Messages From Eric Schreiber
81 - 100 of 120

Black hole proof
From: http://pao.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/discovery/discover.htm "Astronomers using the Goddard-managed Hubble Space Telescope (HST) confirmed for the first time in 1994 the existence of a supermassive black hole. The discovery ended a long search for definitive proof of the astronomical phenomenon and validated the existence of gravitationally collapsed objects predicted by Albert Einstein. The concept of a black hole is based on mathematical calculations and theory. The theory held that a massive collapsing object such as a star or group of stars would become

Cruel selection
The concept of cruelty is an invention of humans it is irrelevant to nature. The jaws of a wolf closing on a rabbit seem cruel to us; the gasping of fish in an evaporating pool of muddy water also seems cruel. But that is the way of things the wolf isn't being cruel, it's merely being a wolf. The weather isn't being cruel, it merely isn't raining. "Ethics" is also a human invention, and just as irrelevant to

Red Sea parting
I'd be very interested in some credible, non-biblical historical references that discuss the "fact" of the parting of the Red Sea. Can you supply any? EEAS eric@kobayashi.com http://www.kobayashi.com/maru/

Faulty genes
Ok, let's assume that God created two people (Adam and Eve) from which all humanity is descended. For these subsequent generations to have enjoyed 'safe' breeding, i.e. breeding with no chance of birth defects, they would, as you rightly point out, have had to have perfect, fault-free genes. So where did all these defective, imperfect genes come from? EEAS eric@kobayashi.com http://www.kobayashi.com/maru/

Faulty genes
Phew. Ouch. In that case, my (as yet theoretical) offspring are in big trouble. EEAS eric@kobayashi.com http://www.kobayashi.com/maru/

The "Face on Mars"
I have several suggestions for Gerson. However, just this once I'm going to practice restraint, just to see what that feels like. I just hope I don't frigging explode. EEAS eric@kobayashi.com http://www.kobayashi.com/maru/

Cruel Selection.
Your lack of ability to comprehend what I wrote in no way lessens the validity of my statements. I never claimed cruelty was natural You quoted someone as saying that natural selection was cruel, as an argument against the concept of evolution. I simply explained that nature is not and cannot be cruel, as the entire concept of cruelty is a human invention; it simply doesn't apply to the world of nature. I thought it was a pretty easy

Faulty Genes.
Interesting. You maintain that the original people (Adam and Eve) were perfect, and you also state that natural selection eliminates faulty forms. How is it that we have so many faulty genes now? 1500 genetic defects is an amazing amount to have accumulated in the generations since Adam was created, when a natural mechanism is at work to eliminate these faults. It's even more amazing when you consider that if one accepts that Adam and Eve were actually created

Faulty Genes.
You spelled my name wrong. Again. Does your <R>eply command not automatically fill in the recipients name? Another leap of unsupportable logic. No, that's not at all what I mean. That I find a fact interesting doesn't mean I'm not already aware of it there's a great deal which I know *and* still find interesting. In this case, however, what I found interesting is that *you* would state this. I understood this perfectly. And you've missed my point. If

Improbable
While any given event is statistically improbable, that *some* event would occur is an absolute certainty. Had the events that led to intelligent human life not occured, we wouldn't be here to debate. By chance, however, these events did occur, so here we are. Take a room of 367 people. The chance that any particular two of them share a birthday is relatively small. The chance that some pair of them will share a birthday is 100%. I occasionally buy

Guinea worms
I wonder if he's not so much concerned with intelligent design as malevolent design. EEAS eric@kobayashi.com http://www.kobayashi.com/maru/

Faulty Genes.
Ahem. Name spelling again. I'm forced to consider that you're doing it on purpose for some reason. The February 1998 issue of Discover has an excellent article about the plasticity of the human body, and how your above comments apply to gross physical characteristics, such as height. I've only given it a quick skimming so far, but it discusses the cumulative effect of environment on succesive generations. I'll certainly agree that the various chemicals that we dump are having an

Race
Jews are not a race any more than Christians are. You've learned a new word! Imagine your joy when you learn what it means. EEAS eric@kobayashi.com http://www.kobayashi.com/maru/

Rely
Well, he is, after all, relying on the Bible in the first place, to such an extent that one is forced to suspect he doesn't know how to use his own brain. EEAS eric@kobayashi.com http://www.kobayashi.com/maru/

Contradiction.
Which *still* doesn't address Karl's point. No doubt at this time you'll claim you don't remember what his point was, and use that as an excuse to weasel out completely. Again. EEAS eric@kobayashi.com http://www.kobayashi.com/maru/

Rely
Well, he just uses it the same way as any other source he qoutes what supports his views, quotes out-of-context when he can twist it to support his views, and ignores it when it proves an inconvenience. At least Laurie's consistent. EEAS eric@kobayashi.com http://www.kobayashi.com/maru/

Fair Warning Given.
Genetically, no. However, if you accept the story of Adam and Eve, then you must also accept the other Christian fables, such as the one about there actually being an absolute moral law of god. I'm forced to wonder why incest wouldn't have been a problem morally for the first several generations, but that it's looked on so poorly now. What about all the people who have never heard your precious word of god? I've asked Christians this several times

Atheism NOT Scientific.
H W say two important things here that you're apparently choosing to ignore. First, that since there is a probability of life springing from non-life, that it is, in fact, a *possibility*. Second, that there are favorable properties of physics upon which life depends. Given these two facts that you've so kindly provided, it just boils down to a matter of when the universe is a very big place with lots of stars, and now we're discovering that

Guinea Worms.
Not at all. What I'm saying is that I question the sanity of people who would worship a god who would design an organism whose only purpose was to cause agony in it's victims. Why not just cut to the chase and worship Satan, who according to Christian mythology has made an art of suffering? But then, the Christian god is responsible for all manner of heinous acts. EEAS eric@kobayashi.com http://www.kobayashi.com/maru/

Improbable!
I do not, but then, that's not my field of study I'm a programmer, and I'm more concerned with logic. I always find it amusing when Fundys attempt this argument, though. They're happy to believe that God could exist without a 'creator', but are unable to accept that the universe could have come into being without a creator. How ironic. How would you know what evolutionists are telling you? You never listen to what they're saying. The only time