No 👣 tracking social sharing

Evolution of Animals - Species which share traits in common with two species


October 10, 2005 at 22:19:00

Name: levi

Email: levi

Most Interest: Creation vs Evolution

Found edwardtbabinski.us via: Other Search Engine

How found edwardtbabinski: dogpile

Religious Belief: Christian,

If Preterist: pre-millennialist

If Creationist: Other

I believe: Other

comments: Please enter your comments here.


I enjoy you thoughts althought I do disagree on some major points. I was raised a theistic evolutionist who grew up in the episcopol church. I am now a creationist who has done some study and an 18 page report on the creation side. I don't know if you have time to read it. I am not an expert but no one seem to write back to me after I present the evidences I have found. Let me know if you would like it. I like your thoughts on power options and lots of other areas too. God bless p.s. if we can get a mule out of a donkey and a horse... do you think we could get a human from an ape and a pig? :)




Dear Levi,


Hi, Ed here.


You mentioned that you had become a creationist. Did you become a young-earth creationist?


You asked me whether I believed human beings were a cross between pigs and apes. I don't think so, just a cousin of the apes. So why did you mentioned "pigs?" I do know that pig heart valves have been used to replace human heart valves, but aside from the usefullness of the shape of the pig's heart valves, there is nothing particularly human about pigs. We'd probably be using chimp heart valves if there were more chimps and if there wasn't as great a protest over it. Did you know that Christian Barnhart, the famed surgeon, said he wouldn't operate on such feeling intelligent creatures as chimps in order to use them merely for spare parts?


As for "inbetween" species, the fossil record contains amphibian-like fishes, mammal-like reptiles, bird-like reptiles, and of course many species of extinct ape with shorter arms and longer legs than modern day apes (in terms of arm-to-leg ratios). So the many species of extinct primitive apes were more "human-like" in that respect than modern day apes are. And there's the dog-bears of the Miocene that preceded the later arrivals of both dogs and bears in the fossil record. There's also small four footed mammals that preceded the arrival of larger tapir, elephant and horse species in the fossil record. Tapirs, elephants and horses apparently shared a common ancestor. In fact, elephants and sea-going dugongs also shared a common ancestor as seen in the dugong's snout and the elephant nails on its front fins. And if you've seen my website, there's plenty about cetacean evolution, land-living ancestors of modern day whale species.




"levi" October 11, 2005 PM: I mentioned pigs because my biology teacher (an evolutionist) said we were closer related to pigs than apes.


ED: Hi Levi, Perhaps you could email your professor to ask him what he meant when he said that humans were more closely related to pigs than to apes? The human genome is nearer to the chimpanzee genome than to the genome of any other living species. (See below where I discuss the way even the chromosomes match up between chimp and human, and evidence that the human line underwent a fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes as still seen inside human chromosome #2.)




LEVI: On the age of the earth I am uncertain just like the age of the universe. Scientist believe some are really old galaxies but when the Hubble telescope did some pictures and measurements and it was way different than what they had thought before and the 2 ideas just did not fit, with one the big bang was possible and with the Hubble there was no way (I will try and send you the report from my other computer sometime). When certain measurements of time are used they always seem to find problems with them and then other measurements contradict many others. There seems to be no real good way to measure time looking back for most things from what I have seen.


ED: There are parameters of uncertainty, but the antiquity of the cosmos is not something that cosmologists are very uncertain about, while a cosmos only thousands of years old is something it would take far more blind faith than scientific evidence to believe in. Also, there are plenty of old-earth creationist Christians who have Ph.D.s in astronomy who continue to point out the ludicrousness of young-cosmos arguments. Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe, as well as Dr. Robert C. Newman of the Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute are two such astronomers who have replied to young-cosmos arguments. For links to their websites and to old-earth creationist replies to young-earth arguments.


Also see these admissions made by YOUNG-cosmos astronomers.


Also if you are not averse to reading non-Christian articles, please see Dave Matson's well organized research paper on the age of the earth and cosmos (Dave is not a Christian, and can be intimidating in his speech, however he has done a fine job of collecting replies by scientists to a host of young-earth arguments with bibliographic notes).


Also visit this fully indexed list of creationist arguments and replies, argument by argument.


