Want Some Answers ???


Dearest Tommy, You wrote,

>>I'm also keeping a record of our exchange, which I plan to post as well. I'm hoping that a lot of Christians read it so they will learn from your example on how NOT to debate evolutionists. Your last letter revealed that you don't do your homework as thoroughly as you boast.<<

My "boast" is only that God created everything without millions of years of trial and error. But the Sceptic "example" is clever "distortion" and deliberate misunderstanding. There wouldn't be "debate" if they acknowledged the truth that "no natural process has ever been observed where information originated spontaneously in matter" [W.Gitt 'Did God Use Evolution? CKV 2001]. (Director/Prof. German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology. PhD). So I conclude "Evolution's a fraud, and Sceptics don't WANT to know it”. You wrote,

>>I also noticed that you didn't post my letter on your web site, only your response to my original letter. Is that fair?<<

Some of your letters were just abuse, is that fair? On my site readers have your response and my reply, that’s fair. Is calling me "coward" because I hadn't answered your letters fair? But what concerns me is that you misrepresent the Bible on SFN website - selecting verses to make it sound foolish or say what it doesn't. This DISTORTS the meaning to misled. That's dishonest and questions your creditability.

>>Fascinating. Your first letters to SFN burst forth with guns blazing, accusing all of us of being fools, ignoramuses, and brainwashed members of a "religious" cult. But when I had the audacity to challenge your distortions and misrepresentations of science and scripture, point by point, you now attack my supposed lack of "maturity." I fail to understand why creationists find it necessary to turn every ideological disagreement into a personal vendetta. Believe me, I don't want to enlist in your culture war<<

Still no reason for your dishonesty! Distorting the Bible is exactly what "
ignoramuses, and brainwashed members of a "religious" cults" do. Twisting verses don't do justice to the truth it teaches. Or does truth matter? If truth matters how can anyone believe what you say about anything? I mentioned, not all my "book recommendations" are from 'creationists'. Some are just scientists who reject evolution. Since highly qualified scientists today reject evolution, so take them more seriously. There must be reasons.

>>I'm not aware of any "highly qualified scientists" that reject evolution. I don't consider the members of the Institute for Creation Research to be highly qualified, because they all have to sign a "Statement of Faith" pledging that their data will coincide with the historical inerrancy of the book of Genesis.<<

Wow how little you know! Why ignore their studies and qualifications? Do you think those who reject evolution have no qualifications or brains? Then you reject truth on principle. I don't ignore what evolutionists say just because they are evolutionists. Some of the books I listed were from “
highly qualified scientists” not connected to ICR etc. Like I said 'it's estimated upwards of 10,000 professional scientists are in USA alone, most are not officially linked to creation organizations'.

Also, 1993 Sth Korea, the Korean Ass. of Creation Research has a membership over 1,000 scientists, the majority with at least a Master's or PhD in some area of science. And including 100 full-ranking university professors. The Moscow Creation Science Fellowship was formed with 10 members. A year later escalated to 120 holders of advanced science degrees. Most university professors have one earned doctorate, there’s members of the creation movement [eg Prof. Wilder-Smith] 3 sci. doctorates. I mentioned 'Evolution demands an upward trend - increasing order and complexity'. You say,

>>No it does not. Evolution is not goal-oriented. Where do you acquire such misinformation?<<

From Darwin. And that's why evolution hasn't happened. There is no plan to start with and no blue print for anything to change. Evolution would need to be "
goal-oriented" to succeed. Because it has no goal-orientation it can't do what's required for the theory.

Organic evolution (as theorized) is a naturally occurring, beneficial change that produces increasing and inheritable complexity. It should reveal the off spring of one life-form had a different and improved set of vital organs. Sometimes called the molecules-to-man theory - or Macroevolution. But 'Microevolution' on the other hand, does not involve increasing complexity. It only involves minor chemical alterations or changes in size, shape or colour. Microevolution can be thought of as 'horizontal' change while Macroevolution [if it were ever observed] would involve an 'upward' and beneficial change in complexity. We might agree that 'micro' occurs. Minor changes have been seen since history began. Notice how often evolutionists give evidence for micro to support macro. It's macro that requires new abilities and increasing complexity which is the debate. Macro doesn't happen, ever has, and never will.

Darwin evolutionists make excuses for why the fossil museums are not overflowing with intermediates. The fossil record provides the only direct evidence concerning the history of life on earth. There's billions of invertebrate fossils, billions of fossil fish, millions of fossil-bearing amphibians, reptiles and mammals locked into fossil-bearing strata. Fossils of some creatures, men for example, are, on the other hand, quite rare.

In the natural history museums worldwide are more than 250,000 different fossil species, represented by tens of millions of catalogued fossils. Any appeal to the 'poverty of the fossil record' is nonsense. If as evolutionists believe, several millions of species have gradually evolved over millions of years, huge numbers of intermediate stages would have occurred. And transitional forms that would have lived and died during that enormous time would be billions and billions.

If evolution were true, then at least 10,000 of the millions of fossils in our museums today would obviously be transitional forms. But there's none! With or without 'punctuated equilibrium' there's no change to this fact. If there were transitional forms there could be absolutely no challenge to evolution.

On the bases of creation there would be an abrupt appearance and fully formed fossils. Just what we see! Each of the basic types of plants and animals, are created kinds without transitional forms and suggest a common ancestor. The fossil record comes down so heavily on the creationist side there's simply no contest! Creation wins hands down. This was apparent to Darwin, and to palaeontologist’s, [which I quoted] non-creationists, and to anti-Darwinists today, but not even seriously considered by you. The only way Sceptics deal with this problem is ignore it. I mentioned that 99% of quotes from my last letters were from Evolutionists. You reply,

>>Your list of quotations come straight from Henry Morris' book That Their Words May Be Used Against Them, a reference book of compiled evolutionary "quotes" that go back 50 years. Morris' book has been heavily criticized for misrepresenting the positions of various authors by taking their words out of context. SURPRISE! Yes, Mark! And look at how EASY it was! Obviously, I made my point.<<

My quotations 'didn't' come from Henry Morris' book - don't have ANY his books (yet). The quotes came from evolutionists. It was dishonest to lie about Morris, Taylor & Gish as if they taught evolution. But my quotes did NOT mislead, but indicate those "missing links" are STILL missing. And they admit making stories that are speculation. That's not taking words out of context but telling you [who don’t know] the facts. You wrote,

>>But you want to know what's really strange? I own a book by Colin Patterson titled Evolution: Second Edition, and I couldn't find the quote that you cited by him in your prior emails. Your bibliographic reference simply said "Master Books," USA 1984. Funny thing is, Master Books is a publishing arm of the Institute for Creation Research. I can't imagine Colin Patterson publishing anything through Master Books.<<

The quote doesn't come from "Evolution: Second Edition". Its a personal letter [written 10 April 1979] from Patterson to Luther D. Sunderland; as quoted in 'Darwin's Enigma' by Luther D. Sunderland Master Books San Diego, USA 1984 p.89). Details - "Its easy to construct stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test".

