Re: Vatican against Creationism

November 21, 2005

>: "I don't know what I'd do if I couldn't read."Yea, I loved books before I could read. I was raised by a Mom that read to me everyday. 'The Wind and the Willows' was my favorite book when I was three. By high school I was reading 'Modern Cosmology', and in college I read all of E. A. Poe and everything of V. Hugo that was translated into English.>"Can you listen to Books on Tape?"Yes, I could IF I had a cassette player...... But I'm way too active, move around way too much...... A 'personality disorder' so to speak! I can't stand or sit for more than a few minutes before I'm off to do something else, usually have 'irons' in half a dozen fires at one time. One of MY A.P.T.s! Rainbow

November 21, 2005

Yes, I think they call it the Shadow series, maybe? More focused on

Bean. I read them before I knew I was Aspergers. I'd like to read

them again with it in mind, but when I think about a lot of his

characters, they do seem Aspieish. It's funny how many peoples'

works I've been drawn to only to find out they were Aspergers or are

thought to be Aspergers.

> > > >Everytime I see your name, for a second I think you are

Card's

> > > >Ender and that I'm reading what his Ender is saying...

>

November 21, 2005

>Ender: "You can get records...."Thanks! I'll look up 'audible.com'. Do you mean tape cassettes? Rainbow

November 21, 2005

I used to love Hugo too!

Inger

Re: Re: Vatican against Creationism

>: "I don't know what I'd do if I couldn't read."

Yea, I loved books before I could read I was raised by a Mom that read to me everyday. 'The Wind and the Willows' was my favorite book when I was three. By high school I was reading 'Modern Cosmology', and in college I read all of E. A. Poe and everything of V. Hugo that was translated into English.

>"Can you listen to Books on Tape?"

Yes, I could IF I had a cassette player...... But I'm way too active, move around way too much...... A 'personality disorder' so to speak! I can't stand or sit for more than a few minutes before I'm off to do something else, usually have 'irons' in half a dozen fires at one time. One of MY A.P.T.s!

Rainbow

November 21, 2005

You might want to look in to http://audible.com... MP3 players are

tiny and not affected by movement. You download the audio file to

your PC and then load it into the player... you can keep the file

forever... It use to be that if you signed up for a year they would

give you a player... I get two books of my choice a month for like

$20... I listen to them to and from work and when I try to run... but

mostly walk...

Ender

At 02:41 PM 11/21/2005, you wrote:

> >: " I don't know what I'd do if I couldn't read. "

>

>Yea, I loved books before I could read. I was raised by a Mom that

>read to me everyday. 'The Wind and the Willows' was my favorite book

>when I was three. By high school I was reading 'Modern Cosmology',

>and in college I read all of E. A. Poe and everything of V. Hugo

>that was translated into English.

>

> > " Can you listen to Books on Tape? "

>

>Yes, I could IF I had a cassette player...... But I'm way too

>active, move around way too much...... A 'personality disorder' so

>to speak! I can't stand or sit for more than a few minutes before

>I'm off to do something else, usually have 'irons' in half a dozen

>fires at one time. One of MY A.P.T.s!

>

> Rainbow

November 21, 2005

>Ender: "You might want to look in to http://audible.com..."Thanks, I will..... Rainbow

November 21, 2005

>: "I won't say more incase anyone wants to read the books." Thanks Rainbow

November 21, 2005

Ah, but the difference between gravity and darwinism is that gravity

exists now and we don't question it's beginning. We have not seen the

beginning of life on planet earth nor the theorized jumps and/or

gradual changes, nor do we have a fossil record to support Darwin's

intellectual exercise.

>

> In a message dated 11/21/2005 11:50:33 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,

> mikecarrie01@y... writes:

>

> " Uh... because it IS a fact? "

>

> But it's not a fact, it's just presented that way. There's no

proof,

> therefore, it's a theory.

>

> " I don't see how anyone with some

> > intelligence could doubt that. "

>

> That's an opinion. Mine is the opposite.

>

> Theory is a misunderstood word. It can mean an idea that serves as

the basis

> for experimentation. So: I theorize that if I go out into the rain

I will

> get wet, which leads to designing the test (going outside for a

time and coming

> back in), performing the test, then examining the results to see if

they

> confirm the theory. In this case it probably would. This is a

small " t " theory.

>

> The big " T " theories are different. Those are theories in the sense

that

> they are proven and are a major force. So, the Theory of Gravity is

a Big " T "

> Theory. We know gravity works since we see it every second of our

waking lives

> and science has for the most part figured it out. Yet it is still

called a

> Theory.

