Science, the Bible & Evolution

[Brooke]

oscar

Member
Member # 1390

Rate Member   posted 12-16-2005 09:42 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brooke is the sort of people who get an immunologic reaction about words like Bible and God and maybe she thinks all people working at SETI are morons. Please inform better and who knows you maybe read -patience and breath are required, please- 8 pages or more:
http://www.s8int.com/dna1.html

--------------------
inca
 

[Brooke]

Ishtar

Member
Member # 736

  posted 12-16-2005 09:54 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't it interesting science had to use a scientific name based upon Hebrew term? The term "baraminology" means study of created kinds. It was coined from the Hebrew words "bara" (created) and "min" (kind). The same happens with embryo in a tube doubling the chromosome X into XX when they started to use the term "parthenogenesis" taken from Greek used in the Bible "virgin" (Mary), that is "virgin origin". Event the frequence "hertz" is taken from Hebrew same word meaning "earth".

interesting Oscar, I am still reading

--------------------
“Ad initio, alea iacta est.”
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
it's Later Than You Think
 

[Brooke]

 
oscar

Member
Member # 1390

Rate Member   posted 12-16-2005 10:16 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, we need so much too read. For example, evolutionists have grabbed to Natural Selection dogma about races for who knows how much time. Recently it was discovered this ... that backs up the idea it was always part of the design in ADaN's DNA in eDN:
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/news/nation/13416336.htm

--------------------
inca
 
 

[Brooke]

Tom Hebert1
Member
Member # 2835

  posted 12-16-2005 10:25 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the case for Pangea is very weak. Over the eons the continents have move up and down to create various landmasses. These landmasses included Atlantis and Lemuria and, of course, others that we know little or nothing about.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

[Brooke]

Ishtar

Member
Member # 736

  posted 12-16-2005 10:28 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well I'll be darn.

--------------------
“Ad initio, alea iacta est.”
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
it's Later Than You Think
 

[Brooke]

Andrew Waters

Member
Member # 914

  posted 12-16-2005 10:54 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I anticipated this : ''Andrew Waters, the problem as I see it is that (because of their upbringing), many scientists look for ways to prove their faith, not disqualify it. In other words, they are not objective.''

That's why I said this earlier: ''If I were a scientist I certainly would want to see if I could prove or disprove, depending on my belief...''

It works from both ends of the belief system too. When you say the way they were brought up may be a determining factor in their belief then it necessarily follows this will include the evolutionist also.  Which, by the way, I accept internally directed evolution. I don't believe it happened without some predetermined programming. If this predetermination is evolution then it produces the same results Intelligent Design people say it does. And that's us. Different avenues of approach I think.

[ 12-16-2005, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: Andrew Waters ] 

[Brooke]

Brooke

Member
Member # 2806

Member Rated:
   posted 12-16-2005 07:06 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oscar, the name of this thread is “Science and the Bible,” not “Oscar’s Mad Ramblings.” If you can’t debate these things without getting overly-emotional about it, maybe you shouldn’t even try.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's impossible to reason with Brooke. I'm quoting all sort of links which are not exclusive from Creation links and makes another general statement "they are not objective" or even the photographs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gee, Oscar, do you believe everything you read? Cause just something is on the Internet doesn’t make it true. I get the feeling that may be a revelation to you. Mine are from reputable sources. The problem with the stuff from the Creationist and UFO websites is that it is that the facts aren’t checked and therefore aren’t verifiable. Sure, it's entertaining. Can we depend on it? Probably not.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What about Maimonides is in a book of physicist Ph.D whom I already mentioned and his book. Re-read again my posts. Even in the modern translations re-read the texts I already mentioned saying clearly there are days and days.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fine, do you have a link to back up your posts??


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course no men lived in the times of Creation. It's absurd to think we could've been witness of the fact and nobody is here saying they knew because of that. In the same way Sumerians STARTING their sexagesimal numerical system with 500 precessional times and reduced the number until reaching 60. How did they know that if a single degree takes 72 years and they couldn't witness that information passing through generations? Or Mayans knowing a solar eclipse with a thousand years anticipation with no telescopes?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once again, that’s not what I said, Oscar. I said that there was no way that any human could know what happened at creation – unless GOD told them!

So, you see, it’s RIDICULOUS to even argue that the Jews were writing about that as if they really knew about what happened. It’s a myth, you boob, just like the Egyptian creation myth or any other culture that might have plugged its stuff in there.