Exactly what he said a WORD for WORD quote. And I AGREE. Why don’t you? Patterson also writes, "....I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustrated of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.".

Are those quotes dishonest? That's what he wrote! Here's another evolutionist who says the same, "All present approaches to a solution of the problem of the origin of life are either irrelevant or lead into a blind alley. Therein lies the crisis...The various approaches to a solution of the origin of life are examined and found wanting" [John Keosian Origin of Life 1978 p.569-574]. Why ignore their comments? Now, 'not all' my "
book recommendations" are 'creationists', some are just scientists who reject evolution. You replied,

>>Oh good grief, Mark. Do you take me for fool? Every author on your list is either a member of the ICR, CRS, or the Discovery Institute's Center for Renewal of Science and Culture. All of these men are "creationists" in the sense that they ALL believe that the Judeo-Christian God created the earth and universe, although they can't agree on whether it took Him six days or 12 billion years.<<

No one would 'take' you 'for a fool' if you HAD read them [as claimed]. You haven't opened the covers, because the authors reject Darwinian evolution. As I said some of the authors don't come from a biblical Christian/literal Genesis viewpoint ie CRS, ICR AiG etc. Use them with this caution in mind, but they can be extremely helpful. Here again -
"Evolution: A Theory In Crisis" Dr M Denton (Not AiG ICR CRS)
"Darwin's Black Box". Pro M.J. Behe (Not AiG etc )
"Not A Change" Dr L Spetner (Not AiG)
"Darwin on Trial" P.E. Johnson (Not AiG)
"Reason in the Balance" P.E. Johnson (Not AiG)

I mentioned the 'progressive scientists' you quote are Liberal. They don't hold the Bible as 'authoritative' [or literal]. The 'progressives' would agree the earth is 14 or 50 or however old anyone suggests. You replied,

>>Interesting. I again point out the fact that "Bible believing" scientists disagree on the age of the universe by a factor greater than 2.3 million, yet you attempt to whitewash that obviously painful inconsistency by trying to deflect attention to disagreements among evolutionary biologists. Nice try, Mark.<<

Wouldn't call them "
Bible believing scientists". In fact they (as you) don't believe the Bible as written. They believe the theories of men first and foremost. The "obviously painful inconsistency" are theirs, not the Bibles or creationists. Why do you overlook "disagreements among evolutionary biologists" and 'progressive scientists'? And blame 'inconsistencies' of 'progressive scientists' on creationists? You wrote,

>>It's true that evolutionists aren't united in lockstep harmony over specific issues, but their disagreements pale in comparison to the young-earth, old-earth, and intelligent design creationists fighting among themselves for supremacy in their Tower of Babel.<<

I don't think so. Evolutionary stories defy logic and shouldn't be ignored. Creationists accepting the Bible literally remain six-day creationists.

(here he listed dates for the age of the earth. FAR too long/many to repeat).

There's no scientific proof for those dates you quote. They are guesswork based on evolutionary theory not scientific evidence. Your paragraph is from a free pamphlet available from the American Geological Institute called "Evolution and the Fossil Record". All about different dating methods and the quotes were all 'millions of years'. They don't know for sure but are all guess work. Given enough time to allow evolution to work.

Dating methods are not secret but well known. The problems and assumptions behind each dating method have resulted in various dates from various labs operating the same dating process. Hence the dates are not conclusive or final.

Even if one accepts evolution and it's millions of years there have been serious embarrassments to the evolutionist by the dating methods giving dates, which are much younger than those he expects. For example, coal from Russia from the "Pennsylvanian", supposedly 300 million years ago, was dated at 1,680 years [Radiocarbon, vol.8 1966].

In fact, Dr.Lee R.E. indicates, "The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious...It should be no surprise, then that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely that the remaining half come to be accepted. This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy, and all depends upon which funny paper you read" [Radiocarbon, Ages in Error Anthropological Journal of Canada vol.19(3) 1981 see p.9-29]. I've dozens of similar quotes.

Our discussion regarding "Unfossialized dinosaur bone" in 1992 Geological Society of America also, Davies in Journal of Paleonology 61 (1): 198-200. 'In Thailand' [The Times. June 20 1996 - Nature August 22 1996 pg.709-708 New Scientist] was regarded as -

>>Your references are far too general to find anything useful, and I also suspect that you got confused about your sources..........[snip]<<

I'm not sure my sources are "confused" I snipped your letter that goes back to the old story about the contamination, which I said in my last letter "I know about it". You quote a long article on it, which sounds plausible. But what if those skeptical biologist found that the existence of red blood cell protein in that dino bone and it could not be discounted as 'contamination'. Would they be skeptical of the millions of years? I doubt it. Yet another complex protein found in the dino bones HAS been reported, and that denies the 'millions of years'. I didn't "try to conceal information" as you claim. I can't defend what evolutionists claim to have found It's obvious there are claims of 'unfossilized bones' believe it or not. Blood chemicals found in dino bone (See 'Science News' vol.148 Nov.11 1995 p.314).

But you ignore the other claims of 'ancient' DNA (such as that of a 120 million-year-old weevil' which most evolutionists do accept as real DNA from that creature, not contamination. Since DNA should only last for thousands of years, this is evidence for young fossils. You ignore the facts when it suits. Scientists in Russia have reported a layer of rock containing more than 2000 dinosaur footprints alongside tracks 'resembling human footprints' [A.Romashko 'Tracking Dinosaurs' Moscow News no.24 1983 p.10]. Obviously, both types of footprints were made in mud or sand that has since hardened into rock. If they are human footprints, then man and dinosaurs lived at the same time. Similar discoveries have been made in Arizona [P.O.Rosnau 'Are Human and Mammal Tracks Found Together? CRS quarterly vol.26 Sept.1989 p.41-48 Dec.1989 p.77-98]. If it were not for the theory of evolution no one would doubt humans made these tracks.

Further more, humanlike footprints supposedly 150-600 million years old, have been found in rock formations in Utah [M.Cook 'W.Meister Discovery of Human Footprints with Trilobites...Cambrian Formation' NJ Reformed Publ. 1970 p.185-193] - Kentucky [Geology and Ethnology Disagree about the Rock Prints Science News Letter 10Dec.1938 p.372] - Pennsylvania [Human-Like Tracks in Stone are Riddle to Scientists Science News Letter 29Oct.1938 p.278-279] Not to mention those at Laetoli Tanzania [dated 3.7 million years]. If human feet made any of these prints, then evolutionary chronology is drastically wrong.

In 1983 Dr A.Charig and Dr B.Halstead of the Geology Dept. Reading Univ., seriously challenged every evolutionary theory as to why the dinosaurs had become extinct or even when they died out. - "All Theories on the Dinosaurs' Extinction are now Extinct" The Weekly Australian Aug.27-28 1983 p11. And The Times Lon. Aug.25 1983].