>

> In the same way, Darwinism is a Big " T " theory. We know it works

because we

> can see it happening. This can be Darwin's observations, bacteria

developing

> antibiotic immunity to human selective breeding of animal species.

Darwin

> wasn't 100% correct in parts of his theory, such as evolution

being gradual over

> time and being due to genetic mutations, but for the most part he

was

> correct. The Theory has been refined over time as most theories

are, but that does

> not invalidate Darwin any more than new discoveries about gravity

discredit

> Newton.

>

November 21, 2005

>: "There are machines out there that can magnify print..."I don't have 'macular degeneration', but have had seven operations on my eyes, beginning with a genetic imperfection.......My father went blind, hopefully I'll have more time to see than he did. Basically my eyes have 'gone through the wringer', so to speak. I can't see a line as straight, so you can imagine how difficult some typefaces (and driving! ha ha) could be, my corneas are 'ploughed' making blinking uncomfortable, and I see as if looking out through a polyethylene bag. Each eye 'treated' in a different 'fashion' results in blurry and double vision. Enough about me, I feel sooooo lucky to see as well as I do, I amaze my optometrist and have adapted well enough, as least to know you all! Rainbow

November 21, 2005

Nice to know you too Rainbow : )

Lida

Enough about me, I feel sooooo lucky to see as well as I do, I amaze my optometrist and have adapted well enough, as least to know you all!

Rainbow

November 21, 2005

That is reciprocal Rainbow!

I admire your straingth towards your future and not knowing if you will be blind. Have you known this all your life? What do you do to prepare yourself for that? Or don't you?

I probably will end up in a wheelchair. Have been in one befor, but escape it for a few years more now. But not being able to walk seems to me much easier to deal with than not being able to see.

Do you have a computer that can read things for you in voice?

Lida

>Lida: "Nice to know you too Rainbow : )"

Thank you, and know why I've hardly ever responded to something YOU have posted. It would seem as though there were an 'echo' in here. I have greatly enjoyed being able to agree with one as thoroughly as I have with you!

Rainbow

November 21, 2005

>Lida: "Have you known this all your life?"I observed what my father went through over a couple of decades....>"What do you do to prepare yourself for that?"Develop a 'lifestyle' of doing less, remembering (where things are) more, and preparing to use more fingers and less eyes to create (I'm an artisan). I have always been into 'texture and surface' more than 'color'.>"But not being able to walk seems to me much easier to deal with than not being able to see."Absolutely! Vision is our greatest sensation. I believe something like ninety percent of our brain's use of energy is in the visual cortex. Please, everyone, respect your eyes!!! It is so easy to underestimate their value and importance in our lives.>"Do you have a computer that can read things for you in voice?"Yes, but it's too primative (artificial sounding), and it stops at the end of every paragraph....What I do to compensate is choose a typeface and font size that I can read easily. But.... then you see why my posts are generally short and to the point. 's posts look like 'braille' to me, Inger's are the easiest for me to read....... Rainbow

November 21, 2005

>Inger: "I used to love Hugo too!"Unfortunately our library had a lot more in French that I couldn't read! Rainbow

November 21, 2005

>Inger: "I used to love Hugo too!"Unfortunately our library had a lot more in French that I couldn't read! Rainbow

November 22, 2005

Rainbow, I'm so sorry to hear about your vision problems. I had no idea!

> Vision is our greatest sensation. I believe something like ninety percent of our brain's use of energy is in the visual cortex. Please, everyone, respect your eyes!!! It is so easy to underestimate their value and importance in our lives.

I do not underestimate it. Having a deaf little sister has made me often think about how it would be to be mute, deaf or blind. Fairly early I felt that I would so much rather be deaf or mute than blind. My eyesight is getting poorer but fortunately that's easily corrected with glasses.

> 's posts look like 'braille' to me,

To me too. Arial is really difficult for me to read due to being so compressed.

> Inger's are the easiest for me to read.......

Really? That's good to know. But why? Due to the font I usually use? It's Book Antiqua.

My problem is wordy posts and long paragraphs - especially online. Many times I have to give long posts a miss, or only read parts of them, even if the content is highly interesting. Yours are a welcome relief, Rainbow! :-)

Tom's are also easy for me to read even if they're long, due to his very short, article-style paragraphs.

Inger

November 22, 2005

How annoying! Luckily, most classics are translated into Swedish. I'm glad for that since I'm not good enough at French, Spanish or German to read a book in any of those.

