Him (Jesus is King@Kingdom.come), April 17, 2000.

Brian, thanks for explaining this to "what's his name". Your facts are right on.

On the other hand, I hope your explanation won't stop "what's his name" from sending me the $20 cost of enlightenment re proof of evolution. I have CONCLUSIVE proof, "what's your name". You probably won't rue this small investment in your betterment.

JOJ

-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@echoweb.neet), April 17, 2000.

Brian McLaughlin said:

"The title of Darwin's ground-breaking book was The Origin of Species. It was not The Origin of the Universe."

Does that mean you are unable to answer the questions I have placed here?

-- I believe in Him (Jesus is King@Kingdom.come), April 17, 2000.

jumpoff joe said:

"I have CONCLUSIVE proof,..."

Ok jumpoff joe, you may collect your "Ea$y Money" here.

Now, show me your "proof" please. :-)

-- I believe in Him (Jesus is King@Kingdom.come), April 17, 2000.

The Engineer said:

"If you go to Victoria British Columbia visit the museum of Natural History. They have the all the links of evolution of a particular species clearly displayed. You can give them the money."

Since when does drawing "pictures" prove evolution?

-- I believe in Him (Jesus is King@Kingdom.come), April 17, 2000.

Sorry, "in him"; you mean that you're NOT the Christian Science Evangelist?

What do you mean, what are my answers to your ten questions? Are you on some kind of fishing expedition?

Next, you ask me to give you my proof. Yet, you surely couldn't have sent me the money yet. I'll send you absolute proof upon receipt of the cash purchase price. No sooner.

You also say that pictures don't prove anything. They say that a picture is worth a thousand words. Would you prefer a thousand words?

-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@echoweb.neet), April 17, 2000.

jumpoff joe said:

"Next, you ask me to give you my proof. Yet, you surely couldn't have sent me the money yet."

You have been given a ligitimate link as to where you may collect your $250,000. Dr. Kent Hovind will send you the check once you provide your *proof*.

BTW: Charging him $20 for him to give you $250,000 is probably not something that will go over real big with him I fear. He too, will need your *evidence* FIRST.

It's showtime! As the saying goes: "Put up or shut up." :-)

Let us know how you make out.

-- I believe in Him (Jesus is King@Kingdom.come), April 17, 2000.

>> Does that mean you are unable to answer the questions I have placed here? <<

I can answer any question you care to ask about anything, even imaginary animals and the shape of God's belly button. This feat is greatly simplified if you do not care whether the answer is factual or correct, but only somewhat believable (especially if you aren't too squeamish about what you believe).

If you insist that I refer to some written source for my answers, I can easily arrange to write down whatever words are needed so that we may refer to them. If you need a written source under a name other than my own, I could temporarily assume a nom de plume as I write and sign that name to the work.

If you insist that the words be written by another hand, oh well, I can probably persuade someone else to write what I say from dictation, but it's a bother. At that point I insist you make some form of payment to cover costs.

However, if you insist my answers must come from God himself, nothing could be easier. I shall tell you they come from God. Who's to say they didn't?

You? Hah! Eet ees to laugh!

If you object to my using this transparently useless methodology for establishing the authority of my answers to your questions, I would only point out that this method has been used to great effect throughout all history. In fact, it is the most cherished and imitated methodology there is, and one of the most ancient and venerable. If it was good enough for grandma, it should be good enough for you.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), April 17, 2000.

I Believe:

Can you give some evidence for statement that the top of Mt. Everest contains fossils? According to Roger Bilham, the geologist on the IMAX 1996 Expedition says, "The rock on the summit is a weakly metamorphosed limestone (a marble) of Ordovician age. No fossils remain although the rocks are largely organic in origin." http://www.newton.mec.edu/angier/Ferguson/everest/mountains.html)

The geology of Everest shows that the area was under water about 50 million years ago. This seabed rose to become the present Mt. Everest during about the past 8 millions years due to plate tectonics. How any of this adds or detracts from the idea of a great flood is beyond me.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 17, 2000.

Rats! I posted the flood answer to the evolution question. Somehow, it just all runs together for me :^) I'll repost to the correct thread.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 17, 2000.

Brian,

Once again, the question at hand is can you prove evolution? Do you have answers to the questions I have placed here earlier?

"...but only somewhat believable (especially if you aren't too squeamish about what you believe)."

'Belief' is a religious view. Are you claiming your evolution theory is religious in nature? If more than 'belief', is your 'evidence' scientifically provable? (Do your answers reflect your religion or your science?)

-- I believe in Him (Jesus is King@Kingdom.come), April 17, 2000.

Come on people, you know better than to argue with the anti- evolutionists! They're right out on the tinfoil fringe with the Chemtrail people.

After all, what can you say when someone argues that "Evolution is positively anti-science. Science deals with things that are testable, observable, and demonstrable and evolution has none of those qualities."

Given that evolution is evidenced every day by things such as the growing resistence of various bacteria to antibiotics, why bother to argue. Might as well explain to the Chemtrailers that they're just contrails.

-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@About.it), April 17, 2000.

E.H. Porter said:

"...why bother to argue."

Ridiculing someone is normally used when your position is weak and you have no factual answers to back your position.

Do you have answers to the questions I posted earlier?

-- I believe in Him (Jesus is King@Kingdom.come), April 17, 2000.

Darrow,

Are you talking about Scopes monkey trial? Puhleeze, don't confuse Indiana with Tennessee. We're as up-to-date as Kansas City!

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), April 17, 2000.

When it comes to whether or not god exists, the whole creation vs. evolution argument is completely irrelevant. Even if there were no evidence for evolution, it wouldn't mean the earth came into existance through special creation. And even if there were evidence that the earth had been created, that evidence would tell us nothing about the creator. It wouldn't prove that said creator was the Christain god, or the Greek gods or any other god whatsoever. It wouldn't prove that said creator wasn't an alien being as opposed to a god, or a god who's worthy and desiring of worship and praise.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 17, 2000.

I marvel at the presumptions of man.

-- Buster (BustrCollins@aol.com), April 17, 2000.

>> Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? <<

I want you to think very carefully about this, I believe. Think hard. Now, what happens to all living things?

Was your answer: "They die."? Great! That's the correct answer!

So, we can assume that the stupid, self-reproducing organism is dead by now. The smart non-reproducing organism that only fed had to feed itself is dead, too.

Now pay attention - this is important:

What are the chances that the dead organism that had this stunningly effective and innovative tactic of not reproducing itself so it could eat more would pass its smarts on to the next generation?

By way of contrast-- the dull, stupid organism that insisted on reproducing itself, what are the chances that it passed on its idiotic tendency to reproduce?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), April 17, 2000.

Well, I marvel that some people believe the answers to all these questions (once you strip off the gobbledygook) is that an invisible wizard just happened to do it that way with a magic wand. Yet there are those who claim to be fully satisfied by such an "explanation".

Then again, I've been marveling at what some people are satisfied to believe ever since I began posting here.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 17, 2000.

I believe,

I can answer this one: "10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)"

Look up "plasmids" with your search engine. Basically, they are a self-replicating loop of DNA found in some bacteria that can transfer (for example) antibiotic resistance to different strains of bacteria by transferring to different organisms.

"New, improved varieties" are only successful IF THEY'RE SUCCESSFUL. Bacteria are great for this type of thing. Bacteria that produce antibiotics constitutively will get overgrown when no stressors are on them by those that don't. The ones that don't use all their metabolism to replicate. OTOH when a stressor shows up, the ones with the harmful mutations will be the only ones that survive. It's not as if they PLAN it in advance. The same can be said with anything. Put a bunch of cells in low pH, some'll survive, some won't. Keep giving them food and warmth and soon you'll have a population that can survive in those conditions. Sometimes, if you put them back under normal conditions, the survivors can no longer live in their original enivironment - but they grow great where they are now. If your perspective was long enough, you probably would see the same thing on a macroscopic level.

And the language isn't going from English to Chinese, but English to English, even if the dictionary hasn't been completely defined yet.

Frank

P.S. With good spirit I'd personally (again IMHO only) advise against trying to scientifically define God. As our knowledge of the physical world increases, a God defined in that way will retreat to smaller and smaller spaces. Maybe even back to Diane's sacred spaces ;-)

What is wrong with assuming that God's version of 6 days is different than ours, making evolution compatible with religious creation? -F

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 17, 2000.

>> Once again, the question at hand is can you prove evolution? <<

Yes. I can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course, if unreasonable doubts are allowed, then literally anything can be doubted. For example, I doubt you exist. Prove you do.

>> Do you have answers to the questions I have placed here earlier? <<

I clearly explained that yes, I do have answers to your questions. Do you need a demonstration?

I also explained that the great majority of your questions have nothing to do with evolution. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Buit you have chosen to disregard that fact.