There's indications from the Bible these large creatures lived at the same time as men [Job 40:15 41:1-34]. Just as every culture has flood stories, many also have dragon legends. There have been reported sightings of dinosaurs even up to the present day. 'Dragon' legends appear in China, Japan, Australia, South America, India, Europe, England and in the Americas ['Update' Omega Oct.1981 p.32] And more than 40 people claimed to have seen plesiosaurs off the Victorian coast [Australia] over recent years Melb. Sun Feb.6 1980. In Science Digest June 1981 and as late as 1983 (Science Frontiers, no.33) explorers and natives in Africa have reported sightings of dinosaur-like creatures.

I read through you analysis of my quotes on this point and noted that you "
couldn't find any" and "and found no articles" and "couldn't find any significant articles about dinosaurs in Thailand" and "found no articles in The Times" And "Couldn't get the right page number....correct Newspaper" etc. Oh dear, you can find all the other information you want to but nothing contrary to evolution. The way you misrepresent the Bible (and creation scientists) questions your lack of findings.

In one sentence you insist, "...
the discovery of these dinosaur fossils, but doesn't say anything about their preservation." Yet in contradiction the very opposite is apparent because Davies does say, "The bones are stained a dark red brown but otherwise display little permineralization, crushing, or distortion." [Davies, Kylie L., 1987, Duck-bill dinosaurs (Hadrosauridae, Ornithischia) from the North Slope of Alaska. Journal of Paleontology Vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 198-200].

If you can't find the quotes I gave, what about these?

(1) DNA has now been reported in magnolia, leaves that evolutionists claimed to be 17 million years old [E.M.Golenberg 'Chloroplast DNA Sequence from a Miocene Magnolia Species' Nature vol.344 12April 1990 p.656-658.]

(2) Fragments of DNA are also claimed to be in alleged 80 million-year-old dinosaur bones buried in a coal bed [S.R. Woodward 'DNA Sequence from Cretaceous Period Bone Fragments' Science vol.266 18Nov.1994 p.1229-1232].

(3) How about DNA found in the scales of a 200 million-year-old fossilized fish [K.Hoppe 'Brushing the Dust off Ancient DNA' Science News vol.142 24Oct.1992 p.281].

(4) Its also been reported in amber encased insects and plants that are supposedly 25-120 million years old [H.N. Poinar 'DNA from an Extinct Plant' Nature vol.363 24June 1993 p.677]. Since DNA should only last for thousands of years, this is evidence of young fossils.

(5) And what about the protein preserved in dinosaur bones? As with DNA, no proteins should last 75-150 million years [R. Monastersky 'Protein Identified in Dinosaur Fossils' Science News vol.142 3Oct.1992 p.871-874].

(Interjection: Since writing this email, there have been discoveries of soft tissue preservation with dinosaurs. Q.J. Currie P.J Norell Shu-An J. Two feathered dinosaurs from NthWest China. Nature 393/6687 753-761 1998. Rugen J.A Jones T.D Geist N.R Hillenius W.J Lung structure & Ventilation in the ropod dinosaurs & early birds. Science 278(5341) 1267-1270 1997). These soft tissue discoveries of dinosaurs were even known in the last century, Gilmore C.W, Osteology of the armored dinosaur in the US Natural Museum with special ref. to the genus Stegosaurus Smithson Inst. US Nat. Mus. Bull.89 1-136 1614) See also p.19 T.J. vol16(3) AiG 2003. Thank you).

There's plenty of evidence suggesting these plant and animal remains are not as old as evolutionist believe. Regardless of what you contest about dino bone preservation. So why criticize the claims evolutionists make? You might not like them, but they indicate evolution's a fraud. Even if you could prove every dino bone was totally fossilized, it still doesn't prove evolution happened. Bones don't come with labels attached telling how old they are. The stories of millions of years are only for the evolutionists who try to fit them into their mind set. Any comments about the mud-springs at Swindon Wiltshire? Like a fossil conveyor belt with pristine fossils supposedly "165 million years old". Surprise! Many still have shimmering mother-of-pearl shells, and retain their iridescence, and bivalves still have their original organic ligaments. Even more amazing is the millions of years mindset that blinds hard-nosed rational scientists from seeing what should be so obvious. You ask,

>>what's the big deal about living coelacanths? We also have fossilized sharks, skates, rays, crocodiles, and turtles, too, who all lived during the Mesozoic Era as well as today.<<

"The big deal" is, there are continually discoveries like this yet evolutionists keep their heads in the sand. Eg. John Blashford discovered an extinct type of elephant similar to the mammoth in western Nepal [The elephant Time forgot' The Mail on Sunday May23 1993]. Not long after that they discovered a previously unknown breed of horse in a remote valley in Tibet which looks just like those 'Stone Age' cave paintings. Like the coelacanth these discoveries are of animals which are supposed to be 'extinct' long ago always seem to generate headlines laced with evolutionary assumptions. Statements such as 'prehistoric survivors' or 'creatures from million of years ago that time forgot' are routine and really fool a few people. But they also make it ever more difficult to believe the alleged long time spans between 'prehistory' and the present. Invariably the bones of the "fossilized sharks, skates, rays, crocodiles, and turtles" are just the same as those living today. They haven't changed!!!!

I mentioned it's NOT the "young-earth creationist" that "claim that the fossil record is arranged in a stair-step progression from the simple to the complex". You reply,

>>Are you claiming that young-earth creationists deny fossil stratigraphy? Do you even READ your creationist literature? Henry Morris and John Whitcomb once claimed that that the fossils were arranged in stratigraphic order due to the animal's "differential mobility." When the rains came tumbling down, swift-footed people and mammals raced to higher ground to save themselves, the dinosaurs reacted more slowly and took their time climbing to shelter, and the stupid Cambrian arthropods made no effort to save themselves. The flood then picked up all their carcasses and arranged them in a stratigraphic sequence to resemble evolution.<<

I have no books by Morris or Whitcomb but can check. So page number and book please. Morris wouldn't make up stories to fit evolution's uniformitarianism. That has been done often only to have the stories change. Morris doesn't hold to the one layer per year nonsense (there would be 150 million years missing in the Grand Canyon alone). He's well aware of the massive fossil grave-yards around the world. I mentioned that it's the evolutionist who advocate a "sorted and arranged" 'geological column' from Cambrian, Ordovician etc up to Pleistocene and you replied,

>>Evolutionists did NOT develop the geologic column. It was developed by Christian geologists in the 19th century, decades before the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species. You're getting careless, Mark.<<

No, but true many "
geologists" before Darwin were "Christian". Practically nowhere on the earth can one find the so-called "geological column". Evolutionists argue 'early' fossils in early rocks, to have the millions of years and transitions accordingly. It doesn't work. That's why Darwin wrote, "Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record" [Origin of Species p.292-293]. But of course the 'extreme imperfection' of evolutionary theory remains.