The abandonment of young-earth geology (or "flood geology") was something that Christian men of science did before Darwin's Origin was published. By the 1850s, leading Christian scholars heading the geology departments at Cambridge and Oxford, agreed the earth was extremely old and that flood geology did not explain the evidence. See, "Reasons Why 'Flood Geology' Was Abandoned in the Mid-1800s by Christian Men of Science".


For the history of modern day "flood geology" and the ridiculous disproven arguments that young-earth creationists began to present in the 1960s as "facts".




LEVI: Also with the speed of light being slowed to the point of 35mph in super cold; if there was a big bang in super heat, could it have been much much faster than we are aware of?


ED: Could the universe have expanded faster than the speed of light during the inflationary period of the Big Bang? Here's one astronomer's inconclusive reply.


Neither does the question concerning the speed of the inflationary period of the Big Bang make the cosmos only a few thousand years old. You should visit some of the old-earth websites that I mentioned above, send them some questions if you think otherwise. Read about the multitudinous evidence for an old-earth and an old cosmos, and read about the way young-earth creationist arguments continue to dry up in respect to the age of the cosmos and the earth, and how the young-earthers are resorting more and more on ad hoc belief to try and reconcile their extremely young-earth and extremely young cosmos beliefs with the evidence that modern astronomers and geologists continue piling high.


One added note. I read about the experiment in which "light" was "stopped" or "paused" by a particular bunch of atoms that the light was made to pass through and that absorbed the light after which an identical bit of "light" or an indentical "photon" came out the other end. The "coldness" had little to do with the pausing of light, since atoms of another element that was not cold, but instead was heated, also paused the photons. Here's the article I googled.


Not just photons (photons travel at the speed of light), but also neutrons (a heavier particle found in the nucleus of every atom) have been slowed down. In the case of neutrons to 15 miles per hour.




LEVI: I know if evolution is real that it is not keeping up with animals that are becoming extinct so the earth as a whole is in big trouble. I don’t believe that we can get life from none life that was also taught by my biology teacher in high school. All I see is more and more animals becoming extinct since the beginning of creation.


ED: What I see is that the earth now contains human beings, apes, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, non-vertebrates, all the way down to single-celled species. (Today's modern world also contains the two largest plant and animal species of all time, the redwood/sequoia, and the blue whale, neither of which are found in the older fossil record.) So diversity and evolution has increased over time. Various branches of the animal and plant kingsoms have each experienced peak periods of diversity, and also experienced eight major trimmings or major extinction periods and many minor extinctions as well. But evolutionary diversity overall has increased as species moved from single cells to multi-cellular species, and from fish to amphibian-like fish, to amphibians, to reptile-like amphibians, to reptiles, and then the reptiles branched off into mammal-like reptiles and bird-like reptiles, and then mammals and birds arose, and then from one branch of the mammals came lemurs, monkeys, then primitive apes, and then modern apes and man both arose from the primitive apes. So greater diversity over geological time has occured.


Glenn Morton's excellent article, Living Fossils? There are None.


Neither is the evidence for such a progressive diversification of species over geological time an illusion created by flood geology depositing layers in such a deceptively pro-evolutionary order. See the website I mentioned above that mentions plain and obvious reasons why flood geology was rejected by the Christian geologists who studied the geologic record before Darwn's Origin was even published. And read the rebuttals by modern day Christians who are geologists. There is an entire society of old-earth Christian geologists you can find linked to this Christian website:


American Scientific Affiliation (ASA)--Investigating issues relating Christian faith and science. Includes on-line back issues of the journal, and news about the organization.
Henry Morris used to be a member of the ASA, above, in the 1950s, until he started reading the works of a 7th Day Adventist janitor, named George MacCready Price [for a full history of creationism see the work by Ronald Numbers, The Creationists], who believed that the entire geologic record was topsy turvy, including the Lewis Mountain Overthrust, that he presumed was not really an overthrust, but topsy turvy strata. Morris used Price's arguments in The Genesis Flood without giving him credit. Morris also tried to interest fellow Christian members of the ASA in Price's "Flood geology" arguments, and got the wind kicked out of him by replies from his fellow Christians and so Morris left the ASA to found his own splinter group, the Institute for Creation Research. A lot of people joined Morris's ICR based on his book, The Genesis Flood, which offered up "Paluxy man prints" and "The Lewis Mountain Overthrust" as "disproofs" of modern geology. Later, even ICR abandoned both the "man print" evidence as questionable, and ceased trying to use the Lewis Mountian Overthrust as evidence against modern geology (Austin and Wise of ICR have both agreed that the evidence is conclusive that the Lewis Moutain Overthrust is indeed the result of an overthrust fault of immense dimensions.)