>> 'Belief' is a religious view. <<

Just for the sake of argument, let's say you believe something. Let's make it: you believe you will eat supper tonight when you get home.

Does that mean you are making a religion of eating supper?

>> Are you claiming your evolution theory is religious in nature? <<

I have many theories, some of which are religious. However, the theory of evolution of species is not my theory.

Darwin's theory of evolution is not religious in nature. It does not make reference to or require any supernatural agencies, and it and does not require belief in anything that cannot be substantiated by combining both observations of fact with the use of reason. The evidence in favor of evolution as the method for differntiation of species has been overwhelmingly accepted by scientists and non-scientists alike.

If I may remind you, your set of questions about the origins of the universe have no bearing on Darwin's theory of evolution. None. Nada. Zilch. Do you need me to tell you again, or does that do it?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), April 17, 2000.

Frank said:

"Basically, they are a self-replicating loop of DNA found in some bacteria that can transfer (for example) antibiotic resistance to different strains of bacteria by transferring to different organisms."

I'm not sure that being in a "self-replicating loop" "that can transfer (for example) antibiotic resistance..." meets the criteria for creating new/improved varieties.

-- I believe in Him (Jesus is King@Kingdom.come), April 17, 2000.

Brian McLaughlin

">> Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? <<

I want you to think very carefully about this, I believe. Think hard. Now, what happens to all living things?

Was your answer: "They die."? Great! That's the correct answer!"

Brian, this is why it is important to answer the questions: In order and *NOT* out of sequence. If you don't take them in the proper sequence you are not forced to deal with the complete picture.

Once again, here are the questions:

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?

2. Where did matter come from?

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?

7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)

10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

-- I believe in Him (Jesus is King@Kingdom.come), April 17, 2000.

Brian McLaughlin

"However, the theory of evolution of species is not my theory"

If it is the theory you hold to, by default you have made it your theory as well.

"I clearly explained that yes, I do have answers to your questions. Do you need a demonstration?"

Yes. If you would just answer the questions in the order they were given it would be helpful. Thank you.

-- I believe in Him (Jesus is King@Kingdom.come), April 17, 2000.

Yes, we know. An invisible wizard did it by magic. You believe this. Good for you. Got any more entertaining beliefs? We've seen this one already.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 17, 2000.

I'm too busy to get fully involved in this discussion right now, but for the life of me, I don't know why God wouldn't allow evolution and creationism.

There is far too much proof to discount evolution, so why would Jesus have us deny our common sense and say this is black or white? (Evolution or creationism.)

I gotta go, I have a paper to write and a meeting to go to tonight.

Later!

~*~

-- (Ladylogic@...), April 17, 2000.

Flint said:

"Got any more entertaining beliefs?"

Do you have proof of evolution?

The $250,00.00 offer is open to any and all takers as I understand it.

If you think you've got a case by all means go for it!

-- I believe in Him (Jesus is King@Kingdom.come), April 17, 2000.

I'll give $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for God.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), April 17, 2000.

LOL! Good point, gilda. What a waste of time this discussion is! NOBODY can prove anything! Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.

I guess all we can is follow our hearts.

~*~

-- (Ladylogic@...), April 17, 2000.

>> Brian, this is why it is important to answer the questions: In order and *NOT* out of sequence. If you don't take them in the proper sequence you are not forced to deal with the complete picture. <<

In other words, you only know how to argue for your point of view if your counterpart follows the diagram on the floor showing the correct dance steps.

You continue to ignore the plain fact that the theory of evolution was never designed to refute the first chapter of Genesis. It was only designed to propose a natural mechanism by which several species could differentiate over time from a single species.

You do not understand science. Science does not attempt to "deal with the complete picture." It attempts to scrupulously identify what is known and to slowly enlarge the area of what is known by making observations. It also attempts to organize knowledge by proposing theories that account for what is known.

When a theory is contradicted by a known fact that theory must be changed to account for the fact or it must be discarded. When a theory is simple and simultaneously accounts for a very wide array of facts, knitting them together into a field of harmonious knowledge, then you have found yourself a very elegant idea indeed. Darwin's theory has proved to be such an elegant idea.

The problem with metaphysics is not that it has no elegance, or that it cannot account for a very wide array of known facts. It is that each metaphysics reaches a point where it invokes a supernatural force. By supernatural, I mean a force that cannot be measured or predicted, that operates by principles that are mysterious and in directions that are sometimes whimsical. (Quantum mechanics comes very near to a metaphysics, actually, by this definition.)

While a metaphysics may be true in a larger sense of the word, a metaphysics cannot be true in a scientific sense until it has been described in terms that can be measured and predicted. At this point, the science of cosmology, that "deals with the complete picture" you are talking about - the origins of the universe - is in flux.

The answers that cosmologists would give to your carefully chosen questions would be various and highly provisional. But at least they would be trying to deal with the entire array of known facts.

Be happy with your choices, I believe, but if you are so keen on getting answers to your damn questions, answer them yourself. If all you want is to get me to say something "wrong", you don't have to be so elaborate about it. I can do that standing on my head.

If the fact that I can be wrong about the origin of the universe (and I certainly can be) is of such potential comfort to your own beliefs about those origins, then imagine how right you must be about everything else I don't know!

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), April 17, 2000.

>>Here is a quote from the Christian offering $250,000.00....

Evolution is positively anti-science. Science deals with things that are testable, observable, and demonstrable and evolution has none of those qualities.

-- I believe in Him (Jesus is King@Kingdom.come), April 17, 2000.<<

Sorry, evolution is FACT, period, end of paragraph. Explain how Noah got over 5 million species into the ark? Explain your appendix... Explain your coccyx... Explain goosebumps... Explain why god gave us wisdom teeth... Explain why insects become resistant to pesticides (couldn't be evil-ution now, could it??).. Explain our little toes...Think about it: other primates have prehensile toes. Kids notice right away that monkeys really have four hands. A fifth digit is pretty useful if you're climbing through branches (and secondarily manipulating objects). Our little fingers are truly useful and probably in no danger of disappearing. But we quit climbing in trees with our rear "hands" and they became feet--which explains why they have useless fifth digits. Oh and let's not even go to the australia question.....

-- Robert McCarthy (celtic64@inficad.com), April 17, 2000.

Robert McCarthy said:

"Sorry, evolution is FACT"

If so, take the mioney and run!

Evolution is not Science. It is a religion.

-- I believe in Him (Jesus is King@Kingdom.come), April 17, 2000.

Brian McLaughlin:

"It was only designed to propose a natural mechanism by which several species could differentiate over time from a single species"

You are describing micro-evolution. Not evolution from some 'primordial stew' concoction.

"When a theory is contradicted by a known fact..."

Evolution is unprovable. The 'missing link' has never, nor will it ever be found. That *fact* alone makes evolution a faith based religion. There have been no half man/half aligators found.

"...but if you are so keen on getting answers to your damn questions,..."

You still have not answered the 10 questions posed to you.

I'm begining to think you don't have answers to the questions. At least, no answers that would strengthen your position on evolution.

-- I believe in Him (Jesus is King@Kingdom.come), April 17, 2000.

>>Robert McCarthy said:

"Sorry, evolution is FACT"

If so, take the mioney and run!

Evolution is not Science. It is a religion.

-- I believe in Him (Jesus is King@Kingdom.come), April 17, 2000. <<

Notice is made that you owe me $250,000.00. I hearby demand immediate payment. Please email at the the above address and we can set up how the money is to be transfered to me. Or are you the typical xtian lying scumbag who will try to weasel out of his moral obligation? I await to what will probably be deafening silence...

-- Rob (celtic64@inficad.com), April 17, 2000.

Robert McCarthy said:

"Kids notice right away that monkeys really have four hands. A fifth digit is pretty useful if you're climbing through branches (and secondarily manipulating objects)"

Having similarities shows we have a common designer not evolution. If evolution were true, why don't you try your hand at answering the 10 questions I've placed here.

"But we quit climbing in trees with our rear "hands" and they became feet"

LINK please?

WOW! I ask someone, anyone to answer the 10 questions I placed here and virtually EVERYONE attacks like a wounded animal that feels threatened.

If you guys here were more secure about your view of evolution, why not answer the questions?

-- I believe in Him (Jesus is King@Kingdom.come), April 17, 2000.

Rob said:

"Notice is made that you owe me $250,000.00."

You need to read the articles a little closer. I am not the one to collect from. A link was provided for you and all others to make your case to and collect from.

-- I believe in Him (Jesus is King@Kingdom.come), April 17, 2000.

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?

You will not find the answer in the Bible

2. Where did matter come from?

You will not find the answer in the Bible

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

You will not find the answer in the Bible

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

You will not find the answer in the Bible

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

You will not find the answer in the Bible

6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?