All the signs are for rapid burial, not a slow "
stratigraphic sequence to resemble evolution". Read the books on Fossils I recommend. The 'geologic column' is a problem for evolution. Eg., fossilized jellyfish show the details of their soft fleshy portions, why? They were buried rapidly before decay. Fossils of fish swallowing other fish and polystrate fossils - that is fossil trees that cross two of more sedimentary layers [strata]. Many animals are buried in mass graves and in twisted and contorted positions, suggesting violent and rapid buried over large areas [P.Grayloise 'Very Like a Whale' The Illustrated Lon. News 1956 p.116]. These were rapid NOT encased over millions of years. Some fossils could said to be sorted by water but there is NO EVIDENCE for slow change [H.G.Coffin 'Origin By Design' Wash.DC Review 1983 p.30-40].

I mentioned that "the fossil graveyards have all the signs of rapid burial and bones are mixed together" in my last mail. You replied quoting "
Bob Schadewald" a virulent anti-creationist. He plays the same game trying to fault creationists. Have you read his chapter 'The Evolution of Bible Science' in Science Confront Evolutionist? [NY 1983].

One of his special interests is the flat-earth movement, which has a miniscule following, no scientist supporters. So his expertise is in a moribund society of little interest to anyone but a few members and himself. He writes, 'Bible-scientists have waged war on conventional science, sometimes defending their beliefs with such potent arguments as the rack, rope, or stake." He doesn't describe what took place, or when and who these "Bible-scientists" were. One must just accept his word for all of this.

He claims the Bible scientists have once again given their doctrines the force of law. Nonsense, it's evolutionary theory that is now backed by the force of law. Every attempt is made to establish evolutionary theory as the sole explanation for origins, with complete exclusion of the scientific evidence for creation. The creationists would be tortured with rope, rack, and stake if evolutionists had their way.

In order to prejudice the reader against creation science, Schadewal links creation scientists to flat-earthers, geocentrists, and other categories he calls pseudoscience. He says modem creationists march under the banner of science and make a great "pother" about science, but offer a complex pseudoscience, which they call scientific creation (p.284). Yet Schadewald has no scientific credentials. His discussion is a mere hodgepodge of jibes at creation scientists and those who hold to a Bible-centered faith. Most of his chapter is devoted to a discussion of the Flat Earth Society, his obvious tactic being aimed at linking creation scientists to flat-earthers.

He maintains the Bible teaches a flat earth. Not true. The Bible refers to circle of the earth (Isaiah 40:22). From every point in the earth appears as a circle, which it must, of course, if it, a sphere. The Bible is thus scientifically accurate on that and Schadewald simply reveals his ignorance of the Bible. Why quote him? I mentioned that Uniformitarian geology is now under attack for the evidence is contrary to the assumption. You wrote,

>>Geology is "under attack" by whom? Young-earth flood geologists from the ICR? No surprise there.<<

It's a "
surprise" when you argue for a theory with no evidence. Just remember these facts. [1] What's even more damaging than "unfossilized" bones today is the living fossils. Creatures from the so-called era of 'millions of years ago' haven't changed at all. The older they are claimed, the more evident those living today haven't changed. Note the creatures [which are claimed] evolved into fish, yet they are just the same today as the fossils but alive, of course. Further they haven't continued to evolve and become bigger or better at anything. If evolution were true, the older a species, the greater evolved a species should be today. Why haven't Trilobites visited the moon millions of years before man? :)

[2] For evolution there can be no break in the sequence of living things from the origin of life to the appearance of man. The history of life in the evolutionary view must be a continuum, yet at the start we have the most immense break in the history of life one could imagine - the monstrous gap between microscopic organisms and the Cambrian invertebrates. When evolutionists wish to cover up a gap in the fossil record they claim that evolution was 'rapid'. But the gap between single cell microscopic organisms and the complex invertebrates is both immense and unchallengeable, and such a long duration, that if the fossils exist, they would have been found by now.

There should be a great variety of highly diverse, complex invertebrates but they appear explosively in the fossil record, each formed at first appearance. If evolution were true, then millions of fossils in our museums would unquestionably be transitional forms. But there are none! This break establishes proves evolution has not occurred. It's powerful, positive, irrefutable evidence to creation. Further discussion of the fossil record is actually unnecessary. Why beat a dead horse? The fossil record is powerful evidence creation has taken place. Another gap beyond dispute is between the invertebrates and the vertebrates requiring millions of years and billions of transitional forms which should have lived and died. Yet none have been found!

"Since Darwin a tremendous expansion of Paleontological knowledge has taken place and we know much more about the fossil record than was known, in his time." [p.156 Scientists Confront Creationism Ed.L.Godfrey ch.9 D.Raup Geologist]. Yes Paleontologists have searched intensely throughout the world for 'missing links'. Rocks of every so-called geological period carefully searched. Many new discoveries made but no links between major categories discovered. If evolution were true, tens of thousands of the 250,000 known species should represent indisputable transitional forms.

Your last email didn't provide what I asked - "one species into another" Nowhere on those websites is that information given [and no where in your latest letter either]. You respond,

>>It looks like you just skimmed the essays in search of something to rebut while ignoring their contents. When members of a single species are divided by geography, the parent species will frequently spawn a daughter species where the two become reproductively isolated and can no longer interbreed. Charles Darwin wrote two chapters describing examples of biogeography in his book On the Origin of Species.<<

But if one "species" "spawned" into another where's the evidence? Where are the half way species? Darwin sited the "most obvious and serious objection" against his theory the absence of such intermediates. Of all the information you can find, none can answer this problem. Why can't you see the obvious? Is it because you don't want to see? I mentioned the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a serious obstacle for naturalistic evolution. Sounds like I hit a raw nerve. You replied,

>>Yes, you did. Do you realize how many stupid, scientifically illiterate creationists write to me every single week proclaiming that "Evolution is a Satanic Lie because it Violates the Second Law of Psychics!" Law of Psychics? What the Hell is that? Apparently, these idiots think the details of classical thermodynamics are so intimidating that they can use it as a "magic bullet" to refute evolution because the technical minutiae is way beyond their comprehension.<<

Calling people "stupid" because you don't understand? If so easy, why not explain it in your own words? Instead providing web-pages. If not a "magic bullet" that 'refutes evolution' what is it? The 2nd Law indicates if the universe is an isolated system, then the energy in the universe available for useful work has always been decreasing. But, as one goes back in time, the amount of energy available for useful work would eventually exceed the total energy in the universe that according to the first law remains constant. This is an impossible condition, proving that the universe had a beginning.

