I probably shouldn't be adding fuel to this argument. And what a
shame, since BillyJack started off with such a promising introduction.
BillyJack6 at aol.com wrote:
>Evolution Model: What we observe today is the result of chance events
>and long periods of time. There is no design and thus no designer
>behind anything in the Universe.
Actually evolution itself can be considered "intelligent". That is, a
set of chance events and time can produce a system that is
"intelligent", like humans. Humans controlling molecular evolution is
one such example. So the evolution model says humans arose by a
certain stochastic process. But Dolly the sheep did NOT (entirely)
arise by that process.
>THE TOP TEN REASONS THE CREATION MODEL IS A BETTER EXPLANATION FOR THE
>ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE AND THE CURRENT STATE OF THE UNIVERSE THAN THE
I am sorry, but all you're sort of saying in the top ten reasons is
that the evolution model isn't perfect (which everyone I know
accepts). It says nothing about the creation model. It is this sort
of disingenuity that bothers people who are into reason. I am not
going to dissect each of your reasons, but keep in mind a single iota
of proof or logic wasn't presented here.
>conclusion that these complex systems are result of an intelligent
>designer requires much less faith than the idea it arose by time and
This is your argument?
> I have read a lot of evolutionist literature, and I have never seen
>an explanation of how complex organs & systems evolved. THINK! How
>could something like human reproduction have evolved? How did half
>the population evolve male systems, and the other half evolve female
>systems that work together so precisely and in such incredible
>complexity to produce a baby?
THINK! Have you ever done a simulation of complex systems?
> Look at your computer. Suppose I tried to convince you that a
>glass factory, a plastic factory, a metal factory, a paint factory,
>and a silicon factory all exploded, started on fired and mixed
>together. The result of this explosion, chemical reaction and time
>was your computer. You would never believe it. Your intellect and
>logic would cause you to passionately deny an explanation that an
>explosion and mixing of chemicals and time could ever produce
>something as functional and orderly like a computer.
So what did create the computer? Humans. How did they do it? In
primitive evolution (i.e., molecular objects found 2-3 billion years
ago), there is so much more sophistication than what is there in the
tools required to build a computer. You're forgetting incremental
steps. Some of these steps can be repeated by people. You're the one
not thinking. Take your scenario and add that for each part put
correctly, the half-finished computer would be the only thing you
could put a part on.
Ah screw this! I am wasting my time. Creationists (who generally I
see as Christians) are gasping their dying breaths. BTW, even if a god
existed, that god is a despot. Rather than waste my time arguing
against you, I've just decided to teach the concepts of evolution to
the children I work with. They can decide for themselves whether to
believe me or not. I think you're a lost cause.
me at ram.org || http://www.ram.org || http://www.twisted-helices.com/th
Your shadow, the white one, who you cannot accept and who will never
forget you --- Rolf Jacobson