You will not find the answer in the Bible

7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

You will not find the answer in the Bible

8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

You will not find the answer in the Bible

9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)

You will not find the answer in the Bible

10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

You will not find the answer in the Bible

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), April 17, 2000.

Warning! These answers do not have the sanction of any known scientist! They are mine alone.

>> 1. Where did the space for the universe come from? <<

It was hauled here from over there by an incredibly strong something.

>> 2. Where did matter come from? <<

It came free with the space. Sort of like closet space - the original space was never empty.

>> 3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)? <<

If the laws came from somewhere else, they would be aliens and would have to be naturalized. That is why I conclude they were born here. You can also tell they never left on vacation, because everything would fall up until they came back.

>> 4. How did matter get so perfectly organized? <<

It is very smart.

>> 5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing? <<

It happened on a weekend when the matter was well-rested. If there were such a thing as anti-matter, it would work on weekends.

>> 6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter? <<

When: long ago. Where: my refrigerator. Why: someone left the door open and the dead matter got too warm. How: it was pretty disgusting, really.

>> 7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself? <<

Same place. Don't you have a refrigerator?

>> 8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce? <<

An ear. Together, they gave birth to the first cell phone.

>> 9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?) <<

No fair. That's, uh, lemme see, uh, one ... two...three questions! I'm only gonna answer the second one.

It's neither one. The individual has a drive to get out of town. The species has a drive to get on nature programs on tv.

>> 10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? <<

These are developed by General Mills, in the Bettyu Crocker kitchens, a several acre facility in Minneapolis, MN. (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), April 17, 2000.

I like your answers better than mine, too funny!

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), April 17, 2000.

ladyLogic:

You said: "LOL! Good point, gilda. What a waste of time this discussion is! NOBODY can prove anything! Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha."

I have had few belly laughs from this BBS, but this comment and my frame of mind reading this combined to give me a REAL laugh, not a LOL or ROTFLMAO but I am laughing with almost tears in my eyes. Thanks.

-- Futureshock (gray@matter.think), April 17, 2000.

If you feel secure about your view of evolution, why not answer the questions?

-- I believe in Him (Jesus is King@Kingdom.come), April 17, 2000.

Oh c'mon now, you can prove things. I just don't think that you can prove questions of hard science by quoting a book that was written by people who believed that the Earth was FLAT!

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), April 17, 2000.

My daughter is taking Sociology at the local college this semester. She came home one day last week and said that in response to a question, she mentioned evolution. She said her professor "WENT OFF!"

There's a time to argue and a time to shut up [especially when you have an 'A' going so far in Sociology.] I wondered if my daughter knew this yet, so said, "And?" She said, "and I shut up."

In the case of "I believe", I think he enjoys the banter provided by these threads. I've found him/her capable of a good laugh on occasion, and never found him/her to choke his/her beliefs down anyone's throat.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 17, 2000.

If you feel secure about your view of evolution, why not answer the questions?

-- I believe in Him (Jesus is King@Kingdom.come), April 17, 2000. <<

And IF you do really believe in *him*, then you should have no trouble answering the questions I posed of you ..... so far nothing but the sounds of silence...

-- Robert McCarthy (celtic64@inficad.com), April 17, 2000.

Arguing science with an Evangelist who is not tought science in school but some sort of voodoo, is like arguing with a schitzophrenic frog. And that frog is waiting to be kissed by a Prince (or maybe a King.)

-- The other shrink (making@late.night.calls), April 17, 2000.

Brian: >> "It was only designed to propose a natural mechanism by which several species could differentiate over time from a single species" <<

Believe: >> You are describing micro-evolution. Not evolution from some 'primordial stew' concoction. <<

Hello! What I am describing is Darwin's theory of the origin of species. The theory of evolution (surprise!) does not depend on the idea that there was ever a primordial stew. It depends entirely on the idea that there is mechanism of heredity (proved by genetics), a mechanism of variation (proved by genetics) and a mechanism for natural selection (proved by observation) that is capable of producing speciation over geologic periods of time (proved by observation of genetic variation over a number of generations among fast-breeding species, and applied by mathematical deduction to longer time spans).

Brian: >> "When a theory is contradicted by a known fact..." <<

Believe: >> Evolution is unprovable. The 'missing link' has never, nor will it ever be found. That *fact* alone makes evolution a faith based religion. There have been no half man/half aligators found. <<

"Missing link [...] half man/half aligators". You have left me speechless.

However, be that as it may. I have answered your 10 questions. Carefully. Truthfully. It is high time you revealed your own earth-shattering answers to these same questions. Do you have any? Do they involve half men/half alligators, by any chance? That would be too delightful!

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), April 18, 2000.

OTS, From my experiance, most of the Evangelists couldn't tell you why water boils, or what happens to it when it freezes..... they couldn't tell you why their shampoo spits out of the bottle in Denver when they flew in from San Fransico, or why the the bottle is sucked in when they get home .... Why there is more rain on the West side of the Ridge than on the East side here on the left coast.....

Why does a Kite fly?...... or how does a bird?.... How the hell did they get to Denver in the first place?

It's all magic.... :-)

-- Netghost (no@no.yr), April 18, 2000.

Netghost,

"Why does a Kite fly?...... or how does a bird?.... How the hell did they get to Denver in the first place?"

Methinks you're missing a few meteorology and physics class :-)

-- (Burt @nd .Ernie), April 18, 2000.

Bert, a kite works kinda like an inclined Plane.. it's tethered to the ground and the wind acts as a gravity gradiant.

Birds fly by a combination of thrust from the downward, and backward motion of their wings, and a really neat pivot motion of their flight feathers dureing the stroke.. oh... the shape of the wing doesn't hurt either.....

Can you tell me why the shampoo squirts and sucks on each end of the trip?

Ohhhh... why does the ol' jetliner fly?.... give me the Mech :-)

-- Netghost (ng@no.yr), April 18, 2000.

Netghost,

Shampoo, difference in pressure, sealevel to 1 mile up.

Plane, air is moving faster under the flat undersurface of the wing that over the curved upper surface, forcing the plane up. Engines provide forward movement by action/reaction of burning gasses.

I've got one for ya, can you give me an example of a *naturally-occurring* wheel-and-axle system in a living organism?

Science questions are fun,

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 18, 2000.

But can they answer the REALLY important questions like how a woman on an airplane can wash her long hair in that little sink and within a 2 minute commercial return to her seat with completely dry and styled hair? [Notice how I blended that right in with the shampoo bottles mentioned above?]

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 18, 2000.

Frank, I'm not all that into microbioligy, but I read something about a small kritter that had a tail that spun for motion.. would that work ?

-- Netghost (no@no.yr), April 18, 2000.

Or how that pair of strangers on a British Airways flight got so phenomenally tanked on those little teenie drinks that they found each other irresistible and thought nothing of trying to join the Mile-High Club right then and there? Now THERE'S a mystery for ya!

-- DeeEmBee (macbeth1@pacbell.net), April 18, 2000.

So many narrow-minded people, so much energy wasted, arguing. Free your minds. The truth includes everything that all of us believe.

God Created Evolution.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 18, 2000.

Frank,

Washat a trick question?.. or did it have more to do with David Brin?

-- Netghost (ng@no.yr), April 18, 2000.

Plane, air is moving faster under the flat undersurface of the wing that over the curved upper surface, forcing the plane up..... try again :-)

-- Netghost (ng@no.yr), April 18, 2000.

Netghost,

Sorry I didn't get back, had some work to do. Your microbio is better than you believe. While in the Eukaryotic world flagella are made of microtubules in a 9+2 arrangement and whip back and forth as they slide across each other, prokaryotes' flagellae OTOH are single strands that have a "hook" attachment on the end of them that interacts with the basal body. This allows them to spin completely without binding. When rotating counterclockwise the wheel (cell) spins the axle (flagella) and the cell travels in a straight line. for clockwise spin, the helical protien is not straight, and the cell tumbles in random directions (the axle turns the wheel). The really neat thing is, using combinations of these movements and chemotaxis, the cell can move towards a food source, etc. Pretty advanced behavior to be seen in even "simple" organisms. :-)

On the plane, Oops, I was thinking of a car tire stuck in the mud slowing the car on that side. Oughtta not do that I guess. How about, the Curved surface above the wing is larger, hence the air moving over it has less room and goes faster, causing "lower" pressure comparitively after the curve in the wing. The air under the wing is moving slower so at higher pressure comparitively, so the plane goes up based on pressure difference.

Hopefully better,

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 18, 2000.

Sorry, Netghost,

You've got both your Bernoulli principle and mechanics of birdflight backwards.