"The more orthodox scientific view is that the entropy of the universe must forever increase to its final maximum value. It has not yet reached this: we should not be thinking about it if it had. It is still increasing rapidly, and so must have had a beginning; there must have been what we may describe as a 'creation' at a time not infinitely remote" [Jeans p.181]. Countless of experiments verify it but Tom doesn't believe anti-Creationist Isaac Asimov. Why? You wrote,

>>And I noticed that you made no effort to challenge my corrections, either. Instead, you just propped up some completely irrelevant quote by Isaac Asimov as supporting your position, despite the fact that Isaac Asimov has previously claimed that creationists' understanding of thermodynamics "never rises above the level of kindergarten."<<

You won't listen to evolutionists, creationist and those telling you "
every single week". Why should I write? All the nonsense I was a "coward" and "afraid" to reply. Why waste my time? If Asimov says creationists and their understanding of thermodynamics are at "the level of kindergarten" I agree with what he says about "thermodynamics", does it mean we are both at "the level of kindergarten"? Do you agree when he says this? - "And in man is a three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe" [Smithsonian Institute Jorn. Jun.1970 p.10].

I wrote Dr Gish knows more about the 2nd Law than Steiger (You listed Frank Steiger's web page). To that you replied,

>>Oh good grief, Mark! Did you get your Ph.D. from a diploma mill? Frank Steiger is a chemical engineer. Duane Gish is a biochemist. As such, Frank Steiger's profession routinely applies classical thermodynamics. Gish's professional experience does not.<<

This contradicts what you said earlier. If anyone has experience in science and not a Christian - they're a genius. But if they become a Christian and believe the Bible they lose their "brain" and "qualifications"? Gish has a Ph.D in biochemistry (from U.C Berkeley) why not read what he writes about biochemistry? He has many years of research and experience in University laboratories and with leading a biochemical firm. Does he know anything about evolution? studied it for 30 years and faced evolutionists in almost 300 debates.

It's hard to believe Steiger's "
profession routinely applies classical thermodynamics" for he denies "classical thermodynamics". I quoted other scientists of Physics similar to Gish. You ignore them and target Gish why? Oh, I know, he's a creationist. You go on about 29 Nobel Prize-winning physicists who are supposed to have a contrary view to 'creationists'. And change the subject to 'creation in schools' & drop the 2nd Law subject.

And others quoted? "No experimental evidence disproves it", say physicists G.N. Hatspoulous and F.F. Cyftopoulos: "There is no recorded experiment in the history of science that contradicts the second law or its corollaries..." [EB. Stuart, B. Cal-Or, and A.J. Brainard eds; Deductive Quantum Thermodynamics in a Critical Review of Thermodynamics (Baltimore: Mono Book Corporation, 1970), p.8]. Want more quotes?

You have no choice but to say what you do, the 2nd Law makes evolution scientifically untenable. All evolutionists must believe otherwise, they have no choice. Yet this proven and observable law explains why everything is running down. Evolution masquerades as the grand mechanism that everything is running up.

The 2nd Law also applies to information, there is always a tendency for information to become lost or garbled. This is easy to understand, for transmission information requires the expenditure of energy. Work must be performed [Called informational thermodynamics]. The origin of the universe, life, and the evolution of a single-celled organism into man would have required an enormous increase in complexity, organization, and information content. Biological evolution requires the transmission and storage of information and a net increase in information content.

According to the evolutionary process from the cosmic egg to the human brain. And according to one of the current notions on the origin of the universe, the so-called Big Bang theory some billions of years ago all of the energy and matter of the universe was crammed together in a huge cosmic egg. The size, temperature, and density of this primeval cosmic egg varies according to who is telling the story, but its temperature and density were enormous, while its radius has been estimated to be from no more than an electron up to some fraction of a light-year. The cosmic egg was so hot that no elements could exist - the egg consisted of subatomic particles and radiation.

Could you provide a web page explaining where the cosmic egg came from? Perhaps cosmic chicken? It's simply assumed it was there, no one knows how long it sat there. Why should it have been there at all? But, as the story goes, the egg exploded (nobody knows why), and as the expanding primeval fireball expanded, it cooled so that hydrogen and helium gas could form.

These gases expanded out into vast stretches of the universe. Somehow, evolutionists believe, stars and galaxies created themselves, our solar system created itself, and from that first primordial form all life evolved, including man, with his three-pound human brain containing about 12 billion brain cells with about 120 trillion connections. Thus, so the story says, we have gone from hydrogen gas to people. A number of problems with this scenario are obvious. The initial cosmic egg was in a homogeneous of mass/energy in thermal equilibrium which somehow vertex itself into a heterogeneous state of mass/energy thermal equilibrium, a very unlikely event. As Gregory and Thompson wrote,

"Can the path from homogeneity to the rich assortment of present day structures be traced?... The more conventional model assumes that individual galaxies arose out of homogeneous primordial soup. The main trouble with this model is explaining how the universe proceeded from it's smooth state to the state in which was gathered into galaxies" [Scientific American 1982 246 (3) p.113].

The cosmic egg could not have come from nothing. If even a single atom cannot come into being from nothing, surely the matter and energy equivalent to that presently existing in the universe could not have come from nothing. Where did all this mass/energy come from?

I asked if you knew something the atheistic Marxist Stephen Jay Gould doesn't? I quoted him - "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to reconstruct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution" [Paleobiology vol.6 (1) Jan. 1980 p.127]. So you wrote,

>>I know something you don't. "It is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I don't know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level but are abundant between larger groups. The evolution from reptiles to mammals ... is well documented." (Stephen Jay Gould, Creation/Evolution 6: Fall 1981, page 38.)<<

I "know something" Gould doesn't, its not "well documented". He knows there's "no transitional forms" and can't name any. Why base a theory on no evidence? You wrote, a "parent species will frequently spawn a daughter species". "The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology....the history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: [1] Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappeared. [2] Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors, it appears all at once and fully formed" S.J.Gould Natural History 1977 86:14]. You implied you were the expert regarding the Bible. I said, We really need a Spiritual rebirth to understand God Word. You respond -

>>Leave it to a pompous XXXX like you to suggest that non-believers are illiterate and can't understand English language translations of the Bible unless they have a theologian interpret it for them. You also forget that I did have a born-again experience. I studied the Bible for decades as an earnest young Southern Baptist. But my faith began to waver after I started questioning the "inerrancy" doctrine, which my fellow fundamentalists insisted was an absolute requirement for faith in Christ. What happened, did God remove the Spirit of Understanding from me?<<

"pompous XXXX", not very nice language. Are Skeptics always that rude?

You were once '
born again'? Then, you should know, we need the Holy Spirit to "interpret" the Bible correctly (Lk.12:12 Jn.14:26 15:26 16:13. 2 Cor.2:10). Yet you only quote it to mislead people and TURN people against it. You mock Christians who read it as written and RUBBISH them. Once you had the authority of God's Word, now it's a book subjected to the theories of men. Now you blame God for death and suffering and rubbish Genesis as myth. See what evolution has done to you? You spend your time debating "hundreds of creationists online". Evolution has made you an enemy of God's people. Either this is so, or you tell lies.

