Messages From Eric Schreiber
21 - 40 of 120

Hehehe. What can I say the domain name I really wanted was already taken, and I'd just seen "The Usual Suspects". That, combined with my basic Star Trek Geek personality, overwhelmed me and I panicked when filling out the application. EEAS

Darwinism Inadequate.
People go insane all the time. That doesn't prove anything. Hell, I believe in "some sort of a god", but I also think evolution is the best bet based upon available evidence. It's rather handy not being tied to the absurd restrictions imposed by believing in a mainstream christian god. You'll assume whatever you want anyway, so why bother asking? At least as much so as the Newsweek quote is. EEAS

No god
Speaking for myself, it's not so much a case of "knowing" there is no god as it is a case of never seeing solid evidence of god's existence. If/when someone presents actual proof, let me know, and I'll be happy to adjust my views accordingly. EEAS

out t It seems a little in-elegant to me. With luck, some word-smith will fine tune it into a tagline, or at least endow it with rhythm. EEAS

David Raup
You're overlooking that Dr. Raup later went on to be one of the primary scientists that demonstrated now-generally accepted reason for the sudden major extinctions, namely, meteor strikes. Do some research on the K/T Boundary. More recent quotes from Dr. Raup... "Natural selection remains the only viable, naturalistic explanation we have for sophisticated adaptations like wings and eyes. We would not be here without natural selection." (David Raup "Extinction: Bad Genes or Bad Luck?" 1991) "Fossil preservation and the

Creation science
Creation science is based upon blind acceptance of biblical fiction, such as the great flood story. It spends a great deal of time twisting various facts to support the absurd flood story. This does happen with the theory of evolution. For example, until recently evolutionary scientists felt that only natural selection was involved in determining what species became extinct. However, more recently science has shown past mass extinctions to be the result of catastrohic meteor impact. This theory had been

Big Bang
If one accepts the Big Bang theory, in what way does that mean that there must be a creator? Cannot the universe simply spring into being without the help of a god? If god was necessary to create the infinite universe, something was necessary to create god. Who, do you suppose, did that? EEAS

Corrected religion
Say, just how many times has the bible been re-interpreted and edited? EEAS

Ken is Alanna?
That should be "I *couldn't* care less." The way you put it indicates that since you could care less, you do in fact care some. A personal pet peeve of mine. Like people saying "mute" point when it's actually "moot" point. EEAS

Flood vs meteor
There is a lot of evidence available for the meteor. Such as the crater it made when it hit near the Gulf coast. Meteor hits are common one need only look at the surface of Mars or the moon to see that. Or better, remember the comet that smashed into Jupiter a few years back. That was a spectacular demonstration of the forces involved. While weather has scoured away most visible craters on Earth, many can still be found.

Creation science
Here's one for you then: Archeologists have recently begun excavating the ancient sites of Sodom and Gomorrah. Neither show signs of the kind of reckoning outlined in the bible. Why? I hardly see how. You read this book, which covers events of 2000 or more years ago and you chose to accept it, just like that. Is it because you're incapable of being comfortable in a universe that isn't guided by some unseen higher purpose? Do you need to feel

Life by chance
Certainly the chance of life arising on any specific world is quite small. However, there are a staggering number of places available in the universe (one need only look at recent deep field pictures from the Hubble to be completely awed), each with that same miniscule chance. If the chance if life occuring on any given planet is one in a billion, but there are (to steal from Dr. Sagan) billions and billions of stars in each of billions of

Fossil Record
"Real evidence". Ah! Ok, then I put the same charge to you. This will be a simple and direct question, and I'm very interested in seeing if, and how, you answer it: "What is the real evidence for Creationism?" Please note: evidence "for" creationism, which doesn't mean that evidence which is simply against evolutionism is going to fit the bill. Also note "real" evidence, which means pointing to the bible as proof will be considered an inadequate response. I can

Cashless society
If I believed in God, this is one of those things I'd pray about. If we ever get a cashless society, it's going to be *far* too easy to track what the citizens are doing. EEAS

Much better EEAS

Flood vs meteor
Perhaps I wasn't clear. The fossil record doesn't show any *direct* indication of the fire (that I'm aware of), it merely has a higher incidence of die-off in land than aquatic animals at the time in question, which is the likely result of a continental firestorm. The firestorm covering North America was calculated (computer simulations are amazing tools) based upon the size and shape of the crater. Apparently the meteor that created the Yucatan crater didn't hit perpendicularly, but rather

Alleged descruction of Sodom
the of Really? And you do? Were you there? If not, then I have to conclude that your source of 'evidence' is a dusty old tome that's been continuously rewritten throughout the centuries. Meanwhile, archeologists are digging up old Sodom and finding none of the signs of destruction spoken of in the bible. EEAS

Water canopy? What the heck is that supposed to be? EEAS

Ark capacity
I did some research according to "The Diversity of Life" by Edward O. Wilson, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. 1992, this is the number of known species currently occupying the earth (they estimate rather a large number of species that are as yet undiscovered, but we'll stick to real numbers): Protozoa 30,800 Vascular (higher) plants 248,400 Algae 26,900 Fungi 69,000 Monera (bacteria similar forms) 4,800 Viruses 1,000 Insects 751,000 Mammals 4,000 Birds 9,000 Reptiles 6,300 Amphibians 4,200

Micro evolution
If you can accept that variation occurs within a kind, why can you not accept that enough varation can produce a new kind? Consider the color "blue". Add a little red to it, and you get a variation of the color blue. Add some more red, and some more. Eventually you get purple. Continue the variation with some more red, but now throw a little white in. You get lilac, then eventually pink. You arrived at pink by repeated variations