Air accelerates over the top of an asymmetrical airfoil (lifting wing) producing an area of lesser pressure which, combined with the greater pressure on the lower surfaced, creats lift. Search Bernoulli's Principle. Inclining the airfoil (increasing the angle of attack) enhances this phenomena until the stall angle of attack is reached. Look it up.

A bird's lifting stroke is a "forward" and down movement which creates lift as explained above. Many, if not most, people have this one wrong. They confused it with penguins and manta rays which do use a motion as you have described. You can look it up.

Ten answers coming your way. Stay tuned.

Hallyx

"It's not what you don't know that causes problems. It's what you know that ain't so." ---Will Rodgers

-- (Hallyx@aol.com), April 18, 2000.

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?

We don't know for sure. But we're looking into it. We may know someday.

2. Where did matter come from?

We don't know for sure. But we're looking into it. We may know someday.

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

We don't know for sure. But we're looking into it. We may know someday.

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

Assuming it is so perfectly organised, a premise not yet universally accepted. We don't know for sure. But we're looking into it. We may know someday.

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

We don't know for sure. But we're looking into it. We may know someday.

6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?

We don't know for sure. But we're looking into it. We may know someday. Pretty soon, too, looks like.

7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

Life doesn't need to "learn," any more than your hair learns to grow. (Did bald men's hair forget?) Reproduction is one of the characteristics or attributes of life.

8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

We don't know for sure. But we're looking into it. We may know someday. Pretty soon, too, looks like.

9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)

It's sure hard to answer a question based on a nonsensical premise, ain't it?

10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

Am I required to answer non sequiturs as well?

The point (why am I wasting my time, he'll never get it or admit to it if he does)is that there are a lot of things we don't know, many more than those things we DO know. It takes a high degree of intellectual courage and honesty to admit one doesn't know something. Certainly much more than inventing fairy-tale explanations for everything. And finding things out for sure is a lot harder than myth-spinning.

Enough on this dumb thread. I fervently hope we each can find better things to do.

Hallyx

"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd." ---Voltaire

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not even sure about the universe." ---Albert Einstein

-- (Hallyx@aol.com), April 18, 2000.

I notice that the person who started this thread (I believe in Him, etc.) seems to have lost interest. I think we've exhausted I believe's bag of tricks already. It was a pretty small bag.

However, I fearlessly predict that if I believe does show up again in this thread that he, she or it:

- will never give us any answers to those 10 questions.

- will fasten onto some minor point in someone's reply and make a fairly lame rebuttal to it.

- will pointedly ignore most of what has been said so far and instead come back with some new challenge to evolution, just as weak and gimmicky as the $250,000 and the missing link arguments.

- probably won't try to make a positive argument in favor of creationism. But, if one is attempted, few of the points we make or questions we ask will be addressed. Those that are addressed will be inadequately answered.

For anyone who likes this sort of debate, the creationists and evolutionists talk past one another daily on the Usenet newsgroup called talk.origins. Poor I believe wouldn't last a day in there.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), April 18, 2000.

Ibelieve, I'm not going to show you my proof without your money. You'll continue playing your little game of "yah-but", which gets us nowhere.

If you want to set up, or have your evangelical group set up, a public forum, and show me that they are actually prepared to pay $250,000 to me, or to a charity of my choice, and if there is panel of judges which can be shown to be relatively unbiased, I'll be glad to come, and I feel certain that I can convince said panel of judges that evolution exists.

What do you say, dude?

You continue "

You are describing micro-evolution. Not evolution from some 'primordial stew' concoction.

Ahhhh! So you DO admit that evolution (or what you call "micro evolution") exists? Is your argument really with the "primordial stew" evolutio; in other words, the beginning of life? Is that also what thte 250k challenge is about? I can't prove THAT theory, because it's still only a theory.

" Evolution is unprovable. The 'missing link' has never, nor will it ever be found. That *fact* alone makes evolution a faith based religion. There have been no half man/ half aligators found."

You need to study evolution, at least a little bit. I don't know of ANY evolutionary scientists who think that man is a direct descendant of alligators. What a Croc!

Frank, the animal which has a wheel and axle type of gizmo is either a half man/half aligator, or a rotifer.I think the latter, but I could be wrong. If god created man, why didn't he give us wheels? We could then go "rolling" instead of "jogging", and we might not tear up all the tendons and ligaments in our knees. NOt to mention that it would enable us to travel with much greater efficiency, and get by with a lot less calorie intake, which would allow us to "go forth, multiply, and subdue everything in much greater numbers, with the same amount of arable land.

I'm still working on the other nine FASCINTATING questions, ibelieve, but I think I've got number 8 figured out:

8. what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

Answer: two things--the premature ejaculation, and the frustrated sexual partner. So sorry.

JOJ

-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@echoweb.neet), April 18, 2000.

I believe in Him,

Suppose we conclude that no proof in favor of evolution is available and that, for all practical purposes, it cannot be proved.

What is the implication? What would it tell us other than our conclusion about evolution itself?

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 18, 2000.

Dang! I just looked up the rotifer in my encyclopedia, and it says that, although its name means "wheel bearer", it only APPEARS to bear a wheel. So I was WRONG, WRONG,WRONG! DANG!

So now I'm going into the dangerous territory of "guessing": the animal which has a wheel and axle setup is a pair of humans.

Don't understand it, Frank? Do you understand the sentence, "Sit on it and spin?" Does that qualify?

Frank, I'm waiting with bated breath: what is the answer? (Is it included in the answer to the question, "what is the meaning of life, the universe, and everything?"

JOJ

-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@echoweb.neet), April 18, 2000.

Jumpoff,

You said, "Frank, I'm waiting with bated breath: what is the answer?"

Read up a few posts in one addressed to Netghost.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 18, 2000.

I'll make an offer of $2.50 to anyone who can show me a critter that has ever existed that uses the principle of the wheel as we know it---a circular component revolving around an axle (or constrained axle revolving in a bearing, as the first wheels indeed were). Certain microbials may wave their flagellae, tentacles or tails in a circular fashion. As pointed out, some diatoms revolve their bodies around an axIS. But, as one of my engineering profs pointed out, the wheel may have been the first human artifact with no natural analog or model.

Cool conjecture, Joe. Instead of joint strains, we'd have bearing burnout...LoL. Downhill would be easy. I wonder if we'd have evolved brakes?

Hallyx

"Maybe [science] is something that helps you have good luck." --- Charlie Gordon

-- (Hallyx@aol.com), April 18, 2000.

Hallyx,

Well, since you're coughing up the $2.50, I suppose you get to decide what a wheel is and what it isn't. Here's a site for you (some lecture notes):

http://www.science.lander.edu/rsfox/prokaryo.html

With a quote from the text,

"A globular protein, flagellin, is arranged in chains to form the flagellum. It is attached to the cell by a "hook". The hook is attached to a complicated basal apparatus consisting of 35 proteins arranged in rings embedded in the layers of the cell wall. This basal apparatus operates like a motor (with ATP) and rotates, thus causing the flagellum to thrash. This is one of only tw instances of rotary motion in the living world. "

If you want a specific organism, try E. coli or S. typii. The main thing is that EUKARYOTE flagellae shake back and forth, having a power stroke and a relaxing stroke, and are membrane bound.

PROKARYOTE flagellae on the other hand are exposed protein (not membrane bound) and really do rotate 360 degrees. Some go 1500 rpm or so.

And read my post above, in prokaryotes, sometimes the axle turns the wheel, sometimes the wheel turns the axle.

While I don't want the $2.50 personally, I would like you to send it to a charity of my choice if you agree that this is a wheel concept.

Frank

Engineers are not biologists.

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 18, 2000.

I'm an engineer, Frank. I can't tell without a picture.

From Fox's description, I see no reference to an axle. To an engineer, a wheel without an axle is merely a disk. It certainly doesn't appear to match my description above. But then, biologists are not engineers.

"PROKARYOTE flagellae on the other hand are exposed protein (not membrane bound) and really do rotate 360 degrees. Some go 1500 rpm or so." While I find this fascinating and quite amazing, I would describe it as rotating about an axis (as does the Earth) or spinning. Not the same thing as revolving around (or along with) an axle, which is a the common engineering specification for a wheel.

The wheel may have been used in Chinese toys 10,000 years ago. But we know of wheels from ancient Sumer about 6,000 years ago---around the beginning of the early civilisations.

The wheel never occurred to American cultures. North Americans never achieved a high enough level of civilization to foster infrastructure. Besides, they lacked draft animals. South American civilizations were laid out in jungles and mountains.

Btw, your explanation of aerodynamic lift was quite good for a biologist.

Hallyx

"Natives who beat drums to drive off evil spirits are objects of scorn to smart Americans who blow horns to break up traffic jams." ---Mary Ellen Kelly

-- (Hallyx@aol.com), April 18, 2000.