>>But why would Noah's flood bury marine life? According to the Bible, the flood was only supposed to destroy terrestrial life on dry land. For example: "Every living thing that moved on the earth perished -- birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on DRY LAND that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. "Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move ALONG THE GROUND and the BIRDS OF THE AIR were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark." (Genesis 7:20-23) The Bible doesn't say marine creatures died in the flood. Your apologetic defense is, ironically, unbiblical.<<

Yes "Everything.. that had the breath of life in its nostrils died."... "Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out" (Gen.7:23). The flood was worldwide as the fossil record indicates. There are too many unexplainable features that have no other explanation than by a worldwide cataclysmic flood. The evidence is believable when examined. Huge movements of water bury anything under the debris, and "marine life" carried by water. The fact "marine life" was buried indicates a massive flood (Forests buried - hence huge coal and oil deposits). Normally when a fish dies it floats, it's eaten and gone, even the bones. Only rapid burial could produce the fossils we have today.

The flood was at least the second greatest catastrophe of all time. The fossil graveyard in Michigan is an example of this flood catastrophism. There many fossils can be found in pieces of the hard limestone shingles along the beaches. They were burial suddenly, carried and dumped by moving water filled with lime mud. That's why geologists call it a fossil graveyard. They were jumbled - tossed together and buried haphazardly in sediments laid down by moving water. When looking at them one is completely overwhelmed trying to comprehend the countless billions of fossils that must be buried in the rocks. Exactly the evidence we would expect to find based on what the Bible says about the Genesis flood.

>>Obviously! According to the flood story in Genesis, God submerged the whole earth beneath miles of seawater for a whole year, yet when the animals finally disembarked, they entered a world with magically unharmed plants and trees. Butterflies, hummingbirds and bees found readily available flowers to pollinate, kola bears found hearty eucalyptus leaves, woodpeckers foraged for insects in astonishingly intact trees, and arboreal mammals had access to their previous jungle canopies. You'd think that creationists would've learned some botany since then, but instead, they still carry on about the hardiness of olives.<<

Obviously deserts and wilderness areas appeared for the first time after the flood and remain so today. But evolutionists say dinosaurs were wiped out by ice ages, yet life survived. They say plants and trees came from nothing and covered the earth, after it cooled, but you can't believe Noah's flood? You can't believe seeds already there could repopulate the earth? Is everything God does too hard to believe? Life is a miracle, it's God's making. He sends forth the creatures "be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it." If God made the earth in the first place by the power of His Word, He can replenish again. He "up holds all things by the word of His power" [Jn.1:3 Heb.1:3].

Plants survived the flood not "
because the ancient Hebrews didn't consider plants to be alive in any real sense" but because their seeds can remain in soil waiting the right conditions to germinate. There's always amazing bounce back after catastrophe. We know this today when looking at the Mt St Helens eruption. The scientist who flocked to the area, soon found that the initial pessimistic forecasts of long term barrenness were largely unfounded [Keller SAC Mount St Helens five years later Cheney WA Eastern Wash. Un. Press 1986 p.307].

I said that the talk of "
better-adapted mutant forms" is nonsense. In evolutionary theory, the role of creating new information is given to mutation -- random, accidental mistakes, which happen as information is copied. We know that such mistakes happen, and are inherited (the next generation makes a copy from a defective copy). So the defect is passed on, and somewhere down the line another mistake happens, and so mutational defects tend to accumulate. And go down hill never up hill. And you wrote,

>>Name me one, just one, professional evolutionist that rejects population genetics. I forwarded your claim to Dr. Jeffrey Otto, a molecular biologist at Rush University in Chicago, Illinois.<<

But I '
named' one already. Pierre-Paul Grasse [Zoologist] "No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution" [Evolution of Living Organisms. Acad. Press NY 1977 p.88] Another - “Amid the bewildering array of early fossil hominoids, is there one whose morphology marks it as man’s hominid ancestor? If the factor of genetic variability is considered, the answer appears to be no." R. B. Eckhardt, Ph.D. (human genetics and anthropology) (Prof. of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State Univ., US), "Population genetics and human origins". "Scientific American", vol. 226 (1), Jan.72, p.94. And another - "In a generous admission Francisco Ayala, a major figure in propounding the Modern Synthesis in the U.S, said: ‘We would not have predicted stasis from population genetics, but I am now convinced from what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate." Comment by F. Ayala, Ph.D. (genetics) (Ass. Prof. of Genetics, Univ., of Calif.) on Darwinian (gradual) evolution. As reported by R. Lewin, "Evolutionary theory under fire". "Science", vol. 210 (4472), 21 Nov.80, p.884.

Next you quote "Dr Otto" (Yes forward my comment to him). He writes,

>>Regarding mutations: The vast majorities of mutations are point mutations and are neutral -- meaning that they neither improve nor detract from an organism's survival.<<

Mutations never add information they can be "neutral" or "detract" from the "organism's" nature. Mutations are random rearrangements mostly resulting in the loss of DNA info., the opposite of what evolution requires - the addition of genetic info. Dr Otto wrote,

>>Now, I don't know (and don't know where I could quickly find) what the actual ratio of negative to positive mutations happens to be. But let's assume for the sake of argument that it is 10,000:1.<<

This theory is based on "I don't know....but lets assume for argument". Even the radio is a guess. And even the simplest-known cells are mind-bogglingly complex and never accidentally have an increase of information, [positive mutation]. That is, a coding for new structures, functions, greater complexity. "Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations towards a given direction. They modify what preexists, but they do so in disorder...." [Grasse Evolution of Living Organisms Acad. Press NY 1977 p.97,98]. Otto wrote,

>>So what? The ratio of neutral to non-neutral mutations is something like a 1000:1 (consider the size of the genome and divide it by the amount of coding sequence -- this is a rough estimate because it doesn't take into account silent mutations, or non-silent but neutral mutations). So only 1 individual out of thousand is likely to develop a non-silent mutation.<<

What? "
The ratio of neutral to non-neutral mutations"? J. Allen Ph.D (Population and Quantitative Genetics - Univ. Edinburgh) comments - "The theory relating to the evolution of humans from their assumed ancestor in common with the chimpanzee requires millions of years of mutation..... However, when I consider mutation rates, the 'cost' of the substitution of each new mutant gene in a population in terms of the number of 'genetic deaths’, the assumed number of mutant gene differences between evolutionary stages, and the population size necessary to accommodate such a large number of successive mutations, I find that there is a remarkable lack of evidence for the 'evolution of man'. My reasons are:

Haldane considered this kind of information and came to the conclusion that the number of genetic deaths needed to secure the substitution of one gene for another by natural selection is region of 30 times the number of individuals in a generation. Using this figure, the cost of substituting 5000 successive, independent mutant genes in a population of constant size can be calculated the basis of an average mutation rate of 10-6, the size of the population must be at least in the order of 1 million. This implies 150,000,000,000 forerunners of 'modern man', forerunners who often represented as belonging to small groups of cave hunters called australopithecines who roamed the African savannah. Why is there such a shortage of evidence in the form of fossils, tools or whatever, for the existence of such vast numbers of australopithecine-like pre-humans?
[In Six Days New Holland Ed.J.Ashton pg116].