Also read this admission by a young-earth creationist:
"When I visited the Institute for Creation Research towards the end of 1978... The associate director is Duane T. Gish... When I asked him what were the biggest difficulties for creationist science the points in a debate which he felt least comfortable in answering - he answered after a moment's thought that it was the apparently great age of Earth as shown by the fairly recent advances in radiometric dating; and that the fossil record could be interpreted as showing ecologically complete ages - the age of invertebrates, the age of fishes, the age of reptiles, and so on up to the present. "
Hitching F., "The Neck of the Giraffe: Or Where Darwin Went Wrong," Pan: London, 1982, pp.115-121)




LEVI: If the selacampise (sp) fish caught of Madagascar has not changed in “16 million years” I don’t think anything really does change that much; only slight adaptations and those that don’t just die out. DNA and other such deep designs of life are so complex I just don’t see it coming about by chance.


ED: Concerning the claim that "species have not changed," please see Extinction




LEVI: I think I was brain washed to an extent with evolution being presented as a fact in the schools, TV, and museums etc.


ED: Let me know what kind of new questions your brain asks after studying the above evidence, research articles, and after you have communicated with some old-earth creationist, and/or old-earth evolutionist Christians on the internet.




LEVI: I never even heard that there was a scientific creation side to it until I was 19 and for the most part all it does is point out the problems with the hypothetical reaseach program of evolution. Have you ever read the book “Evolution a theory in Crisis” by an evolutionist? Sorry I can’t think of the authors name.


ED: Michael Denton. I read that work. Denton was highly praised in the creationist press, especially in Origins Research in the 1980s (a newsletter that eventually evolved into the magazine, Origins and Design, and the Access Research Network). Denton and his book has even been considered a grandfather or forerunner of the I.D. movement. But his arguments were flawed, as pointed out in many reviews by scientists (see for instance the reviews at the National Center for Science Education website: http://www.ncseweb.org/ --and also those at the "Was Darwin Wrong?" website: http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/). Today Denton is an email friend of mine, and about a year or so ago he asked the Discovery Institute to cease listing him as a fellow of that institute. He is an evolutionist, though he was a creationist in his youth. He believes in a supernatural beginning to the cosmos, but that it evolved afterwards, just as stars form naturally (and we still view them forming, the evidence for which continues to pile up in astronomical journals), and just like the whole table of the elements forms inside stars out of simple the simplest of all the elements, hydrogen, and so on, right down to planets forming, and then molecules forming on their surface, and he also is convinced by the smallness of the genetic distances between species that their evolution in the sense of common descent--is a fact. I've exchanged emails with him recently in which he's affirmed his pro-evolution views. As for mutations, they continue to happen, naturally, as we have learned just by comparing the genomes of human beings, which contain individual genomic differences, and regional genomic differences, right on up to whole genome duplication as seen in two species of zebra fish, one of which has nearly twice the genomic material as the other species. Does it need that much extra genomic material? No it doesn't, as the existence of the other zebra fish species demonstrates. But a total genomic duplication has occured, called a whole genome duplication, or WGD, and many of those genes have been analyzed and seen to be duplicates, many of them non-functioning as well, with no on-off codons near them. In fact, geneticists have so far analyzed practically the whole genomes of humans, chimps, mice (or is it rats?) and a few other mammals and reptiles and fish, and they have been able to determine by comparing the whole genomes of species from fish to human that two whole genome duplications took place in the line leading from sea to land vertebrates. That's mutation for you, from the genomic differences that exist between human beings individually and regionally, as I mentioned, right on up to whole genome duplication, which leaves behind lots of duplicated genes (for evolution to further mutate).


I am saying mutations happen all the time, from point mutations to whole genomes being duplicated, and leaving behind plenty of duplicated genes after that process.