Hallyx,

Try this addy: http://tidepool.st.usm.edu/crswr/bactflag.html

the flagella is the axle, the cell (shown by a cutout of the cell membrane) is the wheel. When turning clockwise, the cell spins, with the flagella basically sitting there. Why wouldn't that be analogous to a wheel on an axle??

Working hard for my $2.50,

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 18, 2000.

Easier way: Link

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 19, 2000.

Well, Frank,

I wouldn't have bought off on it based on your link with it's funky hard-to-decipher sketch. But I've worked hard to give you my $2.50...and to allay my curiosity. Using the Google search engine (which I can't praise highly enough), I came across this marvelous animation of the Bacterial Flagellum and have to admit it meets all my qualifications as a wheel with axle. It even features a bearing/bushing element.

I could quibble that, since it was only discovered in 1973, that it could never have served as an analogue or model for the wheel. But I am so astounded that I consider the lesson worth $2.50 and the entertainment value plus a new trivia question even more.

Choose your charity, sir. I may up the contribution by ten times.

But I'm still not buying off on the ATP molecule until I see it work.

Hallyx

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." --Hamlet 1:5

-- (Hallyx@aol.com), April 19, 2000.

Hallyx,

I've got to hand it to you, I looked around for ~1/2 hr. and that's the best net sketch I could come up with. Yours beat mine cold. I was thinking I'd have to scan in something, but by the time I figured out how to post that, it would be WAY cheaper for me to have kicked in the $2.50 myself.

I don't believe though, that this served as a *model* for the wheel we use, but I find it really fascinating that it exists at all. Most structures biological can't rotate freely as they're *attached* to something in a more-or-less permanent way.

ATP shouldn't be too bad to buy into, if only from a chemistry perspective. The more phosphates you add, the higher the energy. Strip them off one by one (generally) to deliver energy in discrete packets.

As for the charity, why not send it to your local Catholic church with a note to the priest to send it to a local anti-abortion group. (I'm kind of into the *life* sciences.)

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 19, 2000.

From: Freethought, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

The phrase "scientific fact" is an oxymoron. So is the phrase "scientific proof." Science, unlike mathematics, does not consist of a collection of airtight proofs. Nor is it a large body of "facts." Science is a method of learning about our universe and how things work. The concept of "proof" does not exist in science, because the essence of science is being always open to new evidence and new explanations, which may call into question tentatively accepted theories.

Religion, on the other hand, does pretend to know certain so-called "truths" with absolute certainty, through faith. Faith, basically, is a determination to remain convinced of some proposition, despite any and all evidence or reasoning that might ever be offered to the contrary. Science is distinguished from religion in that it does not rely upon faith, but rather upon evidence and reason.

While it is not possible to conclusively "prove" a scientific theory, it is possible to disprove them. Just because a particular explanation is accepted upon faith by some or many people does not automatically make it scientifically disproved. However, if an explanation is merely a matter of faith, in that there is no evidence or reasoning to support it, then that idea has no place being taught in public schools.

How shall it be decided what evidence is most convincing, particularly when some people are admittedly determined to completely discount any evidence or reasoning which does not agree with their own pet explanations? I don't know. I'm asking. This is a heavy question, and is the subject of much political game playing in textbook selection committees all across the country.

This is meta-science. Did I just coin this word? I'm not widely read enough in this area to know. What I mean is, that this question of how science should be guided or controlled is an interesting question of its own, and may even be a subject worthy of study by children as well as by students in state supported colleges and universities.

Into this environment, a decade or so ago, steps Dr Hovind,, a self-described "creation science evangelist" who offers a substantial reward to anyone who "proves" evolution. He states that evolution refers to the origin of time, space, matter, higher elements from hydrogen, stars & planets, life from inanimate matter, kinds (species), and not just gradual changes within species.

Aside from the fact that there is no such thing as a "scientific proof" it seems absolutely unclear to me just what specifically we are being asked to prove. For example, it makes no sense to prove "the origin of time." Someone needs to make a specific statement that might tend to explain whether/how/when? time began. I'm betting several people have taken a crack at making such a statement. I know Steven B. Hawking, for one, has. Which theory is Dr Hovind suggesting is the "evolution" explanation that is to be proven?

If it were possible to "scientifically prove" anything, a contest such as this one would need to be judged by impartial, fair-minded people. Dr Hovind refuses to identify the judges. Presumably they would be hand picked creation science buddies who accept some scriptural explanation on faith. In other words, they are determined to reject any and all possible alternative explanations.

The existence of this unclaimed quarter million dollar standing offer is constantly thrown out as evidence that "evolutionism" is a faith because has not yet been proven. The fact is, though that there is considerable convincing evidence for a variety of theories across the wide range of scientific thought that Hovind calls "evolution." The fact that more is being learned every day about these matters, and that current thinking is constantly revised is proof that such scientific theories are not accepted on faith, but rather provisionally.

The fact that nothing can ever be scientifically proven is not proof that every idea is necessarily accepted on faith. Dr Hovind and those who publicize his unclaimed reward would have us believe that faith means "not knowing for sure but believing anyway." In fact though, what faith is, is "being determined to believe something, despite any and all evidence or reasoning that might ever be offered to the contrary." And it is exactly this kind of stagnation of thought that the founders (of the U.S.) sought to protect us against with the first ammendment.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), April 20, 2000.

The quarter million is mine,

Cause we all started as brine,

Ill offer as proof,

A well-known goof,

Whos flying high on a vine!

-- Ra (tion@l.1), April 20, 2000.

Evolution happens at microscopic and macroscopic levels.

Naturally, it is easier to demonstrate it going on on smaller scales with simpler more fecund organisms.

All evolution is nothing more than (1) mutation and (2) natural selection.

Mutation happens. It is when DNA in a living thing fails to replicate properly, or when is hit by a chemical or radiation that causes it to become damaged.

Mutation gets passed on the descendents of those cells if it is not "lethal" or prohibits further growh. Sometimes these mutated cells are in living things that are made of more than just one cell. If a mutated cell is part of that organism's germ line, then the mutation may be passed on to other organisms.

Some mutations are lethal, imcompatable with life. Some are beneficial. Some are neutral. What determines whether a mutation is neutral, lethal, or beneficial (adaptive)? Natural selection. When a genetic change (genotypic mutation) occurs, it often has an outward effect that changes the way that organism interacts with its habitat. This outward change in appearance is called a phenotype.

Natural selection is amoral. All it cares about is making as many copies of DNA or babies as possible. The more babies that survive to reach an age when reproduction is possible, the more "fit" we say that population is. A fit population is a fertile one. Fertility and fecundity are determined by how well an organism fits into a niche. In a niche, there is a limited amount of energy and resources. The organism that has the best traits adapted to that niche can better use the niche's energy for reproduction.

Nature then, "selects" organisms that are best at making offspring.

There you have it, mutation and natural selection. Both happen, perhaps even in your own body. Anyone who has dealt with cancer knows that a cancer evolves. The cells that are selected to be resistant to things which may kill them are the cells that survive. The changes in a tissue from normal function to cancer are due to mutation and natural selection: evolution.

Evolution also occurs in bacteria. Two bacteria of distant relation may exhange viruses between each other and thus pass on traits that may be advantageous to one or the other. If you know about anti-biotic resistant infections, you know that this has occured because of evolution: mutation and natural selection.

Evolution occurs on larger, grander scales, but this is less obvious. Sickle cell anemia is a very difficult disease in most parts of the world. But in parts of the world where malaria is common, it might save your life. People who have acquired the mutation for sickle cell are more likely to leave behind fewer offspring in most niches. But in a niche where the prospect of death from malaria is quite real, sickle cell is a reproductive advantage that lets one live to an age where childbearing is possible.

What about dramatic species-to-species transitions? That macroevolution claimed by evolutionists is often the target of so-called creationists.

It happens. Slowly, perhaps...Certainly on a scale longer than a human lifespan. But certainly more quickly than the fossil record can record. Strata in rock depict changes of thousands or millions of years. This is plenty of time for macroevolutionary change to occur.

How does it happen? As I said before, all evolution has mutation at its basis. What we look like and to a large extent--what we do--is determined by our genes. Genes control our developmental program. We begin our life as a single-celled zygote--a union of the sperm and egg cell. This gradually divides and changes through nine months and oila! we have a bouncing baby. An extremely complicated array of genes is turned on and off, regulating which cells migrate to where to form arms and legs and brains and heart. What happens when the timing of these regulatory genes is altered by mutation?

Make a mutation early in the embryo's development, and the changes in its appearance when born will be drastically different. Make that mutation appear later, and the change in the offspring will be more slight.

