I can draw several points on the blackboard and connect them any way I want.
The critical question is, do we have enough points to connect most of the
points by a continuos curve? It seems that the evolution of man from lower
forms would indicate an increase in information---more info is required to
describe a man than a bacteria. When a physicist says he has a mechanism that
describes a given physical process, what he means is that he has a
mathematical theory whose logical consequence is that particular result. I
must be honest and say that I do not really know what you mean by a mechanism
that couses evolution--expect mere words. A more honest statement is that
evolution happens but we do not know how. Moorad
>===== Original Message From "Stephen J. Krogh" <email@example.com>
>Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a
>population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also
>refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The
>evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is
>so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution
>describes the mechanisms that cause evolution.
>Stephen J. Krogh, P.G.
>The PanTerra Group
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On
>> Behalf Of Walter Hicks
>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2001 5:16 PM
>> To: george murphy; asa
>> Subject: Re: What is "special creation"?
>> Hello all,
>> This is my first attempt to email ASA. Excuse me if I do it
>> After reading several posts, I still have the same question as I did a
>> number of years ago. They are :
>> 1.) Exactly what is the "fact" of evolution (precisely stated)?
>> 2.) Exactly what is the "theory of evolution" (precisely stated)?
>> Everything that I read is so soft and fleshy that one might argue
>> forever because the terrain shifts back and forth like the desert in El
>> Paso during a windstorm. People like to cite "Darwin's theory" but I am
>> yet to see a precise, scientific of that -- which would be acceptable
>> today and yet true to Darwin's Theory..
>> "Creation science" has the advantage of being more specific. Perhaps
>> that is why it is so easy to tear apart.
>> george murphy wrote:
>> > "Howard J. Van Till" wrote:
>> >> The term "special creation" is familiar to most of us on the list.
>> >> But I've
>> >> often wondered about the word "special" in this context. In most
>> >> other
>> >> circumstances, "special" is contrasted to "ordinary." In this case,
>> >> however,
>> >> that seems rather odd. Are we to think of two categories of divine
>> >> creative
>> >> activity, one "special" and the other merely "ordinary"?
>> Walt Hicks <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> In any consistent theory, there must
>> exist true but not provable statements.
>> (Godel's Theorem)
>> You can only find the truth with logic
>> If you have already found the truth
>> without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 08 2001 - 15:54:42 EST