Scene: Spotlight a beautiful, tall thin vase with beautiful flowers in it.
(Isaiah 64:8)
Dear Potter,
Now that it is over, I can see what you were making out of me and it all makes sense. I am thrilled and humbled at the same time to see that I am allowed to hold water and flowers for you on this amazing banquet table. To be able to be this close to the Creator of the universe is beyond my wildest dreams.
I am sorry that I complained so much all along the way as you worked on me. When you first took me out of the horrible pit (Psalm 40:2) and set me on solid ground, I was so happy. It was so great to see the light of day for the first time in my life!
I hurt me badly though when you began crushing me with your feet to look for lumps in me. (Isaiah 41:25) But now that you are finished, I understand why you could not allow rocks or dirt or any other impurities in me. I see now that as you molded me and shaped me on the spinning wheel, the impurities would have destroyed my shape—right in your hands (Jeremiah 18:4).
I know you could have made me into something else like a flower pot or a toilet bowl since they are thicker and small impurities can be tolerated. But now, I am thankful you continued picking out flaws, in spite of the fact that it hurt me at that time.
When you had me all shaped and then set me on the shelf to dry, I was so despondent. I thought you were displeased with me—or had changed your mind about using me at all. As I sat there on the shelf for days, I wept day and night. There is probably still a wet spot where you had left me. Now I see that drying out is an essential step in this process. I’m sorry that I complained.
The worst part for me was the oven. It was so hot in there, that I felt myself getting a tough skin at first. And then, I was hardened through and through. I thought the oven time would never end. It was sad to see so many others cracked to pieces under the pressure in there. I had known some since we were in the pit together.
Now that it is over, I see why it was needed. Without it, I would be useless for the job for which you created me. The paint job you did on me is incredible! The glaze coating on me makes me look like I’m……well…..fit for a King’s table. Thanks for working with me. It is an honor to be with you.
Signed, The Vase
Hi Gary,
That was a very sad post. I will admire lagomorph’s perseverence if he bothers to respond to such dull-witted creationist tedium. Why is your religion so tender that it cannot accept the enormous quantity of “coherent evidence” patiently listed by lagomorph?
The Watson quote (which you misquote) was published nearly eighty years ago in 1929; that really is scraping the barrel. Contrary to your claim, Watson is not “a famous evolutionist” but was a relatively minor figure at best in his own time (he was born 121 years ago) and has pretty much been forgotten today. His work was mainly in paleontology and he had retired from his professorship a couple of years before Watson & Crick had figured out the structure of DNA. That’s a long long time ago in terms of the development of evolutionary science. So why do you creationists keep dredging up such tired old mis-quotes?
GaryMurray said:
“… And GaryMurray answered each of his items…”
GaryMurray, here are some comments on your answers to the items presented to EndTimes’ request, who said “Please tell me your most important fact or facts compelling you to accept the theory of evolution. I promise to answer in an evidence based and professional manner.” Since you undertook to answer for him, I will respond to your posting in the approximate order of the original points.
Item 1. Your “answer” did not even tangentially address the item, which had to do with the antiquity of the earth. In fact, I could hardly parse your comment.
Item 2. Again, your “answer” does not correspond to the item, but instead raises the notion of a world-wide flood and the “birth of sin.” Huh?
Item 3. Again, what does my item have to do with a world-wide flood? It instead deals with progressive changes, which the fossil record clearly shows.
Item 4. Transitional animals and structures of animals in the fossil record are well documented. Do a little reading in a college-level paleontology text. By the way, a geologic column is vertical, not horizontal, and would be expected to represent a wide range of fossil ages.
Item 5. What I said was that the correspondence of the three types of phylogenies was arrived at by independent scientific processes. Please re-read the item carefully. And no “organic life form completely independent from its environment” could possibly exist; what would it eat?
Item 6. You dodged the question, and I can’t take the time to explain how science, through modern genetics, addresses the fixation of variation (and ultimately, speciation) in a population. It actually does, you know.
Items 7, 8, 11, and 12. Rather than address the specific points, you fall back on the “common designer” argument, the chief evidence for which is “well, it looks designed to me.” Two comments here: firstly, apparent design in nature is quite unlike the designs that human activity produces. The relationship between the two is by analogy at best. Secondly, because you cannot know the intent of the designer, you can’t generate any testable hypotheses to investigate the areas covered in these items. They become isolated observations without a coherent inter-relationship. Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, can address such questions as why the forelimbs of all mammals (and other vertebrate classes as well) have the same basic structure (one large bone close to the body, and two bones side-by-side further out beyond the elbow). It can also provide the means for guiding the investigation of the underlying mechanisms that produce such homologous structures, and why they do so. The “common designer” explanation can only say “the designer did it that way” for reasons that we can’t either know or investigate.
Specifically on Item 8: Since when is “providing insight” a failing of a line of investigation? And do you consider such insights as “lying”, or do you reserve that term for those who have three letters after their names?
Item 10. No, I am not naïve about the use of computer models in science. I use them in my own work and have published several that have seen wide use. Computer models are investigative tools that are used in situations where a system is to complex for straightforward calculation of results, or where many interactions must be considered, or where expense or accessibility limit direct experimentation. Of course, such models are only as good as the input data and the algorithms that make them up. And here is the crucial difference between a computer model as used in science and your “flying toaster:” scientists actually test the results and predictions of their models against experimental data in the real world. If the two don’t agree, then the model (and its initial conditions) are either refined or discarded). Computer models are working tools used to investigate “what if” scenarios and as such are admirably suited to addressing evolutionary questions.
Item 13. I fail to see what connection you are trying to draw between the laws of thermodynamics (which I did not mention in this item) and the age of the earth? And the rest of your comment betrays a hopeless confusion about the nature and application of the laws of thermodynamics and scientific laws in general.
Mr. Samphire has ably dealt with you parting paragraph, and my brain is too tired to say much more than to remind you that I made the posting because EndTimes asked me to give reasons for accepting evolution. I have done that, apparently to EndTimes’ satisfaction (although he is certainly free to disagree with the contents of the items). I don’t think I have satisfied you.
Sincerely,
Lagomorph2