Humans can be born with two heads, tails, webbed feet and hands, or with no head at all. They can be born without testicles or ovaries or with ambiguous genatalia. Nature is seemingly cruel, but mutation happens. It can cause humans to be born that are scarcely recognizable as human. Under most circumstances, babies born with severe birth defects don't even live. Under rare circumstances, some adaptations may be advantageous. Today's genetic "monsters" may be tomorrow's survivors if the niche in which we live drastically changes.

In creatures other than humans, species changes DO happen. A species is a group of organisms capable of breeding and bearing fertile offspring. When one smaller group of species is separated from its main population, there is genetic drift. This can be recorded at the level of DNA sequence. Eventually--even if they make look similar--one population may develop a different set of chromosomes or have genatalia that are incompatable with its parent species. Mating or fertile offspring are no longer possible. This can be engineered in the laboratory or it can be done in the wild. Either way, it happens. Horses and donkeys once had a common ancestor, but they now cannot produce fertile offspring, only mules. Evolution at work, my friends.

I could go on and on, but I really don't see why people seem so threatened by the concept. I mean, how in heck is the Omnipotent Being going to explain to a bunch of Old Testament goat herders these concepts. They did not know what a gene was! What matters about Genesis is its spiritual message, not the literal, word-for-word text. You may still choose to believe that God played a hand in creation through evolution but to deny evolution, IMO, is rather naive and clinging to a legalistic, formulaic interpretation the scribes of Genesis never intended to convey.

-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com), April 20, 2000.

LOL!! Mikey, a.k.a. "Ra",

I'm honored that you spend all of your time obsessively stalking me, but really, this is getting a bit ridiculous. As I've said before, I only do the womens. Or is it because you're still angry that I proved all of your "professional" criticisms incorrect, regarding the Alaska Air crash? Is that why you changed your name? Everyone already knows that you're a dimwit Mikey, so just get over it, and I'm sure they'll accept you for who you are.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 20, 2000.

You must truly be once again high,

To mistake me for some Mikey guy.

But we both do agree,

With much certainty,

That like 261, you cant fly!

-- Ra (tion@l.1), April 20, 2000.

IS THIS YOUR FINAL ANSWER?

-- Philbuns (Regis@axa.com), April 21, 2000.

Dancr,

I must take issue with your comments on Scientic Knowledge.

From: Freethought, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

The phrase "scientific fact" is an oxymoron. So is the phrase "scientific proof." Science, unlike mathematics, does not consist of a collection of airtight proofs. Nor is it a large body of "facts." Science is a method of learning about our universe and how things work. The concept of "proof" does not exist in science, because the essence of science is being always open to new evidence and new explanations, which may call into question tentatively accepted theories.

Obviously you have a totally different view of Science to that which I learnt. For a start, the very word "science" is derived from the latin Sciere - to know. Hence Science means knowledge. Your assertion that "scientific fact" is an oxymoron shows just how little you actually know about the logic of scientific discovery. Science does contain a large body of facts, but it is not exclusively facts. However all scientific theories must be based on known facts. Once a theory becomes provable, then it becomes a scientific law. There are many theories that have been changed, modified or even abandoned. But I would like you to find a single scientific law that has been changed once it had been proved. There may be some, but I'm not aware of any.

Religion, on the other hand, does pretend to know certain so-called "truths" with absolute certainty, through faith. Faith, basically, is a determination to remain convinced of some proposition, despite any and all evidence or reasoning that might ever be offered to the contrary. Science is distinguished from religion in that it does not rely upon faith, but rather upon evidence and reason.

I am glad that you admit that religion only pretends to know certain truths and calls this "faith", science on the other hand calls these pretences "theories", but unlike faith, they are based on provable facts. Once the theory itself is provable it becomes a law.

While it is not possible to conclusively "prove" a scientific theory, it is possible to disprove them. Just because a particular explanation is accepted upon faith by some or many people does not automatically make it scientifically disproved. However, if an explanation is merely a matter of faith, in that there is no evidence or reasoning to support it, then that idea has no place being taught in public schools.

What ever gives you the idea that it is not possible to conclusively prove a theory? I'm sure that since Ohm proved his theory of electrical resistance, and so gave us Ohms law, you have been very glad to make use of his proof. Or have you never used electricity?

How shall it be decided what evidence is most convincing, particularly when some people are admittedly determined to completely discount any evidence or reasoning which does not agree with their own pet explanations? I don't know. I'm asking. This is a heavy question, and is the subject of much political game playing in textbook selection committees all across the country.

You do ask a very interesting question here, and although I am not qualified to answer it, I would respond with 2 corollary questions. "Why must anyone decide which evidence is more convincing?" and "why shouldn't ALL evidence be presented, rather than just a selected portion?"

This is meta-science. Did I just coin this word? I'm not widely read enough in this area to know. What I mean is, that this question of how science should be guided or controlled is an interesting question of its own, and may even be a subject worthy of study by children as well as by students in state supported colleges and universities.

Into this environment, a decade or so ago, steps Dr Hovind,, a self-described "creation science evangelist" who offers a substantial reward to anyone who "proves" evolution. He states that evolution refers to the origin of time, space, matter, higher elements from hydrogen, stars & planets, life from inanimate matter, kinds (species), and not just gradual changes within species.

I gather from this section that Dr Hovind has first of all re-defined the theory of evolution, then offered a reward of $250,000 for anyone who can prove his definition of evolution. The definition of evolution given in "HS Biology" and supported Mendel is An evolutionary event is a change in a population, not a change in just one or a few individuals.

What Dr Hovind is asking for is a combined proof of the Big Bang theory, Einstien's unified field theory, Plank's quantum theory, as well as the theory of evolution. The other matters that he asks about have already been proven so would not be an issue.

The rest of your comments appear to be based on your premise that nothing scientific can ever be proven, and therefore untill some common ground can be found between the believers of science, and the believers of religion, then I don't believe any further progress can be made.

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), April 21, 2000.

"Scientific methodology has been both a necessary stage in the human development and a supremely valuable tool. It is only when it is mistaken for the truth, the only way of looking at reality or the basis for moral or spiritual values, that we manage to get ourselves snarled up. It is only one method of inquiry. It is a system to know ABOUT existence. It cannot KNOW existence. If a person adopts any permanent attitude of a separate and analytical observer then he acts in direct opposition to the prime evolutionary conditions of being human.

Collectively we seem in a chronic mood of doubt and repeated questioning. The questions never end. At the other end of the spectrum are the religious beliefs where only "answers" are given. These older popular religions, formulated in ages of childlike dependence, encounter adolescent separatist abstractions of modern scientific materialism. The old religions of faith with their ready made answers, mostly created thousands of years ago, cannot withstand the scrutiny of our age of doubt. But our culture has somehow lost out on the deal and finds itself alone and bewildered sitting on a pile of plastic trivia.

All the programmers we have encountered so far, whether they sell tapes of belief or tapes of doubt, are still blind - they don't KNOW. As the sun rises on their blindfolded eyes one of them talks of the light of heaven and another talks of degrees of centigrade.

Yet neither can see the beauty of the sun in the morning mists, and tragically, by the time they have finished with the child, he can't either.

We can now turn from this dark portrait of our age and begin to explore how it might have been and how it can be. We enter a very different world as we follow how man can mature and step beyond childhood dependency and an adolescent alienation into an entirely new synthesis." -taken from Unknown Man by Yatri

-- Debra (childhoodand@adolescence.com), April 21, 2000.

Debra:

"Collectively we seem in a chronic mood of doubt and repeated questioning. The questions never end. At the other end of the spectrum are the religious beliefs where only "answers" are given."

This reminded me of the saying, "The more I learn the more I learn that I have so much more to learn." I've always loved that about learning, myself. If the answers are dictated, it seems akin to a parent responding to a child with "Because I said so!" I wonder if there isn't a tiredness/laziness that sets in establishing a need to stop the learning process and allow a concrete answer to be given and accepted.

My kids STILL come to me for "advice". I've never yet given them any concrete advice. I ask questions regarding where they are in the decision-making process. Typically, my response is "It sounds to me like you've got a good handle on this one already.", although I may introduce some additional things to consider. My "role" is that of a sounding board. They realize they'll get no answers. In fact, if they did, they'd probably stop asking for "advice." [grin]

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 21, 2000.

It seems there are three domains of evolution. First - animal evolution. Second - ordinary psychosocial development. Third - metanormal development.

Though development within each evolutionary domain has its own distinctive patterns, it depends as well upon various types of activity native to the domain that preceeded it. Animal functioning, for example, depends upon inorganic elements that interact as they did before life appeared on earth. Ordinary human functioning depends upon biological processes that appeared among our animal ancestors. And metanormal activity is based upon capacities such as self-reflection that have been developed and passed on to succeeding generations in the course of psychosocial development.