Are you saying that God gave the Jews a play by play of how he made creation, Oscar?
If so, who, and why? God told Job it was none of his business, the reasons why he ruined his life. Why would he tell anyone the greatest secrets of the universe?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm even quoting the books or the arguments even from evolutionists for Christ sake! It's pretty obvious you are gonna say everything I post is stupid and you're the only one "objective". Is that your "argument" right now? That all my sources are imbecil and yours are okey dokey.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bunk. Almost all your stuff is from Creationist websites. Evolutionists don’t agree with any of that crap. Tell it so someone who doesn’t know better.

--------------------
"The most incomprehensible thing about our universe is that it can be comprehended." - Albert Einstein
 

[Brooke]

Brooke

Member
Member # 2806

Member Rated:
   posted 12-16-2005 07:07 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 I read everything and I don't eliminate anything. I'm saying we can't trust the beloved science because there are contradictions and again I say, if you trust so much in evolution which you quote in almost every post you make (and this is not the tread about this, HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO REPEAT THAT I-D-I-O-T ?)..open the proper theme.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the proper thread, dumby! You can say what you want here.
The reason why science can contradict itself is cause it’s always learning, Oscar. Unlike Creationists it makes no claims to have all the answers, but part of the answers. It’s not trying to fit all it’s ideas to conform a three thousand year old book. When science finds new evidence, then, of course, it changes it’s theories. It would be silly not to! Is there any science in the Bible? Sure, but it’s all 300 years old!

Do you have something against science, Oscar? Sure seems like it.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I even quoted Carl Sagan who was worried about the prints of dinosaurs in geological strata near to humans and he was the champion of anti-religious people (of course in his ambiguity in "Contact" the contact was more paranormal or methaphysical than physical).
If you CARE TO READ the links you will see the dinosaurs have been living until recently. Please read, read, read, and if you think this -I mean in case you read the links- is not objective, SAY WHY NOT.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The idea of modern dinosaurs is a crock, I’ll explain in more detail later!


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, you're dodging the theme here. You're pasting again what is the meaning of theories and you talk about "real" scientists saying what you wanna hear. That's the very problem with our times. We have a bunch of theories all over the place and isolated scientists disagreeing with others! So again, don't lecture us about theories, RESPOND THE ISSUES instead of occupying space with too much bla-bla-bla and saying nothing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gee Oscar, you’re the one supplying all these unscientific links filled wishful thinking.
I’m not dodging anything, I’m the only one supplying any actual science here. You’re supplying entertainment who have to believe in fantasy to make everything all worthwhile. Of course, scientists disagree, as they are constantly learning new things, but most still agree that the basic theory behind creation, EVOLUTION, is CORRECT.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact many scientists and not only the scientists who are Creationists have said some "dragons" were dinosaurs and taught about canopy world and now the orthodox are beginning to consider the issue and we see National Geographic documentaries. It's the duty of everyone to make criticism about science and everything. I said you have no telepatic skill to know what I am and I don't fit myself only with some points afford Creationists but other thoughts as well. Nobody owns total truth but you, of course.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the first place, Creationists aren’t real scientists, they are zealots desperately trying to twist science to justify their own beliefs.

In the second place, you’re a Bible-thumping, anti-science zealot. Just the type of guy that probably wanted to string up Gallieo cause he gave you bad news.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, stupidly like someone who strikes a head in the wall, you ignore the argument it was given to you PAGES AGO. We're dealing here with simultaneous times depending on the point of view of the observer. When the mountains existed and it was the proto-earth the counting is not the counting of days as it is nowadays. Even if you got back on time, the rotation of the earth and movement around the Sun (hence "day" and "year" can't be the same as today). Don't you understand moron? We measure the things like this cos usually orthodox science swallowed easily the idea of uniformitariansm, that is the vents of today "should" determine the way how we see the past..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I’m the moron?
When the mountains existed and it was the proto-earth the counting is not the counting of days as it is nowadays.

So, the global flood, as well as Noah and his people existed in the time of the proto-earth, millions of years ago, back when there were any people, so long ago that oral tradition couldn’t possibly sustain it?

If that’s your explanation for the flood story, do you know what a desperate, Bible-clinging MORON you look like??

