Comments Posted By John M. Burt
Displaying 1 To 2 Of 2 Comments


My strongest objection to creationism, though, is the wayit depends on blind, random chance.

"Tom, why do all vertebrates have four limbs (or vestigial remnants of them)?"

"No reason. God just happened to make them that way."

"Tom, why do all mammals have seven neckbones, from the seven tiny bones of a pygmy shrew to the seven elongated bones of a giraffe? Why never five or nine?"


"Tom, why do gorillas and humans have allof the same blood types?"


And so on.

Sorry, I look at the world around me and just can't accept the idea that the world just exists any old way. There must be some set of principles that can explain the unfolding events of this complex, yet seamlessly unified world. We could call it, I

Comment Posted By John M. Burt On 13.08.2006 @ 16:35

tom, I notice that you never did define the Cambrian Explosion, suggestign that andy's charge that you don't actually know what it is has merit.

By the wat: the reason steel does not evolve is because it has no DNA, and nothing to serve in its place, and does not engage in any form of reproduction. The same answer holds true for all other forms of inanimate matter. If nanotechnology ever produces steel girders that reproduce (especially if they clatter around in yards engaging in sexual reproduction), I would expect them to undergo evolution, possibly with very interesting results.

Also: it's a small but significant point that Darwin's little book was not titled "Origin of the Species" but "On the Origin of Species".

You're right that both Hitler and Stalin invoked evolution to justify their policies. If you read a little further, you will realize that neither of them understood evolution any better than you did (which is why Stalin was taken in by the charlatan Lysenko, and Hitler by the charlatan Mengele). If only evolution had been better taught and better explained to lay persons, honest people would not have been fooled by the sophistries of the tyrants.

No, tom, not everything is a mutation. But a mutation is, in fact, a mutation. It seems as though your arguments are morphing to evade each new fact.

What really continues to puzzle me is why people like tom think biology is a threat to God. Most Christians don't have a problem with evolution, so what's with tom?

I think there's a real possibility that creationism is a tool of Satan. Really, just picture a demon whispering in tom's ear, "If dogs are related to coyotes, then there is no God!" The absurdity of the non sequitur, when bluntly stated, just reeks of the illogic and disordered thinking typical of the fallen angels.

Comment Posted By John M. Burt On 13.08.2006 @ 16:23



Pages (1) : [1]

«« Back To Stats Page