Was Water but Now Anti Evolution

May 16, 2004

Dear Elliot,

What you write speaks volumns in what it implies but does not say. If one is

anti-evolution that usually implies creation, but since the group has a no

discussion of religion policy and the message could be viewed as technically not

about religion but implies that if the idea of evolution is wrong then it must

have been created by someone or something.

I do think that the origins of the world are a little outside the scope of this

group. But be that as it may, lets just deal with what is in your message.

" " evolution " of human beings is about as impossible....as some of today's best

scientists, can imagine. "

I may be jumping to conclusions here, but I suspect that I know where you are

coming from. You chose to write about this one point when that very long article

was about " water " .

I have read some of what the christian religious right have tried to pass off as

scientific studies to support a strictly literal interpretation of the christian

bible as to events happening exactly as described and no use of stories to

represent larger ideas etc.

To be frank, I found them ridiculous in their attempts to make religion as valid

by trying to use scientific proofs. It that were possible it would have been

done long ago by better minds than are trying to do it now. It has usually fell

within the study of religion itself or philosophy but what makes religion

religion is that it isn't scientific but religion is really a personal

subjective belief system.

What I found was that most of their scientific evidence was worse than most

polarized one sided junk science out there. I never found any great scientific

minds at work there. Or to be more accurate hardly any scientific minds at work

there at all. What I found was a clumsy attempt to convert me to their

subjective viewpoint with scientific mumbo jumbo. They started out with a

preconcieved idea and tried to cobble together things that sounded good and

sounded somewhat " scientific " . I am not putting down the Christian religion and

feel in no way capable of judging it's validity for anyone else or not, but this

so called " science " of it. The religious right feels threatened by " evolution "

and so they are going to " prove " their point by " science " . What they will in the

end is probably make themselves look ridiculous. Why do we have to keep reliving

the Scopes Monkey Trial.

It may be my personal opinion that somehow all creation came into being in

whatever way by some divine creator's desire and wishes or that it took some

other form , but to extrapolate that to say that " computes " in any scientific

sense is beyond my abilty to delude myself. Most of the worlds religions have

much literature showing their beliefs and why they believe as they do, but

science is usually not a part of them. It has been tried a few times by various

proponents using formal logic etc. before but has not held up well over time.

I believe that all have to make up their own mind about such things and in the

final analysis, that is all it can ever be. It is what we as humans need to have

to carry on or make some sense out of it all sometimes. A lot of what we believe

just happens to coincidently be similar to the society of which we were raised.

We don't usually look too far to find our truths in the realm of supernatural

beliefs. The Buddhists, Hindus, Zorasters, Jews, Christian Scientists, etc., and

many others feel that they have the truth also even though their stories may be

different.

Well, after probably offending over half of the group, just let me say that I am

not here to knock religion. I think that it is a very personal area. This group

isn't the place for it and in closing I will just say, I will respect your

superstitions if you will respect mine.

respectfully,

Frank

JoAnn,

I loved the post, and I need a drink of water even as I write this.

There is one thing I would like to point out, though, and that is

that the " evolution " of human beings is about as impossible as

anything I or some of today's best scientists, can imagine.

Today it is known by mainstream scientists that what is happening

inside even the " simplest " bacterium is more than what is going on in

the city of Los Angeles during rush hour.

It is further known that for even the simplest bacterium to have

evolved, it would have taken more years than scientists believe the

universe is old.

And for human beings to evolve---critters with umpteen numbers of

interconnected, interdependent systems---no way in the world, nor in

the universe.

It simply does not compute.

Best wishes,

Elliot

, JoAnn Guest

<angelprincessjo> wrote:

> W A T E R

> - Tim O'Shea

> www.thedoctorwithin.com

>

> In This Chapter:

>

May 16, 2004

My 2 cents on this--I did some reading online about evolution last

year and came away with the understanding that scientists have a lot

of information that doesn't fit neatly into the current theories. (I

also learned that there are several theories of evolution, not just

one.) In that context, Elliot's comment makes sense in the realm of

science and does not have to be taken as religious. Although I won't

try to put forth ideas in your name, Elliot.

I like to think of the concept of evolution as " state of the art " --in

other words, the best conceptual tool that science has to offer at

this point. Science continues to grow and to modify and fine tune its

tools. Who knows? There could be a breakthrough tomorrow that makes

the concept of evolution seem simplistic and uninformed.

Catherine

, Frank

<califpacific> wrote:

> Dear Elliot,

>

> What you write speaks volumns in what it implies but does not say.

If one is anti-evolution that usually implies creation, but since the

group has a no discussion of religion policy and the message could be

viewed as technically not about religion but implies that if the idea

of evolution is wrong then it must have been created by someone or

something.