Also, take a close look at human chromosome #2. Do some web searches. All of the human chromoseomes and their length and their banding patterns match those of chimp chromosomes, except for human chromosome #2. But that single long human chromosome matches the length and banding patterns of TWO of the chimp chromosomes, thus all the human and chimp chromosomes and banding patterns DO match up. Moreover, inside human chromosome #2 are the remnants of a second centromere, and teleomeric regions where they should not be (they should be at the ends of the chromosome, not inside it, and not in reverse order!), all of which points to clear evidence of a sloppy fusion of two chromosomes that occurred in the ancestor shared by both humans and chimpanzees.




LEVI: There are other things too that has me believe that there is a God


ED: I never said there wasn't a Higher Power. I have even put together a list of Christians who are professors of science and defenders of evolution, including many defenders of Darwin as well.




LEVI: and one is a friend of mine who is not a Christian and leans more toward being a Buddhist (I think) who was first an Atheist. What change him? He saw a buddy of his possessed with at least 3 demons that spoke through him in languages he could not understand and one was a ladys voice all at the same time. I know its wild but this guy has no reason to lie about it.


ED: Did you see the new National Geographic series, "Is it Real?" They did a show recently on exorcisms. It was worth catching. Also I can send you some quotations from other books I've read about the subject, especially quotations from a journalist who toured the U.S. and Canada and was present at hundreds of exorcisms, seeking to learn all he could about the matter.




LEVI: Well that’s all for now. Thanks for writing.


ED: I can't answer all my emails, but the ones written in a friendly manner catch my eye, such as yours. Thanks.




LEVI: W.W.J.D. Two natures in me, One I love, one I hate, the one I feed will dominate.


ED: Hmmm, sure there's only two? The philosopher Mary Midgely wrote in Beast and Man (if I paraphrase her correctly) that human beings are riven by far more than just two natures or two desires. And often it's difficult for us to choose between two or more things we simultaneously desire. It's even difficult to choose how to react to two or more things we are repelled by. To take one example, if you're in the company of some people you like and others you might not admire or get along with very well. Do you stay to be with the ones you like, or leave because of the people in the group you dislike? Or maybe the group as a whole is attending a place whose food you dislike. Such a thing as the menu in that case might tip the balance not to go. There's always choices, always many decisions we each have to make about a wide variety of things from choosing lifelong careers to puruse to choosing which toothpaste to use, and so our basic needs, desires and interests all vie for attention.


Perhaps that's how general rules of ethics came into fashion as well, to try and simplify such decisions, at least in the ethical realm. We also have brains capable of envisioning future consequences of each of our decisions based our accumulated lifetime of knowledge about how different people and different events affect one another.


QUOTATIONS REGARDING THE TEN COMMANDMENTS AND ETHICS


In 1997 Henry Jordan, a “born again” Christian on the State Board of Education in South Carolina, tried to get a copy of the Ten Commandments hung in every classroom in the state. When it was pointed out to him that members of other religions might not appreciate having only the Judeo-Christian teachings on display, he replied, “Screw the Buddhists and Kill the Muslims.”


Screw and Kill? Lot of good knowing the commandments did for him.


E.T.B.




In the same year and the same state as the above incident the Charleston County Council of South Carolina unanimously passed a motion to post the Ten Commandments on a plaque outside the council chambers. Oddly enough, when a local reporter for the Post and Courier asked the nine council members to name the Ten Commandments, none could recall all ten. Two members refused to even try. Snapped Councilman Barrett Lawrimore, “I don’t have time for this pop quiz.”


Church and State




LET'S COMPARE THE U.S. CONGRESS WITH THE TEN COMMANDMENTS


Beginning with “Do not bear false witness,” don’t all Congresspeople “stretch the truth,” depending on which group of constituents or special interests or foreign dignitaries they are trying to woo or impress?


I also suspect there’s some “Sabbath-breakers” and “adulterers” in Congress.


Does Congress agree with the command, “Do not kill?”


How many Congresspeople have “used the Lord’s name in vain” after discovering that their prize bill (say a bill to display the Ten Commandments) did not receive enough votes to become a law?


I don’t suppose Congress will vote to display the “penalties” that go along with the Ten Commandments, since “death” is mentioned so often, even for “Sabbath-breakers.”


Lastly, I wonder how Congress will address the difference between the ancient Hebrew’s “First Commandment” and our First Amendment? According to the “First Commandment” in the Bible “ye shall have no other gods before me” under penalty of death. While our First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion.


E.T.B.