He's correct to go from a simple amoeba to horse requires many steps, each involving an INCREASE in information. Information coding for NEW structures, new functions - new complexity. If we saw information-increasing changes happening, even only a few, this could reasonably be used to help support the argument that fishes may, indeed, turn into agnostics, given enough time. Natural selection is NOT the same as evolution. Living things are programmed to transmit information, make copies of themselves. The DNA of man is copied and passed on via parents. That information is stable unless someone with a huge amount of skill and know-how can add new information to DNA. Dr Otto wrote,

>>It's important that most individuals remain neutral or unaffected because if the mutation rate gets too high, we do end up with deleterious results. But in a very large population, lets say 1,000,000,000,000 individuals (which isn't all that large of a population for single-celled organisms), we can expect that there will only be 333 mutations (based on the rate of mutation at 1bp/10^9bp -- which actually is on a per/year basis for higher organisms. Thus, the rate would be higher for rapidly dividing single celled critters -- but lets run with it).<<

Lets run with" the facts not tell stories. No amount ratios, breeding or selection will produce a variety of species where there has been a total loss of the information required. Natural selection can favour some information above others, and can cause some information to be lost, but it can't create new information. Dr Otto wrote,

>>Let's assume that the critter divides every day and there is no death in the system, except by negative mutation. Generation 1 1*10^12 individuals, 333.. [snip]... heterozygous state that when homozygous state are deleterious -- consider sickle cell anemia where its survival advantages in heterozygous states in countries where malaria is endemic. I hope this helps.<<

No it doesn't "help" Tom. Otto's comment doesn't prove evolution has or will happen. It wasn't about upward mutations but say-so unproven ratios. So Otto has a "Ph.D. Section of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology". What a joke! What about this very clear statement from Dr Bob Hosken? (Senior Lecturer in Food Technology at the Univ., Newcastle, Australia. BSc in Biochemistry from the Univ., of Western Australia. MSc in Biochemistry from Monash Univ. Ph.D in Biochemistry & a MBA from the Univ., of Newcastle). Publ. over 50 research papers. He writes -

"After graduating in chemistry and biochemistry, I began my post-graduate career, focusing on the biosynthesis, structure of proteins....The argument of design in nature as an evidence for a Creator is not new... I am sure that I will not be the last person to conclude that 'there must be an architect'. I have regarded my early research experience in the area protein structure and function as a privilege, not only because it provided me with wonderful insights into molecular design and function but also because it provided the insights to appreciate the subsequent advances that were to take place in biochemistry and molecular biology. I could now appreciate more than ever the complexity of the molecular control mechanism involved in metabolism and the immunological defence systems of the body.... and I cannot possibly conceive how such a system could ever evolve. There has to be an intelligent Designer and this is my personal God." You wrote,

>>Interesting. You asked for specific transitional fossils, and I provided them just as you requested. Yet now, you attempt to change the subject by declaring that I don't "appreciate" the "missing evidence." Yet I did, in fact, explain precisely why fossilization is an extremely rare event in nature, but you then curiously allege that "I didn't answer your question. Where are they?" Who are "they?" Where are "what?" What question "didn't" I answer? Are you alleging that I didn't provide you with the transitional fossils you asked for in the first place? Can you be more specific as to what you're talking about?<<

You can't "provide" what's NOT there. I don't need to be "more specific" about anything. You deliberately misunderstand and avoid the question and answer. One can only play this game so far then it becomes obvious you are without substance. If there WERE "transitional fossils" it would be the biggest part of your letter. No one could deny evolution. But they will never be found because they are not there. Most evolutionists know this, but not you. You think they exist so where are they? Please answer the question. Where are TRANSITIONAL FORMS? There are countless millions of well-preserved fossils but no TRANSITIONAL FORMS.

The scientific community has not found one instance of change from one species into another. If the Stone Age lasted for at least 100,000 years, there should be millions of transitional forms and skeletons. Where are they? I argue you have NOT read creationist literature because you are ignorant of what they say. You wrote,

>>On the contrary, I'm more familiar with the creationist literature than you are. You weren't even aware that creationists had explanations for fossil stratigraphy. Instead, you claimed that "evolutionists" invented thegeologic column decades before Darwin published his first manuscript, which is just plain wrong. Again, Bible-believing geologists created the geologic column.<<

I wrote it's NOT the "
young-earth creationist" that "claim that the fossil record is arranged in a stair-step progression from the simple to the complex". Evolutionism advocates a "sorted and arranged" geological column from Cambrian, Ordovician etc up to Pleistocene. What we see are sedimentary layers laid down by water fill of fossils worldwide. The fossil graveyards were rapidly buried and bones mixed together (ie. the Karoo formation in Africa is thought to contain 800 billion verterate fossils). I wrote that evolutionary theory argues the fossils appear in the column from millions of years of history. You replied,

>>Are you putting words in my mouth? I never said that. I said that fossilization requires rapid burial in silt, although that doesn't qualify as evidence for a "global" deluge. Most large terrestrial animals that fossilized were buried in creek beds after a storm, or buried in situ byvolcanic ash.<<

That doesn't explain sea-shells on the top of mountains. At most places on the continents, over half the 'geological periods' are missing. Only 15-20% of the earth's land surface has even one-third of these periods in the correct consecutive order. Even with the Grand Canyon, more than 150 million years of this imaginary column is missing. Using the assumed "geological column" to date fossils and rocks is fallacious. I mentioned that we don't find a series of fossils showing part-limb, part-wing; or part-scale, part-feather. You wrote,

>>Of course not. Only Duane Gish believes that sexual reproduction propagates "half-formed, incomplete" animals. Frankly, most people think he's being ridiculous.<<

Come on tell the truth. "Gish" is not an evolutionist. How evolutionists can imagine male and female "sexual reproduction" systems could ever evolve by themselves over millions of year's is "ridiculous". I mentioned how evolutionists fool us into thinking God didn't create man. And you reply,

>>I asked you why paleoanthropologists would publicize their own mistakes (like Piltdown Man) if they were involved in a conspiracy to deceive the general public about human evolution. Apparently, your conspiracy theory couldn't account for that, so you changed the subject instead. Nice try.<<

I don't recall evolutionists ever publishing "their own mistakes", old theories die-hard. The deception goes on for years, "like Piltdown Man". After 40 years it was still the most diabolical hoax ever. Surprising you should draw attention to that one, or perhaps you have never read anything about it. Wouldn't surprise me. The Piltdown was a 'whodunit' and no one knows for sure who the culprit was. It was in all the textbooks and encyclopaedias [Britannica] as proof of evolution. Not until 1953 was that uncovered.

The Nebraska Man was another piece of deliberate deceit in 1922. They only had a 'pigs tooth' yet the paintings were the kind that would please Sceptics. Sometimes there are many people involved with the deception. The reconstructions, paintings, Museums, teachers and news media were all fooled. Many innocently assume true what they are told. But some today still want to believe we have the 'missing links' regardless of anything. Palaeontologists might exaggerate the importance of those fragments they find, and you will fall for every time.