[ 12-16-2005, 07:09 PM: Message edited by: Brooke ]

--------------------
"The most incomprehensible thing about our universe is that it can be comprehended." - Albert Einstein
 

[Brooke]

Brooke

Member
Member # 2806

Member Rated:
   posted 12-16-2005 07:13 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact that you say the same thing again demonstrates you're not reading the links I provide. Why repeat answering to that or post the links to you if you don't want? If you read, you would've know even details about the Flood are repeated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fine, show some common details, in your own words!

The Noah’s ark story rips off Gilgamesh. The only one even REMOTELY similar to the other two is the Greek myth of Deucalion, which happened in the same area. Proof of a REGIONAL FLOOD, NOT A GLOBAL DELUGE!!!

All the other flood myths of the world don’t even REMOTELY RESEMBLE EACH OTHER, proving, DIFFERENT FLOODS!!

Are you reading your own links, Oscar? Cause it sure looks like from here that you aren’t.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After all much discussion Brooke is going exactly where I'm leading her. When she wrote "As for the mountains not always being that size, sure, if you put the flood story back millions of years ago that might have a point." Again the issue is TIME. So I ask you, do you know about time measured by scientists? Why do you trust so much?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now you’re really grasping. "Let's rip apart as many theories as we have to in order to make it all fit the book of God, even though it may or may not have been meant to be taken literally in the first place."

Answer: I guess, cause I’m not crazy??



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brooke is the kind of person whose intelectual limitations are so reduce that's a task of patience the very effort of a dialogue. Have you ever read Gulliver adventures? How do you explain the author mentioned Mars has 2 moons and peculiar orbit more than a century before this was discovered by scientific community or the fact Assyrians mentioned the demon bird of Nergal in the same area where it was found Cygnus Black Hole or the Mayans mentioning the black hole in the centre of our galaxy as we know today. What did they have?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gee, maybe it was a coincidence?
Oh, and you’re the kind of person that probably believes in Gulliver’s Travels actually existed and desperately looks for proof of it, never having it occurred to them that it might have all been MADE UP!
“Intellectual limitations??”
How about lack of craziness??


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What on earth is a person like you in this forum? Of course, anybody can come and discuss but don't you think you're misplaced and need a little understanding before daring to come here to "discuss"? Nothing personal but some of us THOUGHT LIKE YOU decades ago and we "evolved" breaking the chains of what you think is "science". You need to upgrade.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nothing personal??
Sheesh, what a HYPOCRITE!!
You swallow whatever pseudo-science Christian fundie dribbled out, most of it fantasies put forth by people who aren’t even scientists, then insult people who don’t buy into it! Oscar, have you even taken any science classes??



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morrison, I don't know what you "heard" or not. We better read something.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let me guess, the Bible??

--------------------
"The most incomprehensible thing about our universe is that it can be comprehended." - Albert Einstein
 

[Brooke]

Brooke

Member
Member # 2806

Member Rated:
   posted 12-16-2005 07:14 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brooke is the sort of people who get an immunologic reaction about words like Bible and God and maybe she thinks all people working at SETI are morons. Please inform better and who knows you maybe read -patience and breath are required, please- 8 pages or more:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.s8int.com/dna1.html

SETI is a science project, Oscar, I can respect the work they are doing there even though they haven’t found anything yet.
The only thing I have against the Bible is when people try and say that there is science in it.

[ 12-16-2005, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: Brooke ]

--------------------
"The most incomprehensible thing about our universe is that it can be comprehended." - Albert Einstein
 

[Brooke]

Brooke

Member
Member # 2806

Member Rated:
   posted 12-16-2005 07:18 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll answer the rest later.
Friday night, time for us all to step out and have some fun...

--------------------
"The most incomprehensible thing about our universe is that it can be comprehended." - Albert Einstein
 

[Brooke]

oscar

Member
Member # 1390

Rate Member   posted 12-17-2005 04:56 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, if argument and your sources is that pasting my words and write your opinion is good source, okey. I have mentioned sites that are not only Creationists, the attitude of rejecting everything makes impossible further intelligent discussion.
You're uncapable to read. When I mentioned about "days" is in the proper context that I was refering to, that is creation. Flood is another discussion. I already answered there are ancient sayings regarding physical things (I quoted the calendar of Sumerians, knowledge of Mayans, strings in constelations said by Hebrew, etc) You just reject everything and every post from me and all people here. I quote even Carl Sagan and books written by physicist. Again NO ARGUMENT of you but saying my sources are wrong and your sources are okey. SOMETHING ELSE TO SAY IDIOT? I know the sources you quoted and I even said Dobzhansky was the one who did the experience with flies that didn't prove evolution. When you wanna discuss about modern dinosaurs, DO IT instead of occupying space saying nothing but pasting my quotes. Do you think you're saying something just by repetition of my words endlessly? I know, you do it cos you wanna give the impression (I don't know who believes that) that pasting letters is really giving information or contra-argumenting.
An example of Brooke typical writing in all this forum in any theme is pasting the whole text of Genesis (lacking an objective own commentary) or pasting the readers' saying. In 3 messages he repeated my previous message, I will past MY messages as you did to give you an idea of your method to DISTRACT without saying nothing. You pasted these from mine:
It's impossible to reason with Brooke. I'm quoting all sort of links which are not exclusive from Creation links and makes another general statement "they are not objective" or even the photographs.
What about Maimonides is in a book of physicist Ph.D whom I already mentioned and his book. Re-read again my posts. Even in the modern translations re-read the texts I already mentioned saying clearly there are days and days.
Of course no men lived in the times of Creation. It's absurd to think we could've been witness of the fact and nobody is here saying they knew because of that. In the same way Sumerians STARTING their sexagesimal numerical system with 500 precessional times and reduced the number until reaching 60. How did they know that if a single degree takes 72 years and they couldn't witness that information passing through generations? Or Mayans knowing a solar eclipse with a thousand years anticipation with no telescopes?
I'm even quoting the books or the arguments even from evolutionists for Christ sake! It's pretty obvious you are gonna say everything I post is stupid and you're the only one "objective". Is that your "argument" right now? That all my sources are imbecil and yours are okey dokey.
I read everything and I don't eliminate anything. I'm saying we can't trust the beloved science because there are contradictions and again I say, if you trust so much in evolution which you quote in almost every post you make (and this is not the tread about this, HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO REPEAT THAT I-D-I-O-T ?)..open the proper theme.
I even quoted Carl Sagan who was worried about the prints of dinosaurs in geological strata near to humans and he was the champion of anti-religious people (of course in his ambiguity in "Contact" the contact was more paranormal or methaphysical than physical).
If you CARE TO READ the links you will see the dinosaurs have been living until recently. Please read, read, read, and if you think this -I mean in case you read the links- is not objective, SAY WHY NOT.
Again, you're dodging the theme here. You're pasting again what is the meaning of theories and you talk about "real" scientists saying what you wanna hear. That's the very problem with our times. We have a bunch of theories all over the place and isolated scientists disagreeing with others! So again, don't lecture us about theories, RESPOND THE ISSUES instead of occupying space with too much bla-bla-bla and saying nothing.
In fact many scientists and not only the scientists who are Creationists have said some "dragons" were dinosaurs and taught about canopy world and now the orthodox are beginning to consider the issue and we see National Geographic documentaries. It's the duty of everyone to make criticism about science and everything. I said you have no telepatic skill to know what I am and I don't fit myself only with some points afford Creationists but other thoughts as well. Nobody owns total truth but you, of course.
Again, stupidly like someone who strikes a head in the wall, you ignore the argument it was given to you PAGES AGO. We're dealing here with simultaneous times depending on the point of view of the observer. When the mountains existed and it was the proto-earth the counting is not the counting of days as it is nowadays. Even if you got back on time, the rotation of the earth and movement around the Sun (hence "day" and "year" can't be the same as today). Don't you understand moron? We measure the things like this cos usually orthodox science swallowed easily the idea of uniformitariansm, that is the vents of today "should" determine the way how we see the past..
The fact that you say the same thing again demonstrates you're not reading the links I provide. Why repeat answering to that or post the links to you if you don't want? If you read, you would've know even details about the Flood are repeated.
After all much discussion Brooke is going exactly where I'm leading her. When she wrote "As for the mountains not always being that size, sure, if you put the flood story back millions of years ago that might have a point." Again the issue is TIME. So I ask you, do you know about time measured by scientists? Why do you trust so much?
Brooke is the kind of person whose intelectual limitations are so reduce that's a task of patience the very effort of a dialogue. Have you ever read Gulliver adventures? How do you explain the author mentioned Mars has 2 moons and peculiar orbit more than a century before this was discovered by scientific community or the fact Assyrians mentioned the demon bird of Nergal in the same area where it was found Cygnus Black Hole or the Mayans mentioning the black hole in the centre of our galaxy as we know today. What did they have?
What on earth is a person like you in this forum? Of course, anybody can come and discuss but don't you think you're misplaced and need a little understanding before daring to come here to "discuss"? Nothing personal but some of us THOUGHT LIKE YOU decades ago and we "evolved" breaking the chains of what you think is "science". You need to upgrade.
Morrison, I don't know what you "heard" or not. We better read something.
Brooke is the sort of people who get an immunologic reaction about words like Bible and God and maybe she thinks all people working at SETI are morons. Please inform better and who knows you maybe read -patience and breath are required, please- 8 pages or more:


That is Brooke message! Tiresom isn't it? Boring right? Distraction method.
You read but you're so incredible stupid that are uncapable to understand. When I talk about Gulliver is not because I believe the story of the book. It just to call attention that when he "made it up" he mentioned the exact number of the moons of Mars and the circular orbit and distance with too much anticipation. It's different from Jules Vernes cos he was calculatiing with imagination human devices as science fiction while the author of Gulliver wrote a scientific fact among fairy tale. Again, I already read the links I provided with many details about the similarity of Noah legends. The fact you say only the Greek myths are similar and repeat that 1000 times or repeat with capital letters "EVOLUTION IS A FACT" or "EVOLUTIONIST DON'T BELIEVE THAT CRAP" doesn't demonstrate evolution. The very fact you refuse to open a tread about evolution is a rejection cos you can't demonstrate scientifically that theory. If you would you wouldn't dodge doing it. Here, in intelligent manner we discuss and provide information that can be analyzed or search in any books. Again I TOLD YOU WHEN YOU REJECT SOMETHING DON'T DO GENERAL STATEMENTS SAYING "IT'S NONSENSE" YOU MUST PROVIDE THE REASONS TO REJECT THE IDEA AND EXPLAIN WHY AND WHAT IS CRAP. So, can you do that or are you gonna keep on pasting and saying evolution is a fact, evolution is a fact,evolution is a fact,evolution is a fact,... ad infinitum to believe the repetition will convince anyone here? SETI is a scientific project that is based upon the suposition there could be intelligent life. This can't be done with people who think the idea is stupid.
Now, as you have been posting my messages, I will do exactly like you and past your words for the people to read how deep is your knowledge of science, okey? Lemme copy your 'arguments' in behalf of science and perhaps you quit doing that nonsense:

--------------------
inca
 

[Brooke]

oscar

Member
Member # 1390

Rate Member   posted 12-17-2005 05:15 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now Brooke messages which are not pasting:

Oscar, the name of this thread is “Science and the Bible,” not “Oscar’s Mad Ramblings.” If you can’t debate these things without getting overly-emotional about it, maybe you shouldn’t even try.
Gee, Oscar, do you believe everything you read? Cause just something is on the Internet doesn’t make it true. I get the feeling that may be a revelation to you. Mine are from reputable sources. The problem with the stuff from the Creationist and UFO websites is that it is that the facts aren’t checked and therefore aren’t verifiable. Sure, it's entertaining. Can we depend on it? Probably not.
Fine, do you have a link to back up your posts??
Once again, that’s not what I said, Oscar. I said that there was no way that any human could know what happened at creation – unless GOD told them!
So, you see, it’s RIDICULOUS to even argue that the Jews were writing about that as if they really knew about what happened. It’s a myth, you boob, just like the Egyptian creation myth or any other culture that might have plugged its stuff in there.
Are you saying that God gave the Jews a play by play of how he made creation, Oscar?
If so, who, and why? God told Job it was none of his business, the reasons why he ruined his life. Why would he tell anyone the greatest secrets of the universe?
Bunk. Almost all your stuff is from Creationist websites. Evolutionists don’t agree with any of that crap. Tell it so someone who doesn’t know better.
This is the proper thread, dumby! You can say what you want here.
The reason why science can contradict itself is cause it’s always learning, Oscar. Unlike Creationists it makes no claims to have all the answers, but part of the answers. It’s not trying to fit all it’s ideas to conform a three thousand year old book. When science finds new evidence, then, of course, it changes it’s theories. It would be silly not to! Is there any science in the Bible? Sure, but it’s all 300 years old!
Do you have something against science, Oscar? Sure seems like it.
The idea of modern dinosaurs is a crock, I’ll explain in more detail later!
Gee Oscar, you’re the one supplying all these unscientific links filled wishful thinking.
I’m not dodging anything, I’m the only one supplying any actual science here. You’re supplying entertainment who have to believe in fantasy to make everything all worthwhile. Of course, scientists disagree, as they are constantly learning new things, but most still agree that the basic theory behind creation, EVOLUTION, is CORRECT.
In the first place, Creationists aren’t real scientists, they are zealots desperately trying to twist science to justify their own beliefs.
In the second place, you’re a Bible-thumping, anti-science zealot. Just the type of guy that probably wanted to string up Gallieo cause he gave you bad news.
I’m the moron?
So, the global flood, as well as Noah and his people existed in the time of the proto-earth, millions of years ago, back when there were any people, so long ago that oral tradition couldn’t possibly sustain it?
If that’s your explanation for the flood story, do you know what a desperate, Bible-clinging MORON you look like??