-- Debra (notonebut@three.com), April 21, 2000.

Debra:

Where do you find all those great quotes? You must have the best bookmarks!

Malcolm:

Help me out here. Isn't/wasn't there a scientific "law" which stated matter could not travel faster than the speed of light? Haven't particle physicists now discovered that there is probably a particle which indeed does or is theorized to travel faster than that speed? (Tachyon, maybe?).

I am just curious.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), April 21, 2000.

Anita -

I agree on both counts. Every question answered comes with more questions. With my children: I believe that if I tell them WHAT to think I will help them for a day but if I teach them HOW to think I will help them for life!

(you sound like a wonderful mom)

-- Debra (questionsand@answers.com), April 21, 2000.

Future Shock -

LOL. Must have picked them up in my "travels" through my 9th house south node!

-- Debra (herethereand@everywhere.com), April 21, 2000.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

Debra, I don't even believe in teaching how to think. Children are born learning machines. They are better at it than we know. We don't have to teach them to think or to encourage them to want to think. What children need, more than anything, is to be protected from people who teach them to not think. Such people may come in the form of religious leaders who would rather that people not question their faith. They may also come in the form of school science teachers who teach that science is a litany of facts.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), April 21, 2000.

RICHARD LUBBOCK

Saturday, April 22, 2000

DARWIN'S GHOST: The Origin of Species Updated By Steve Jones Doubleday Canada, 377 pages, $37.95

Most of us bow respectfully in the presence of Darwin's masterpiece, On the Origin of Species, but few of us have ever read it. Darwin's stately Victorian prose and the slow freight of his ponderous facts weigh heavily on the modern reader's eyelids. Yet everyone understands the general idea that living organisms descend from their ancestors in increasing numbers, but with accidental variations. In a world of scarce resources, every organism must struggle for life against its fellows, so that only the toughest or slyest variations can survive to breed again. Darwin called this merciless rejection mechanism "natural selection."

Not everyone feels happy living under Darwin's ironclad rule of merit. In every generation over the past 140 years, his relentless, unending argument has rolled over and crushed all challengers, apart from those few diehards determined to dismiss it.

However gripping an old story may be, it deserves to be retold in fresh words to new generations that may not feel the force of the original. Since 1859, disgruntled critics have battered at the pillars of Darwinism, but Darwin's disturbing logic grows ever more convincing.

Steve Jones, a science journalist and professor of zoology at University College, London, has now rewritten the original masterpiece, and revitalized it with much evidence that was hidden from Darwin. His book, Darwin's Ghost: The Origin of Species Updated, engagingly reworks the story to transform it into an enthralling read suitable for anyone going on a three-week holiday.

In his new introduction, Jones rehearses Darwin's argument, visiting two types of organism: AIDS viruses and whales. He emphasizes that the evolution of new varieties can be watched right now in the high-speed lethal activities of present-day AIDS lineages. He also deploys our modern understanding of the evolution of whales (they are related to hippopotamuses) to redress the mockery that Darwin suffered for his bold conjectures on the subject. Whereas Darwin was deeply concerned to refute the theological argument from design contrived by the Rev. William Paley at the end of the 18th century, Jones is moved to expose the pretensions of our contemporary creationists. Jones follows Darwin's own chapter headings, sharpening the arguments with new insights from fresh data. For example, Darwin devoted Chapter I, Variation under Domestication, largely to pigeons and their breeding. Jones, on the other hand, discusses man's strange relationship with his domestic animals, especially with dogs. "Much can be learned about the course of the great stream of evolution from domestication, its minor tributary," he says. "It shows that species are not set in stone, but are always in flux." The intermingling of species annoyed Darwin's contemporaries.

Anti-evolutionists make much of the claim that nobody has ever seen a species arise. Darwin fretted over such holes in his system. "Why," Jones asks, "is life so lumpy?" After all, Darwin claimed that Nature makes no leaps, and that evolution proceeds gradually. Now we know that Nature does make leaps. Quantum observations tell us that reality is incurably granular, while geology shows that catastrophes have helped to cast down the dinosaurs and promote the mammals. Nonetheless, the Darwinian synthesis marches on, stronger than ever.

From the work of Gregor Mendel and later mathematical geneticists, we know that the inheritance of characteristics from one generation to the next takes place intermittently; more recently, we have understood such sudden jumps in terms of stepwise changes in the chemical substance DNA. Even though Mendel was his contemporary, Darwin knew none of these things. Jones explains how modern molecular biology and geology repair many gaps in Darwin's arguments, and frustrate the complaints of anti-evolutionists.

Darwin knew only too well how an investigator might fall in love with plausible friendly evidence. By bravely pointing out facts that could destroy his intellectual edifice, he proved himself one of the first of the modern self-critical scientists. Every true scientist tries to emulate Darwin's humility.

In keeping with his quiet character, Darwin first published his theory only as a tentative "abstract"; since then, despite its early faults, that preliminary sketch has grown from strength to strength.

In the end, Steve Jones withdraws from his ghostly narrative, conceding the last words of his rewrite to Darwin's own eloquent Recapitulation and Conclusion. But the story isn't over. Even today, new evidence continues to pile up, not only from biology, but also from physics, geology and cosmology. The new data hint that even the most fundamental natural laws can mutate and evolve. It becomes more and more difficult to swallow the notion that the cosmos requires a designer.

Instead, I now suspect that the multitude of universes required by our best scientific theories point to one everlasting, self-organizing world that never stops diversifying. I am gravitating to the view that the very laws of Nature themselves can mutate, and are selected, not by any supernatural Great Architect, but by the natural creativity within the system. Not only species, but also eternal verities, transmute. Darwin rules, all the way down.

Richard Lubbock is a Toronto science writer who often reviews books for The Globe and Mail.

1. http://www.globeandmail.com/

-- (Whos_yo_D@ddy.com), April 22, 2000.

From: Freethought, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

I did read this book. It was one of the first books that I read on my own initiative. It's quite powerful, and I, too, was impressed with the humble style. Here are those wonderful last four sentences:

It is interesting to contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the brushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructe forms, so different from each other, and dependent upon each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the conditions of life, and from use and disuse: a Ratio of Increase so high as t lead to a Struggle for Live, and a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in the view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), April 22, 2000.

Bravo, Coprolith!

Unfortunately, you blew my chance at getting $20 for explaining this to "I believe" (and others) who may have wanted my (slightly simpler) explanation. I haven't gotten one check yet, by the way, so I assume they don't really want to learn anything.

My explanation, in a nutshell, was to simply point out that most people, even my former "born again", evolution rejecting boss, agree that such different species as lions, tigers, and pussy cats, or dogs, wolves and coyotes, or, as you showed, horses and donkeys, are RELATED. And if they are RELATED, they have common ancestors. They are EVOLVED from their common ancestors.

Your explanation closely parallels that of Charles Darwin, by the way, on the macro level.

Good job. All you creationists, pay attention. Maybe you can quit stressing out on this one subject.

Hey, I just thought of a new idea as to why the dinosaurs went extinct! Gotta go.

JOJ

-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@echoweb.neet), April 24, 2000.

FutureShock,

You asked "Help me out here. Isn't/wasn't there a scientific "law" which stated matter could not travel faster than the speed of light? Haven't particle physicists now discovered that there is probably a particle which indeed does or is theorized to travel faster than that speed? (Tachyon, maybe?)."

As far as I am aware there was never any law that stated that matter could not travel faster than the speed of light, but Einstein's General Theory of Relativity does make such a claim.

Einstien's second postulate states "The velocity of light in empty space is the same for all observers, and is independant of the light source relative to the observer". This means that it would be impossible for anything to travel fast enough to pass a beam of light, because irrespective of how fast matter were to travel relative to some other observer, it would still be 3*10^8 m/s slower than any light beam. However to an outside observer matter may appear to approach the speed of speed of light, but could never pass it.

The Lorentz transformations show that as a particle approaches the speed of light that time would appear to slow down according to t'=t*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). Thus as a particle approaches the speed of light time would appear to get slower and slower, and at the speed of light, time would stand still. This means that it would be impossible to accellerate any matter to the speed of light. It does not preclude manufacting a sub-atomic particle such that at the point of its manufacture, it is already travelling faster than the speed of light, relative to an observer. I know that there have been experiments in this field, but I have not heard of any results.

Therefore, as far as I am aware, no scientific law has been proved wrong, and if particles have been made that do travel faster the speed of light, then the following Lorentz calculation would have been confirmed.

Taking the Lorentz transformation where v>c (say V=2c) then

t'=t*sqrt(1-4)

t'=1.73ii=sqrt(-1)

Thus in theory it is possible to travel faster than the speed of light, but it is not possible to accellerate to that speed.

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), April 25, 2000.