Preacher Pete: Without the Ten Commandments to lead them, people will wind up doing whatever they like.


Secular Sally: Most of us already do, but we like being liked, and hate being hated. In other words, most of us would sooner make friends than fill our freezers with heads, which, coincidentally, is a way to make enemies.


E.T.B.




“Thou shalt not kill” is as old as life itself. And for this reason a large majority of people in all countries have objected to being murdered.


Robert Ingersoll




How many people have to flip through the Bible, going, “Jeez, I want to screw my neighbor’s wife--don’t know if I should?”


Rick Reynolds, Only the Truth is Funny




I do not believe that ethics “without the Bible” are “completely relative.” People with no Bible to guide them still feel similar pains when stolen from, slapped, or called a stinging name. People with no Bible to guide them also feel similar pleasures when hugged, given a gift, or verbally petted. In other words, “ethical authority” resides in our bodies and brains, and in the multitude of lessons learned during lives of interaction with our fellow human beings. Neither is it easy for a person to turn to anti-social behavior if they have been taught from childhood to view other people’s feelings and needs through the inner lens of their own. People also recognize (regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof) that “joys shared are doubled, while sorrows shared are halved.” Such recognitions even form the basis for wanting to “double” society’s joys, and “halve” society’s sorrows.


Of course not everyone learns morality in the manner described above. Some are raised to “fear hell” and memorize lists of “holy commandments.” Such people are liable to “fear what they (and others) might become” once such “external” holy threats and commands are called into question. Ironically, in nearly all cases, such a “hell” does not exist to promote universal ethical behavior, but to promote belief in the truth of that person’s particular theology/denomination as opposed to rival theologies/denominations. So if you do not share their particular theology nor belong to their particular denomination, then they are convinced you are going to hell regardless of whatever kindnesses you share with them or society at large. Naturally such people understand the idea of a "moral" nation as one that consists solely of “fellow believers.” Of course any morality that tries to base itself upon purely “external” religious threats and commands will break down once the religion supporting it is called into question.


To avoid such “breakdowns” it makes more sense for a nation, culture, or family to emphasize “internal” rather than “external” morality/ethics, just as it makes more sense to raise children to think and act in terms of how “they would feel if what they did was done back to them,” rather than depending on rote memorization of lists to promote ethical understanding in all circumstances and among all people. All the world’s religions enshrine the principle, “Do not do to others what you would not want done to yourself,” and, “Do to others what you would want done to yourself,” which assume in both cases that “you” already possess an “internal” recognition of what you should and shouldn’t do. So, there need not be any overt conflict between “internal” and “external” morality and ethics. However, stressing the “internal” variety seems to have a far greater chance of drawing society together, rather than tearing it apart.


“Internal” ethical recognitions preceded the composition of humanity’s earliest law codes such as those of King Hammurabi, or the moral injunctions found in the Egyptian Book of the Dead, or the later but more famous, “Ten Commandments.” Such “internal” recognitions inspired the creation of laws, and still do, and remind us that laws are but dust when people neglect to seek out what is best within themselves and each other.


E.T.B.




A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.


Albert Einstein




Forgiveness is not, as some people seem to believe, a mysterious and sublime idea that we owe to a few millennia of Judeo-Christianity. It did not originate in the minds of people and cannot therefore be appropriated by an ideology or a religion.~The fact that monkeys, apes, and humans all engage in reconciliation behavior (stretching out a hand, smiling, kissing, embracing, and so on) means that it is probably over thirty million years old, preceding the evolutionary divergence of these primates...Reconciliation behavior [is] a shared heritage of the primate order…


When social animals are involved...antagonists do more than estimate their chances of winning before they engage in a fight; they also take into account how much they need their opponent. The contested resource often is simply not worth putting a valuable relationship at risk. And if aggression does occur, both parties may hurry to repair the damage. Victory is rarely absolute among interdependent competitors, whether animal or human.


Frans De Waal, Peacemaking Among Primates




Darwin proposed that creatures like us who, by their nature, are riven by strong emotional conflicts, and who have also the intelligence to be aware of those conflicts, absolutely need to develop a morality because they need a priority system by which to resolve them. The need for morality is a corollary of conflicts plus intellect:


“Man, from the activity of his mental faculties, cannot avoid reflection… Any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well-developed, or anything like as well-developed as in man.”(Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man)


That, Darwin said, is why we have within us the rudiments of such a priority system and why we have also an intense need to develop those rudiments. We try to shape our moralities in accordance with our deepest wishes so that we can in some degree harmonize our muddled and conflict-ridden emotional constitution, thus finding ourselves a way of life that suits it so far as is possible.


