From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: evolution
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 15:06:56 GMT


   REQUEST: if ANYONE on FidoNet sees this could they mail me?  I'm
beginning to suspect the gateway to my News system is one way...

In article <40762.2B609906@puddle.fidonet.org>,
Jessie.Bailey@p0.f14.n346.z1.fidonet.org (Jessie Bailey) writes:
> To all...
>  
> Hi.  My name is Jessie Bailey.  I have sent a variety of messages
> on this system, and today I would like to talk about my views on
> evolution.  First of all, I would like to define to you MY
> definition of evolution--the continuous change and adaption
> throughout the existence of this planet.  This definition, I
> believe!  However, I do not believe in DARWIN's theory of
> evolution. I have heard enough facts on this theory to prove to
> myself that it is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, untrue.

   That isn't possible.  The set of facts available to one and all
prove to about a shadow of a doubt that it is true.  I suspect that
you have been lied to by people you should have been able to trust.
Most of the "facts" floating around that tend to impeach the modern
version of Darwin's theory are religious propaganda having nothing
at all to do with fact or science (or Darwin's theory for that 
matter).

>  I am a
> believer in God, and I truly believe that he is our creator.  Many
> people do not believe in God simply because not EVERYTHING about
> our God can be explained by humans or "proved".  But it has been
> proved that humans only use between 10 and 20 percent of their
> brain.

   This is false.  You statement is what is called an "Urban Legend" 
a story that somehow got loose.  Since we don't understand terribly 
well how the brain functions it is 100% impossible to make a statement 
of the form "some fraction of the brain has been prooved to be
used or not used".

>  Isn't possible that we aren't "smart" enough to know an be
> able to explain EVERYTHING?  Then there are those who do not
> believe in God because they say that the Bible is contradictory to
> things that we as humans have proved (or almost proved).  For
> example, researchers are able to estimate the age of our earth at
> approximately 5 billion years old, however the Bible explains that
> God created the earth much more recent than that.  Well, God
> created Adam and Eve, and he created them as adults--not as
> children, so isn't possible that he also created the earth aged?

   Finish the thought; what is the difference between a five billion
year old world and a world that God created to be five billion years
old?  If the only difference is in the Bible then God is forcing us 
to choose between the reason He gave us and the Bible.  Given that
almost no-one believes the Bible to be literally true this means God
created us so that more than 99% of us would damn ourselves by thinking
with the brains He made?  Unlikely.  It is far more likely that the
timescale given in Gensis is the best that the guys that jotted it 
down could do.  They has no notion of 1,000,000,000 years; how do you 
expect them to write things down. 

> Just a thought.  You see, my belief is that human beings cannot
> explain everything.  I feel that there are some things that will
> just never be explained, until one day when we die, and God feels
> us with the knowledge that we all hunger for. 

   *sigh*  How do you tell the difference?  When do you give up?

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU