Wow, I hardly even know where to start. This is definitely something I cannot dash off during my lunch break… apologies before I start—I am cutting and pasting this to and from MSWord.
>This debate is not a Religion vs. Science debate,
Nope, never said it was. It is a Science vs. Bad Science debate. I happen to be a member in good standing of my Church, not that that has anything to do with biology.
>mainly because evolution is not science. It will be much better to be titles a Evolution vs. >Science debate. Anyway, I belive in the creation my main reason for this is evolution has >been disproven so many times, by both scientific law and common sense.
Love to hear some. Go on please.
>First let me start with a man named Louis Pasteur, in the 19th century he proved >spontaneous generation was impossible, This resulted in the scientific law of Biogenesis >stating that living thins can only come from other living things. It is impossible for >nonliving substances to change into even simple living things.
Yes, he showed that UNDER PRESENT EARTHLY CONDITIONS nothing as complex as a bacterium or a mold will Spontaneously Generate. This is irrelevant to the question whether in a pre-biotic environment a self-replicating chemical reaction could arise.
>Pasteur was praised for his discovery, and his work was hailed as a triumph of reason and >experimentation over superstition. But even after that evolutionist, formed a new term for >spontaneous generation called “abiogenesis”. Though it has a new name its the same idea >of living things coming from nonliving substances. Eugene H. Cordes and Riley Schaeffer >In their book Chemistry (New York: Harper and Row, 1972, p. 529) states " … an act of >Spontaneous Generation must have occured".
The idea that the conditions on the Earth have changed a little from the pre-biotic world to the present one hasn’t occurred to you, eh?
>In one second we are told that spontaneous generation is impossible and then we are told >that , since life had to occur somewhere and god is ruled out, spontaneous generation >must have occured dispite the evidence to the contrary. Experiments have been >performed which attempted to reproduce abiogenesis(also called chemical evolution), all >of which failed. No living matter has ever been produced from nonliving substances in the >laboratory.
For the past fifty years or so chemists have been producing ever more complex organic chemicals from more simple chemicals. It is not unreasonable to extrapolate from what they have been able to produce with a gallon of mix and a few weeks to what could be produced with an ocean of mix and a few millennia.
>Some philosophers of science think that science is in danger because it is leaving its roots >and returning to superstition.
In my humble opinion, philosophy is mental masturbation.
>Now lets look at Charles Darwin and his book Origin of species by natural selection. >Darwins idea of "survival of the fittest shows his inability to reason clearly. One of his chief >quarrels with the bible stemmed from his misunderstanding of gods justice ,holiness, and >love. He said that the God of the bible was a cruel tyrant because he allowed people to >suffer. Alot of people think of god as a loving person with a long beard who wouldnt let >anyone good get hurt, well if you read the bible you know Gods ways are mysteries to us >and to try to understand them is like a ant trying to understand the concept of human >thought. If he gave us what we really deserve , none of us will be here.
Irrelevant, and inaccurate.
>But back to Darwin, His quarrel with the bible was that God allowed people to suffer, so he >was cruel. But darwin’s survival of the fittest idea is perhaps the cruelest idea that any >man has imagined. According to it animals struggled against each other in order to survive >as a species, and only the “fittest”- the ones with superior adaptations- survived.(scientist >have since found that the fittest are not the ones most likely to survie and that variations >within species serve to conserve species and keep them from changing rather than to >make new kinds of things)
Natural selection works by eliminating the less fit. No one ever said that only the “fittest” could survive, most creatures get along just fine. Remember, “fitness” is relevant to the creature’s immediate environment, and so long as the environment does not change natural selection acts as a conservative force. Populations at the edges of a species’ range are subjected to the greatest amount of selective pressure (the edge of the range is, of course, where the species’ adaptations become less “fit” to their environment). These peripheral populations are the ones most likely to “make a new kind of thing” as you put it, although its been a good half a billion years since there’s been anything new under the sun, biology-wise.
>One of the great writers on scientific though in that day was William Whewell, professor of >science and college master of Trinity College, a part of Cambridge, and author of History >of Inductive Sciences. His analysis of Darwin’s work was so sharp that he would not even >allow the book in the college library.
Not familiar with him, but I will look him up. I must warn you; however, the opinions of men from a hundred and fifty years ago do not carry much weight with me.
>Many others disagreed with Darwin, even his former teacher and evolutionist himself >Adem Sedgwick, denounced natural selection as “a dish of rank materialism cleverly >cooked and served up merely to make us independent of a creator.” Two of the world >greatest physicist, James Clerk Maxwell and Lord Kelvin, strongly opposed Darwinism and >developed mathematical refutations of evolution.
See above. And Lord Kelvin’s most familiar “anti-evolution” estimate was his Age of the Earth calculation, which as you know is faulty because he was not aware of radioactivity when he made it.
>Ok lets look a the mathematical analogy. Say we take a billion monkeys, and sit them >infront of a type writer(or computer, take your pick) and have people to keep the paper >and typewriter reels going, how long do you think it will take for the monkeys to type the >simple bible verse, “In the beginning god created the heaven and the earth.” This problem >is much simpler evolution problem. in the first year the monkeys will have used up enough >paper to go to the moon and back several times, but not come anywhere close to typing >the Genesis 1:1. According to mathematicians using the laws of probability, the billion >monkeys will have to pound on their typewriters for >120,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,>000 years. Even then there is no garuntee they will type the verse, so it certainly could no >have happened with in the 30 billion year time frame evolutionist propose.
Argument from faulty probability. Your assumption is that there is only ONE correct thing for the monkeys to type. Besides, you are greatly overstating the odds against he monkeys typing Genesis 1:1. Given 54 characters in that line as you typed it (including spaces) and 88 possible keys the monkeys could hit (including upper and lower case), with one hit per monkey per second. I come up with it being pretty certain that one of your billion monkeys hit that phrase within sixty hours. You say, “This problem is much simpler evolution problem.”(sic) I disagree. The “evolution problem” is simpler because chemistry follows certain laws, whereas your hypothetical monkeys work completely randomly. (I also assume that the monkeys will type it correctly, capitalizing God, as you did not.)
>Now lets go on to more evidence, The earths magnetic field ,
The Earth’s magnetic field is a generated by a reversing dynamo, the evidence for which is well preserved in the ocean floor.
>the absence of meteoritic dust accumulations on earth,
That’s supposed to be on the Moon, and the amount of dust is completely consistent with the measured rate of influx, although the ESTIMAT
