This letter may not be very well written because of being busy with Stephen’s family and having an awful sore throat—I apologize up front. One of the grandkids was sick last week, and now both Garry and I are under the weather. :( I even went to the doctor, which I almost never do.
And when did I admit that I was wrong about what entropy is?
As far as human civilization, just how is it becoming progressively more complicated over time? The great civilizations throughout history have been born and died, as would be expected. For example, the Roman empire became great then degenerated from within, making it more susceptible to conquering invasions. How does this not fit with entropy? Human nature has never changed over time—people have always related to each other in similar ways, being honest or dishonest, caring for family or not, reaching for power or not, marrying and having families or not, and so on. There is no sign of increasing complexity here. If you’re talking about scientific progress or technology, one might say that human civilization is more complicated—yet these things could not have occurred without outside intelligence—the new knowledge/technology didn’t appear by itself, but was the product of intelligent beings.
Where the heck did you get those articles and why in the world do you think they present a fossil in the wrong layer? Nothing in the articles said anything of the sort.Of course they didn’t say anything of the sort—they were written from an evolutionary perspective. (If I had given you sources written from a creationist perspective, you would have rejected them out of hand.) Each evolutionary scientist interpreted the evidence to make it fit the evolutionary position. For example, the smaller T-rex was found in a lower layer than expected. Rather than considering that this might indicate that the T-rex kind had always existed (from creation onward) and had exhibited almost no change over time other than body size, the scientist simply decided that this was an indication that T-rex had started evolving millions of years earlier. In the case of the simple creatures in the Burgess shale, the assumption (interpretation of evidence) was that while some of these creatures evolved into more complex creatures, some did not evolve at all, ending up with parallel lines over time, one line not changing at all and the other evolving over time.
Both you and Dawkins said that if a fossil were found in the wrong layer, it would be evidence against evolution. Yet there is apparently never a time when an evolutionist would actually consider a fossil to be in a wrong layer—evolutionary scientists always seem to have a reason why this or that fossil isn’t really where it shouldn’t be. What would it take to believe a fossil was in the wrong place?
you keep on saying that we are looking at the same evidence and coming up with different conclusions. I actually disagree with this. I believe you are NOT looking at the evidence for evolution. I believe that you are glancing at it, and then staring profoundly at the "evidence" that is given to you by creationists.The evidence is the direct data—the layers, the fossils, the measurements of K-Ar, amount of salt in the ocean, and so on. How are we not looking at the evidence and coming to different conclusions? For that matter, how are you not ‘glancing at it’ and then staring profoundly at the “evidence” that is given to you by evolutionists? I think we can agree on most of the direct data—where we differ is in the meaning/interpretation of that data.
the author of the genetic entropy book is not a well-respected anything. He never even got tenure at his university.Perhaps seeking tenure wasn’t a major goal for him—could be he was more interested in the practical/business end of genetics than in the academic end. According to Wikipedia, Sanford is a prolific inventor with more than 30 patents. At Cornell Sanford and colleagues developed the "Biolistic Particle Delivery System" or so-called "gene gun".[1][2] He is the co-inventor of the Pathogen-derived Resistance (PDR) process and the co-inventor of the genetic vaccination process. He was given the "Distinguished Inventor Award" by the Central New York Patent Law Association in 1990 and 1995. He has founded two biotechnology companies, Sanford Scientific and Biolistics. [And when he sold those companies, he was able to retire, although he continued at Cornell as an associate professor.]
Based on this it would be difficult to say that he isn’t well-respected.
Yes, smaller objects might find their way with a higher probability to the bottom of a bunch of mud, and objects that float would have the property of showing up more often in the upper layers of mud. This does not explain why only less and less complex structures are found in lower and lower strata. Giant trees are found in very low layers, suggesting giant trees have been around for about 400 million years, but the giant trees with complex structures are only found in the upper strata representing more recent evolutionary adaptations. On the other side of the scale, small plants are found throughout the strata, but as you travel further and further down you come across simpler leaves, simpler vascularization, simpler mechanisms of fertilization. That is profound evidence that evolution is real.Many of the less complex creatures live in or around water and would be the first to be affected by a major flood (such as Noah’s flood). The giant trees found in lower layers might easily have lived closer to water to begin with, while the more complex trees might easily have lived at higher elevations. What would you say if a complex tree were found in a lower layer (just as the smaller T-rex was found in a lower layer) than expected? Everything you said about the significance of giant trees vs more complex trees being in different layers is merely conjecture.
I read Dawkins’ ‘The Greatest Show on Earth’. Dawkins assumes Darwinian evolution to be a given, a fact rather a theory, then proceeds to interpret the evidence from a Darwinian perspective. Sometimes he ignores evidence which doesn’t fit. He insists that newly formed rock doesn’t contain Ar, even though data from a number of studies show otherwise. He states that fossils are formed in sedimentary rock which is gradually laid down on the floor of a sea or other body of water, and that “corpses trapped in the mud have a chance of fossilizing.” While it is true that fossils form in sedimentary rock, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the layers were gradually formed over long periods of time, and Dawkins doesn’t explain the conditions under which fossils are formed—how dead animals avoid rotting or being eaten by scavengers long enough to turn into fossils—does he really believe that a dead fish (or whatever organism) sinks to the bottom of a lake or river, then stays there for many years without decaying or being eaten, as the mud gradually covers it up so that it can turn into a fossil? And how does he account for the occasional patches of fossilized tree trunks having the bottom ends in one layer and the top in another? (I’m sure he’d provide some sort of answer by interpreting the data to fit his position.)
Okay, this is all I feel like writing right now. Hopefully, this sore throat will go away soon...
Susan
No comments:
Post a Comment