From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: White skin-how did it develop?
Date: 26 Aug 92 14:03:46 GMT
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA

In article <1992Aug26.085456.2032@cco.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
>
>>Why are you limiting the development to the last 10 000 years (where
>>in the bible does it say that) and why do you assume that the billions
>>of years of existence of this universe is sufficient time for life to
>>evolve to its current state?  Although many "interpretations" of the
>>Bible or other creation stories suggest that the development time was
>>much shorter, its quite clear that there has been life here much
>>longer (of course, it was also quite clear that the Earth is flat).
>>I'm also not convinced that this universe has been in existence
>>sufficient time to evolve to this state on it's own.  Perhaps there
>>was some help by someone from outside this universe to bring about
>>life during those billions of years.
>
>In the Bible, there is a list of many begats, etc., that lead one to believe
>that if "Adam and Eve" existed at "day 1" then the Earth would be under 10k
>years old.
>

Your missing the point, the Bible does not tell us where Adam's body
came from.  It may well have been "evolved" to that point before his
time during those billions of years.

>Why do I assume that a billion years is long enough for the evolution of
>life to its current state?  Well, we have fossil records that show the 
>path of "evolution" through much of the Earth's history.  If it happened,
>then there must have been enough time, right?  I don't know what drives the
>timescale of evolution.  Does it take catastrophic events to force a species
>to "change" (ie the ones that die don't lend their genes to the next
>generation)?
>

The fossils do not show gradual transitions that demonstrate to me
that "evolution" was undirected.  The theory of evolution seems to
explain how life got the current state, but it is a little sketchy.

>
>Anyway, I suppose I cite the anthropic principle.  If all of the evidence
>points to the fact that humans evolved within the last 15 billion years or
>so, then this time period must have been long enough to allow this to happen.
>It is all really simple, or am I missing something here?
>

Again, all the evidence is sketchy.  Much extrapolation and
interpolation went into the evolution theory.

>
>What do you mean by "someone outside this universe"?
>

God.

>
>You feel that without outside intelligent intervention, the universe could
>not have evolved to its present state?  Where is the hitch?  That is, what link
>do you think is unbelievable?
>

I certainly do.  I see no believable "proof" that it has.  Try
reconstructing every minute of the past year with only one day's worth
of information in five minute increments spread out over the year.
Your theory of the past year will fit the data samples but may not
explain the actual path you took to get to today.  Now try that for
someone you meet today and you may see what I mean.

The point of my observations and comments is to say that the theory of
"evolution" does not eliminate the possibility of a God and that the
probability of success is greatly increased by having an outside
influence.  Look at the experiments being conducted to "prove"
evolution.  They are outside influenced to produce any of their
successes.  They strongly suggest that life can be evolved if someone
insures perfect conditions.  I find it hard to believe that
"evolution" occurred without assistance from the evidence provided by
those who do.
-- 
Good-day!

Mark