I have believed in God all my life. At one time I would have accepted that evolution could have been a mechanism that God employed in creating this world. However, after attending Iowa State University while earning my bachelors degree in Forestry and Animal Ecology, I have become fully convinced that evolution, not speciation, cannot take place in a Darwinian sense. I have with my own eyes read in biology texts.... special insertions made by pure conjecture when scientific evolution is not adequate to support it's own weight. These insertions are not validated by one iota of scientific evidence, outside of the fact that they explain an obvious loophole in evolutionary theory without providing any scientific evidence to back up their claims. For instance, the development of wings was supposedly accomplished through tree dwelling creatures waving their arms in order to obtain prey. Eventually their arms turned into hollow boned, feathered structures that inherently knew the principles of aerodynamics required in order for flight to occur. I was asked to swallow this assumption by reasonably intelligent professors idiotic in order to obtain my degree. I don't know about them, but I was rather embarassed! There were many others as well, even more absurd. Science should not have to support itself with irrational hypotheses, however complex, if it cannot support it's theories with hard empirical evidence. In science, as in other matters, discretion is the better part of valor.

-- Dale Shumate (zardoz@space.com), December 17, 2000.

Once again, here are the questions:

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?

I made it.

2. Where did matter come from?

See answer #1.

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

The Florida legislature.

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

Palm Pilot.

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

3.6V Nickel-Metal Hydride battery.

6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?

See answer #1.

7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

My older sister's copy of "Our Bodies, Ourselves".

8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

Eve, silly. It worked for Cain & Abel.

9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? ...

Why, indeed! You're on to something here... I'll bring this up at the family christmas party when the food runs out.

10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

But if you break the letters up into line segments and re-assemble, you might get a few Chinese-looking letters. And if you employ a million monkeys to do that for a million years, you might get a short Chinese novella. Probably wouldn't get too many good reader reviews on Amazon, though.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), December 21, 2000.

Hilarious, bemused. Thanks.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), December 27, 2000.

You guys are rich, and talking about $250,000 reward for proof of God. I am a poor guy and can only think as high as $1. Send me $1 by paypal, and I will send you a scientific proof of God.

-- Jai Hakim (jaihakim@hotmail.com), April 06, 2002.

Quick thought- given what we know about mutations, tc. how could evolution not happen?

-- J Q U (28w@iels.com), April 08, 2002.

Mutations happen, and that is a fact. But small changes in the DNA leading to climbimg Mount Improbable as the scientist would lead you to beleive in his bookis is mathematically bullshit. The author probably has no mathematical training, of course I wont mention any names here.

My offer stands, $1 for scientific proof of God. Any body out there want to take me on. Money back guarranty.

-- Jai Hakim (Jhakim@hotmail.com), April 12, 2002.

ya ill pay 500 dollars for proof of god.

-- yur mom (ringy_99_2000@yahoo.com), April 17, 2002.

Dear Mom,

I dont want 500$, All I am asking is 1$ and I will send you the proof of GOD. Read my earlier message.

-- Jai hakim (jaihakim@hotmail.com), April 20, 2002.

All you people who believe in evolution believe in it because you have had it drilled into your heads from the day you started school. Because there are those very close-minded people who could not believe in God, they use evolution as their scape goat to not believing. Because of the fact that i don't have the time, im not going to give it to you, but their is more scientifical proof that the Bible is real than it is not, therefore if it's real than creation is too. Unfortunately, we teach in our schools from an atheist point of view as not to offend anyone, well that's just nice because it would be better not to offend anyone than to teach what is right and save people from hell. It takes more faith to believe that Jesus Christ is not saviour than it takes to believe. Stop turning blind eyes to everything that proves you wrong. Read the Bible and you'll get all the proof you need. And for all you who believe in the "Big Bang" theory, the likelyhood of that happening is about the same likely hood of throwing a bunch of old cars into a metal compressor and comming out with a new mercedes bens, get real. You will be saved through Jesus Christ alone.

-- God's Servant (cal_revolution@hotmail.com), September 30, 2002.

Ok man I get your point. Ok you are atheist right. God less. I have read your article. Unlike you who is paid to present a fallacy to the world. If you didn't defend it you would not have a job. I didn't go to college for 16 years either, but I did spent 16 years studying creation and reading the bible. I have endless quotes from scripture but I am sure you don't want to hear those, so I will not bore you with the details.

But there are interesting parallels to your words about If he sat down to dinner with me then I would follow Him. Yeah right, tell that to Lucifer or the Jews, they saw Him every day and still rejected Him. Adam and Eve also saw Him and rejected Him.

Albert Einstein believed in a higher power. But he couldn't admit to a personal God. He was very unhappy that he had admitted to it, but he did!!

You seem to be fitting into only one plan and that is Satan's. You seek to discredit God by making us cosmic accidents. You seek to do as you please, write your own Laws across your heart. What I say is not popular and thus shows you who is in control. This is the greatest soul destroying net every cast at the human population.

It just angers me that there is so much evidence to dispute your theories, yet you wouldn't get those big bucks if it was not the truth to you. So you appear to be well schooled, does not mean you are right.

We find proof of God and some among you destroy it. You call yourself learned men of the age, but what do others preach based on your evidence(science).

1. Do as you please. 2. You are your own god "within." 3. You can save yourself. 4. Worship yourself or man. 5. Physic readings abound. 6. Rather speak to dead, than to God.

Here is a "small" quote from the bible.

11: Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12: For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. 13: Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

I know you do not want to hear it, based on the fact I stand among a small minority of humans that seem to profess faith. I am by no means perfect, I am humble and very well educated even though my first email did not prove it. I have a strong conviction from the first picture, I saw, of an ape like man going from all fours to a two legged beast.

28: And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29: And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30: And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

Amongst those letters are an important phrase, "dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." That is what angers me, us as men have been given dominion over the entire earth, yet you seek to obtain your existence from things that creep on all fours. With not even an ounce of evidence you wildly proclaim your "paid" convictions, loudly declaring how you obtained life. Well if you want to obtain life though relating yourself to monkeys, and paychecks, than go right ahead. I can not believe anybody would take you serious. They do. Nature this and Nature that, as if nature can think.

Fine just say I choose not to follow God. Why do you need to give us a reason. 160 years of your endless babble does not make it right.

Why don't you let a bunch of monkeys life with you as family then. Are they stinky? Full of fleas. You probably wouldn't like it would you. Since you came from them, maybe Great grandma and Great grandma monkey can come for Christmas. You can pick fleas off each other, "on all fours." You can bow to the earth. I choose different. I see to muck design to dismiss as there by a cosmic accident.

5: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Are you a god knowing both good and evil? Are your eyes opened as you attempt to raise your throne above the stars of heaven. Are you eating of forbidden fruit?

-- C A V (verlch@earthlink.com), December 21, 2002.

Lets see, you think that science is a scape goat for religion, thats a joke. God is the original excuse, the first one ever created for anything unexplanable. Don't you think that god might be the scape goat. At least scientists are open minded enough to check out the posibilities. Science has changed many times and no one has any problem with that, is anyone ever going to write an upddated version of the bible? I think not. I didn't spend 16 years in college either, actually i have only spent seventeen living (thats right i'm only 17). I think that religion is ignorance. There are hundreds of religions out there and they all believe that they have it right. Everyone can't be right. It is very ignorant to believe that you have got it right and every other religion is wrong. Religion goes against logic and logic is the main reason humans have survived thousands of years.

-- Chris (vintinnerch@cvuhs.org), December 22, 2002.

The only evidence that could prove the ENTIRE theory would be to see a reptile lay a bird egg or have an ape give birth to a neanderthal. Evolution WITHIN a species is OBVIOUSLY true, as we see it around us everyday in viruses, bacteria, moths, frogs and even in ourselves.

Here's where people allow Darwin's Theory to fall short and they explain away the mystery as something that can't be proven because it happened in the past: Where did the first mammals come from? A bird egg? A dinosaur egg? Did the first baby shrew pop its head out of the birthing canal of a frog? or a whale maybe? And then that shrew was lucky enough to find another genetic freak with the EXACT same DNA, thereby allowing them to mate and carry forth their new genetic family?

I have done some searching (not made a life of it) and there is no logical explanation offered by anyone as to how new species just "appear" all at once, all over the globe in the fossil record, not gradually, and not necessarily arising due to the exisitence of a similar species in the same geographical area.

My own personal theory? Were we to actually witness the appearance of a new species, with cameras rolling and scientific instruments measuring every possible nuance, we probably still would not be able to explain how it appeared.

-- J.R. (jr@0-2u.com), February 23, 2003.

Where did this conversation go? Brian seems to be the only one talking about the question. I don't have proof but I'd like to see I believe's.

-- Matt Hogg (offsubject@rambling.on), February 26, 2003.