On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 08:22:21 -0700, in alt.fan.pratchett
(Jason) wrote in
:
In article , "Diane
L" wrote:

Jason wrote:
In article , David Jensen

snip
We already know that life can come from non-life, so apparently you
have no objections to evolution, even though evolution is about the
changes in life over time, not the beginning of life on earth.

Go to talk.origins and see why science supporters are so upset with
those who lie about science and manipulate religious believers.

Hello,
When I was in college, the professor told the class that the first
cell (or cells) evolved from non-life in a "primordial pond". So
please check your facts before posting false information. The members
of the creation science movement and ID movement acknowledge that
plants and animals can change in life over time. The evolutionists
call it micro-evolution and we call it adaption or micro-evolution. I
have already visited the talk.origins website.
Jason

What kinds of 'micro-evolution' do you believe in? Do you believe that
one species of finch can diversify into several species, that dogs evolved
from wolves, that house cats and tigers evolved from a common
ancestor? Do you class those as micro-evolution? How about the micro-
evolution of apes and humans from a common ape-like ancestor? Where
do *you* draw the line between micro- and macro-evolution? Remember,
from a scientific point of view it's all the same process, just as the
formation of a small channel due to water flowing over rock and the
formation of the Grand Canyon are the same process, not micro-erosion
and macro-erosion.

Diane L.

Diane,
You asked some interesting questions. I did not respond to some of the
other posts since I would merely have to cover the same ground that has
been covered before in other posts. Your questions cover new ground so
I'll try to provide a short answer. Over the years, I have watched various
nature shows on television and have seen some very unique species of
various animals on those shows. There is no way to give you a detailed
answer regarding certains plants and animals without conducting research.

Scientists have already conducted research. How can anyone justify
ignoring their research while making assertions that are contrary to
these results. The inventors of ID are not doing science. They know they
are not doing science. Behe, Johnson and Dembski know that they are
telling lies. They have suckered you in.

I'll just give you a general answer that should cover most animals and
some plants. Let's use as an example a unique animal such as a sea turtle
species that is very different than any other sea turtles that have ever
been seen in nature or in the fossil evidence. I seem to recall that
Darwin discovered such a species of turtles. The special unique species of
sea turtles is an excelllent example of micro-evolution. The sea turtle
species evolved or adapted to special envir. conditions. Those in the ID
movement or creation science movement support micro-evolution (aka
adaption). I should note that the special species of sea turtles are still
turtles and they did not evolve into a unique species of deer.

No one in science claims that turtles will evolve into deer. They do
say, and show with evidence, that deer and turtles share a common
ancestor.

Young Earth Creationism is a religious doctrine. It has nothing to do
with science. ID is an attempt to sell creationism in secular garb. It
still has nothing to do with science.

This really belongs on talk.origins, where I have set the followup to.