What I cannot stand are Swedish translations of books in English. It seems almost impossible to get the right feel so I keep ending up re-translating it back to English in my head as I'm reading and getting annoyed by the poor translation. :-(

Inger

Re: Re: Vatican against Creationism

>Inger: "I used to love Hugo too!"

Unfortunately our library had a lot more in French that I couldn't read!

Rainbow

November 22, 2005

With no fossil record you are going on faith. In the effort to find

these transitional forms many scams have been put forth and later

found out. Adaption is not Evolution (Big 'E'-in the sense that life

came about from nothing and progressed)and cannot be sited in itself

as an example that Evolution is true. The chances of life coming

from nothing are so miniscule as to be virtually impossible. Take one

theory: the 'organic soup' theory. (When it was proposed by

Dawkins, he said in the preface of his book proposing this

theory: " This book should be read almost as though it were science

fiction. " ) His theory states that in the beginning earth had an

atmosphere of carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia and water. Through

energy from sunlight and possibly lightning and/or exploding

volcanoes, these simple compounds were broken apart and reformed into

amino acids. Many experiments were performed to try and recreate this

but none were successful. The same energy that would split these

compounds would destroy them once they were formed. If they somehow

made it to the protective ocean they would then have to get out of it

again if they were to form larger molecules because water favors

depolymerization (breaking up of big molecules into smaller ones).

Yet if they leave the ocean they face the destructive energy. An even

bigger problem is the forming of the amino acids in the first place

since there are 100 amino acids, yet the 20 amino acids needed for

life's proteins are all 'left-handed'. The chances of the energy

producing all left-handed amino acids and no right-handed ones out of

the compounds that supposedly existed at the beginning, is 10 to the

113th power. (And where did sunlight, the compounds, volcanoes come

from in the first place, anyway?) To get around this and other

miniscule chance of occurence, people will say that it happened after

millions of years. But why is time somehow a power in itself, that

is, the idea that somehow Time is a force that if there is enough of

it, changes will occur. That's faith again.

The evolutionary theory started with Darwin but the theory that spun

off was not in many ways what he proposed. It was like an

intellectual idea for him, he had no idea that it was going to be

taken and used as it was. In the time period in which he lived,

Higher Criticism was in vogue and questioning the bible and

preconceived ideas was a form of debate. In fact he said that life

may have been " originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or

into one. " And he also said that he didn't think the eye could have

evolved as it was of no use in stages but only in the 'finished

product'.

>

> In a message dated 11/21/2005 4:34:35 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,

> mikecarrie01@y... writes:

>

> Ah, but the difference between gravity and darwinism is that

gravity

> exists now and we don't question it's beginning. We have not seen

the

> beginning of life on planet earth nor the theorized jumps and/or

> gradual changes, nor do we have a fossil record to support

Darwin's

> intellectual exercise.

>

> Actually we do have an extensive fossil record going back about 1

billion

> years. Earth's geologic activity has made this a little hard to

follow by

> scattering bones or having them washed away or buried. But we have

a pretty good

> idea of how things progressed and over what time periods.

>

> For example: we know that in a very early period there were many

types of

> body plans in existence and all manner of creatures in the oceans.

But then

> there was an extinction event that killed about 90% of all species.

Those that

> survived had the basic body designs that have survived to this day.

We also

> know that dinosaurs lived for millions of years and that they

changed and

> evolved over time and that they died out around 65 million years

ago. At the same

> time, we know that mammals existed back then as well.

>

> However, the fossil record rarely shows a " missing link " transition

animal.

> This is because fossils are comparatively rare. What we can do is

compare a

> younger set of fossils with older fossils of a similar type and

deduce how they

> have changed.

>

> Darwin did not used fossils anyway. He observed the same type of

bird on

> different islands where each had different adaptations to the local

conditions.

> A sparrow on one island might be adapted to eating seeds while on

the next

> island the sparrow as adapted to taking nectar from flowers.

>

> We can also see forced evolution in some animals. Take the Cheetah.

The

> Cheetah is designed for speed and it works well in that niche.

However, it is

> overspecialized and genetics are starting to tell. Its design has

reached it

> limit and is beginning to break down. As a result, Cheetahs are

becoming rare,

> victims of their own success.

>

November 22, 2005

, I liked what you said about Time.

Someone once said something to the effect that for a creature as complex as

a human to have evolved unaided from nothing to something by chance alone is

about as likely as if the wind was blowing minerals hither and thither in

the desert for millions of years and this random wind eventually just

happened to conglomerate enough of them in the exact right proportion and

position to produce a fully functional space shuttle.