I rest my case unless you open a tread or write WHAT IS YOUR SOURCE SAYING OR SPECIFY WHAT IS CRAP AND WHY. Otherwise I won

--------------------
inca
 

[Brooke]

oscar

Member
Member # 1390

Rate Member   posted 12-17-2005 05:16 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...won't have drunk conversation...

--------------------
inca
 

[Brooke]

oscar

Member
Member # 1390

Rate Member   posted 12-17-2005 06:16 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a 3 pages discussion Brooke talks about the veracity of her sources only against any other by me or anyone else. Let's examine her sources, she quoted but a few:
http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml
In this link provided by her we see the faith of a scientist in evolution. He invest too much time trying to convince us evolution is truth and makes a discussion about the Bible. If he had interest in science as corresponds, he would be focusing only in science as a field of study and not waste time talking about his point of view about the Bible, that was not his field or philosophy. He starts talking about Copernican theory and flat earth. It's true Catholics killed people saying earth was the center of the earth but that was not Bible's fault but Catholic as many other mistakes. In fact Christopher Columbus quoted Israelite books to convince Spanish kings to use caravelas ships to discover new world. Jews always knew Isaiah used the word "hugg" refering to sphere-globe of the earth and also Job. Now, Dobzhansky speciality was not astronomy so why talking about that instead of his field of science unless he was mortified subjectevly? Many people have believed the account made by Joshua about the moon and sun standing still was a reference to earth as centre of the universe. Awful mistake. Chronicles in China and in Peru, Mexico, Bolivia described the same account as view by the people in their respective point of view. In the other part of the word at the same time it was witnessed the night remained for 24 hours approximately rather than the day. The verses before that account in Joshua said specifically huge "stones" came to the earth. The cosmic event can be interpreted as changing in the axis of the planet described by historical accounts many people probably ignore.
After too much bla-bla-bla the link provided by Brooke says "the only explanation that makes sense -to the author- is that organic diversity has evolved in response to the diversity of environment on earth" Yet, that is explanation, not a demonstration with facts as corresponds in science. He didn't present any example of this as scientist. This is the so-called Natural Selection and until now (cos that link belonged something said decades ago and now we know DNA better than him) evolutionists grab to the example of changing colors of the moth. Wrong example again! That is not original Darwin concept.
He reckons or admits "the environment DOESN'T IMPOSE EVOLUTIONARY CHANGES ON ITS INHABITANTS as postulated by NOW-ABANDONED NEO-LAMARCKIAN THEORIES"...in other words, he's saying something against OTHER KIND OF EVOLUTIONISTS considering Lamarck was used as a model of evolution. He adds: "the environment presents challenges to living species to which the later may respond by ADAPTIVE GENETIC CHANGES".
In saying this he wants the reader to believe the changes in genes are subtle thing until who knows when species would stop being what they are and become others. Yet, that's faith. Again he doesn't mention any example of this.
He stops talking about science and imagines why would God fabricated species and let them die. That's another field, philosophy or religion. Out of his element. Lost his scientific objectivity. He imagines God had to do creation according to what he thinks and thinks about foreordained plan or asks what is the sense of having 2 or 3 million species. God doesn't have to create with a foreordained plan or project or give inmortality to all beings. In fact all variability of beings are allowed cos DNA, the Bible tells about God and gods in plural. It's pretty obvious Almighty didn't create clon Dolly sheep but we "form" it using what already exists on earth. So this part of Dobzhansky chat is chit chat dodging science and only making evident his ignorance about Hebrew text. We're not dealing here with what Creationists or people believe or not. If he wanted to discuss about science, okey, do it. If he wanted to discuss about Bible, go to the Rabbi first, spend years in that and Hebrew and then go to Christians and digest everything. The scientist lost objectivity and entered into another realm.
A mathematian...

--------------------
inca