re: Noah's ark (Gareth)

Aubrey Matthews (paubrey@CASTLES.COM)
Thu, 16 Jan 1997 11:16:37 -0800

Gareth wrote:
What sort of explanation can I give that you will listen to?
>
>You presumably want me to describe the process molecule by molecule
>or something, right? Well, *of course* I can't do that: just as you
>can't explain exactly what was in the mind of God as he was creating
>Adam, or exactly how he went about forming Eve out of one of his
>bones. This doesn't mean that evolution is wrong, any more than
>your inability to describe the details of the formation of Eve
>makes creationism wrong.
>
>However, all this "at the right location" stuff is exactly what
>evolution is good at explaining. Once you have a species that has
>an eye-like thing with a lens, and a little bit of genetic variation
>in where the lens is, how big it is, how transparent it is, and
>so on, natural selection will do a very good job of selecting the
>most successful designs.
>
>The eye doesn't need to "know" anything for all this.

I am listening. But I keep getting the time element thing and natural
selection of Darwin without any real clue as to how the eye was constructed.
Given the time element, how many times during the trial and error phase that
natural selection decided the eyes had to be in the front of our faces and
not in the back? Is there anything in the record books to show the trial and
error phase as to where the eyes, ears, and nose were to be placed on the
face. I am not talking about a flounder or Halibut either. Could you imagine
the eyes of people on top of their heads? Nope. Bkut someone had it right
the first time. I hear people claim that the conditions for life billions of
years ago created life in the first place. But scientist will agree that it
happened only once. Why? The conditions for the creation life is even better
today then back in those days, yet we do not see any new life being created.
Why? Lightning still strikes the oceans and all of the elements, plus more,
that scientist say, were needed for life to form, are still there yet no new
life is being created as we speak. Why? New life forms are continuely being
discovered but not created. Just recently, scientist discovered a new type
of life form but they didn't say it was created yesterday. A shark that was
captured of Hawaii, known as "Mega-mouth" was unknown before the 70's. The
caelacath, (hope I spelled it right) was thought to be extinct for millions
of years but one was capture and was found to be totally unchanged through
all of those years. A black-eye for Darwin. Now scientist lost for words to
explain a recent discovery of Homo Erectus fossiles in the Pacific, that
they found existed at a time it shouldn't have and by the fact, it didn't
undergo the evolution change they thought should have happened. So you see,
I am opened-minded about a lot of things but when you have questions such as
these, then I just sit back and wonder. Man says life started by this and
that, and when he creates the conditions of "this and that" for life to form
as he says if should, nothing happens. He can created the conditions for
life to form but that is not creating life. I can create the same conditions
by spilling my noodle soup on the floor and leaving it there for a month.
Aubrey

====================================================================
For help, send a message to errancy-request@infidels.org with the word
"help" in the subject or body of your message. To unsubscribe from
ERRANCY, send a message to errancy-request@infidels.org with the word
"unsubscribe" in the subject or body of your message.