These systems are, therefore, something far deeper than mere social contracts made for convenience. They are not optional. They are a profound attempt--though of course usually an unsuccessful one--to shape our conflict-ridden life in a way that gives priority to the things that we care about most.


If this is right, then we are creatures whose evolved nature absolutely requires that we develop a morality. We need it in order to find our way in the world. The idea that we could live without any distinction between right and wrong is as strange as the idea that we--being creatures subject to gravitation--could live without any idea of up and down. That at least is Darwin’s idea and it seems to me to be one that deserves attention.


Mary Midgley, “Wickedness: An Open Debate,” The Philosopher’s Magazine, No. 14, Spring 2001




It is forbidden to decry other [religious] sects; the true believer gives honor to whatever in them is worthy of honor.


Decree of Asoka, famed Buddhist king of India


Return love for hatred. Otherwise, when a great hatred is reconciled, some of it will surely remain. How can this end in goodness? Therefore the sage holds to the left hand of an agreement but does not expect what the other holder ought to do. Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss. Whoever is self-centered cannot have the love of others.


Taoist wisdom (written centuries before Jesus was born)




That which you want for yourself, seek for mankind.


Islamic holy teaching (Sukhanan-i-Muhammad, 63)




People were Christian before Christ ever existed. People were humanistic before humanism was ever organized. People were loving before LSD was ever discovered.


Timothy Leary, as quoted by Paul Krassner, “The Cynic Route from Crazy SANE to Loving Haight,” The Realist, 1967


BORN BELIEVERS?


Thank God He made it easy to find the “one true faith.” So easy that your parents can pick it out for you before you are even born, and, in most places on earth, they do.


It’s even easier to find a “true” Christian as opposed to a false one, or a “true” Moslem as opposed to a false one. The “true” believer who understands what his holy book “really” says, always happens to be the one addressing you.


E.T.B.




They told him a God of Near Eastern origin, the God of Abraham (who evidently had a stupendous bosom) and Isaac and Jacob, had made the whole universe, stars and atoms, from start to finish in six days and made it wonderfully and perfect, and had set it all going and, after some necessary setbacks called the Fall and the Flood, had developed arrangements that were to culminate in the earthly happiness and security and eternal bliss of our little Mr. Davis, which had seemed to him a very agreeable state of affairs. And further they had shown him the most convincing pictures of Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel and had given him a Noah’s Ark toy to play with [in times past the only acceptable toy to play with on Sundays was Noah’s ark] and told him simple Bible stories about the patriarchs and the infant Samuel and Solomon and David and their remarkable lessons for us, the promise of salvation spreading out from the Near East until it covered the world, and he had taken it all in without flinching because at the time he had no standards of comparison. Anything might be as true as anything else. Except for difference in color they put him into a world of Green Pastures and there they trained him to be a simply believing little Anglican.


H. G. Wells, “The Mind of Mr. Joseph Davis”




Scientific education and religious education are incompatible. The clergy have ceased to interfere with education at the advanced stage, but they still control that of children. This means that children have to learn about Adam and Noah instead of evolution; about David killing Goliath instead of Koch killing cholera; about Christ’s ascent into heaven instead of Montgolfier’s or Wright’s. [SEE NOTE] Worse than that they are taught that it is a virtue to accept a statement without adequate evidence, which leaves them prey to quacks of every kind and makes it difficult for them to accept the methods of thought that are successful in science.


J. B. Haldane


[NOTE] Montgolfier ascended into the heavens via a balloon filled with hot air, and the Wright brothers designed and piloted the first successful heavier-than-air flying machine.




CHILDREN’S LETTERS TO GOD


“Dear God, Why is Sunday School on Sunday? I thought it was supposed to be our day of rest.”
- Tom L.


“Dear God, What does it mean you are a jealous God. I thought you had everything.”
- Jane


“Dear God, How come you did all those miracles in the old days and don’t do any now?”
- Seymour


Children’s Letters to God: The New Collection, compiled by Stuart Hample and Eric Marshall

Friends and Colleagues