>

> I do think that the origins of the world are a little outside the

scope of this group. But be that as it may, lets just deal with what

is in your message.

>

> " " evolution " of human beings is about as impossible....as some of

today's best scientists, can imagine. "

>

> I may be jumping to conclusions here, but I suspect that I know

where you are coming from. You chose to write about this one point

when that very long article was about " water " .

>

> I have read some of what the christian religious right have tried

to pass off as scientific studies to support a strictly literal

interpretation of the christian bible as to events happening exactly

as described and no use of stories to represent larger ideas etc.

>

> To be frank, I found them ridiculous in their attempts to make

religion as valid by trying to use scientific proofs. It that were

possible it would have been done long ago by better minds than are

trying to do it now. It has usually fell within the study of religion

itself or philosophy but what makes religion religion is that it

isn't scientific but religion is really a personal subjective belief

system.

>

> What I found was that most of their scientific evidence was worse

than most polarized one sided junk science out there. I never found

any great scientific minds at work there. Or to be more accurate

hardly any scientific minds at work there at all. What I found was a

clumsy attempt to convert me to their subjective viewpoint with

scientific mumbo jumbo. They started out with a preconcieved idea and

tried to cobble together things that sounded good and sounded

somewhat " scientific " . I am not putting down the Christian religion

and feel in no way capable of judging it's validity for anyone else

or not, but this so called " science " of it. The religious right feels

threatened by " evolution " and so they are going to " prove " their

point by " science " . What they will in the end is probably make

themselves look ridiculous. Why do we have to keep reliving the

Scopes Monkey Trial.

>

> It may be my personal opinion that somehow all creation came into

being in whatever way by some divine creator's desire and wishes or

that it took some other form , but to extrapolate that to say

that " computes " in any scientific sense is beyond my abilty to delude

myself. Most of the worlds religions have much literature showing

their beliefs and why they believe as they do, but science is usually

not a part of them. It has been tried a few times by various

proponents using formal logic etc. before but has not held up well

over time.

>

> I believe that all have to make up their own mind about such things

and in the final analysis, that is all it can ever be. It is what we

as humans need to have to carry on or make some sense out of it all

sometimes. A lot of what we believe just happens to coincidently be

similar to the society of which we were raised. We don't usually look

too far to find our truths in the realm of supernatural beliefs. The

Buddhists, Hindus, Zorasters, Jews, Christian Scientists, etc., and

many others feel that they have the truth also even though their

stories may be different.

>

> Well, after probably offending over half of the group, just let me

say that I am not here to knock religion. I think that it is a very

personal area. This group isn't the place for it and in closing I

will just say, I will respect your superstitions if you will respect

mine.

>

> respectfully,

>

> Frank

>

> JoAnn,

>

> I loved the post, and I need a drink of water even as I write this.

> There is one thing I would like to point out, though, and that is

> that the " evolution " of human beings is about as impossible as

> anything I or some of today's best scientists, can imagine.

>

> Today it is known by mainstream scientists that what is happening

> inside even the " simplest " bacterium is more than what is going on

in

> the city of Los Angeles during rush hour.

>

> It is further known that for even the simplest bacterium to have

> evolved, it would have taken more years than scientists believe the

> universe is old.

>

> And for human beings to evolve---critters with umpteen numbers of

> interconnected, interdependent systems---no way in the world, nor

in

> the universe.

>

> It simply does not compute.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Elliot

>

> , JoAnn Guest

> <angelprincessjo> wrote:

> > W A T E R

> > - Tim O'Shea

> > www.thedoctorwithin.com

> >

> > In This Chapter:

> >

>

May 16, 2004

Hi, Frank.

Yes, what I said might seem to imply a creator. And I believe you

have a valid point that " creation science " can leave much to be

desired.

However, religion completely aside, it is simply ridiculous to

suppose that human beings evolved.

Can a scientist who will never buy a lottery ticket because he knows

that his chances of winning will always be 1 out of several millions

really believe in the chances of something like the evolution of

human beings?

Frank, I do not at all have to follow up such an argument by

saying, " If not science, then........ "

I can just say that it is inconceivable that the organ of the human

eye could have evolved; it is inconceivable that human skin could

have evolved; it is inconceivable that the human brain could have

evolved; it is inconceivable that the human circulatory system could

have evolved, etc, etc, etc.

And then finally, it is inconceivable that ALL those systems could

have evolved to work in conjunction with each other. The odds of such

a thing " just happening " are incalculable because one would have to

start over from " 0 " so many times.

Again, it simply does not compute.

One does not have to bother with " creation science " to admit that

evolution is incredible.