Dr T.White [anthropologist] wrote, "The problem with a lot of Palaeontologists is that want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone" [New Scientist 28April 1983 p.199]. Haeckel (you said "
never discussed missing fossils") never published the deception of his 'speechless ape-man'. And 'Little Foot', not until 1994 someone put the bones together and found the truth [New Foot steps into walking debate' Science vol.269 28Jul1995 p.521-524]. I said 'scientists who accept evolution are prepared to bend their observations to fit evolution', you wrote,

>>Of course, creation science NEVER reconciles its data to conform to doctrinal interpretations. When Henry Morris and John Whitcomb rebutted the Christian critics of their first book The Genesis Flood, they wrote: "The real issue is not the correctness of the interpretation of various details of the geological data, but simply what God has revealed in His Word concerning these matters. It is not a scientific decision at all, but a spiritual one." ("Reply to Reviews," Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 16, June 1964, pp. 55-61.)<<

What's has that to do with scientists bending observations to fit evolution? I was only quoting Lipson FRS (Pro. Of Physics University Manchester) - "...in fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientist have accepted it and many are prepared to bend their observations to fit in with it" ['A physicist look at evolution' Physics Bulletin vol.31 1980 p.138]. Morris has a point. The theories and 'observations' about evolution have changed over they years, the Biblical account hasn't. You wrote,

>>Is this how you substantiate the power of Jesus Christ in the lives of believers, by denying others' salvation experiences? Are you sovereign and omnipotent?<<

Are you claiming to be a 'believer' with "salvation experiences"? You fooled me. Actions speak louder than words. Your website says the opposite. I mentioned if the earth is "550 million years old, how old is the sun? Various measurements by professionals indicate shrinkage calculated 2 feet or 5-6 feet or 0.6 feet or 1-2 feet or 1 foot per hour. Adds up over a year. Applying the most conservative calculation over a year its approx "1 mile per year". We can't even go back one million years because the sun would be too big for life and 210 million years ago it would touch the earth" You reply,

>>Mark, it's obvious that you did not read our creation/evolution page because we already picked apart that urban legend. In fact, it was debunked almost 20 years ago. The sun is not shrinking. If it was shrinking at the rate you attribute to it, then centuries of historical records recounting total solar eclipses would not have been possible because the moon would've been too small to conceal it. The myth of the shrinking sun was also dealt with at length by three Christian scientists -- Howard J. Van Till, Davis A. Young, and Clarence Menninga, in their book Science Held Hostage: What's Wrong With Creation Science and Evolutionism (InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, IL. 1989)<<

I don't go by "Christian" data "20 years ago". Long Agers have been wrong before and will be wrong trying to fit evolution into the Bible. Since 1836 more than 100 different observers at the Royal Greenwich Observatory and in the US Navel Observatory have made direct, visual measurements that suggest that the suns diameter is shrinking at a rate of about 0.1% each century or about 5 feet per hour! [J.Eddy A.Boornazian 'Secular Decreases in the Solar Diameter 1863-1953 Bulletin of American Astronomical Society, vol.11(2) 1979 p.437]. "The sun loses up a billion kilograms in weight every second" (p.36 Science Facts Morag & Ecob Lon. 02).

Also, records of solar eclipses indicate this rapid shrinking as been going on for the past 400 years [G.B Lubkin Analyses of Historical Data Suggest Sun is Shrinking' Physics Today Sept.1979 pf.17-19] Several indirect techniques also confirm the shrinking sun , although these inferred collapse rates are only about 1/7th as much [D.Dunham Observations of a Probable Change in the Solar Radius between 1715 and 1979 Science vol.210 12Dec.1980 p.1243-1245]. Even the conservative data one must conclude that had the sun existed several million years ago, it would have been so large that its heat would have destroyed life on earth. Yet evolutionists say that millions of years ago all the forms of life were essentially as they are now having completed their evolution that began a 1,000 million years ago.

I mentioned that you were trying to make the temptation in Eden sound funny and unbelievable. As you do with the Bible. The fruit wasn't "
magical fruit" and no mention they even spoke Hebrew. You reply with more jokes,

>>Hmmm. How can fruit pass along "forbidden knowledge" unless it's enchanted? Furthermore, the Bible doesn't say that the serpent was possessed of Satan. It only says that the serpent was "the craftiest beast in the garden," so it's not impertinent of me to question how it could talk when it doesn't possess lips or a larynx. You can patronize me by claiming that "I'm trying to make the story sound funny," but you're only dodging a legitimately reasonable question.<<

Hmmm. So now Satan didn't tempt anyone, there was no fall into sin, death and suffering was God's fault. I was not "dodging a legitimately reasonable question" you were telling a joke. If you want to be taken seriously, be serious. The serpent was the instrument or tool of a higher agent. Satan who is called 'the serpent' or 'the old dragon' [Jn.8:44 2 Cor.11:3 1 Jn.3:8 1 Tim.2:14 Rev.20:2]. Like I said, some don't want to believe the Genesis account. It wouldn't matter what language used they poke fun.

>>From the following examples, I could say the exact same thing about you. Read Gen.1:29-30. God told them to eat only plants. Actually, the verse says, "I give you every green plant for food." God does not explicitly prohibit what an animal can or cannot eat. I'm sorry, Mark, but it just doesn't.<<

Excuse me, but you're adding to scripture". Assuming something not there. There is no end to things one can assume. Read the verse. "And to all the beasts of the earth and.... everything that has the breath of life in it.... I give every green plant for food. And it was so" [Gen.1:30]

God does "
expressly prohibit" the diet was 'every green plant for food'. And "it was so" indicates what happened - nothing else. Creation was perfect. God says "it was good". Not until Gen.9.3 the diet is widened. Knowing the truth is one advantage of taking the Bible literally. Throughout the Bible the theme is that God made a good world (no death, struggle, violence, cruelty and bloodshed). All creation is now cursed by God (Gen.3, Rom.8) because of man's rebellion.

However, the entry of death and suffering is only temporary, the earth will be restored (Acts 3:21). Not back to billions of years of death, cruelty and bloodshed, but a sinless, deathless state (how it began). Christ, the Creator made flesh (the 'last Adam'), died to restore not only sinful humanity who believe, but ultimately to liberate the whole universe from the curse of death and bloodshed brought in by the first Adam. If the evolutionary story were true, the whole point of the Gospel ('good news') is lost, because Adam's predecessors would have been clawing or clubbing each other to death in a world of bloodshed.

Also the idea of a real, space-time Fall of Adam with an associated curse on creation would be a myth. The truth of the good news about Christ (that we can be eternally restored to fellowship with the Creator) depends on the truth of the bad news how our ancestor Adam rebelled, breaking that original harmony between God and man [1 Cor.15:21-22].

So if no fall into sin and death resulting, then the gospel has no purpose. Christ didn't need to die. In your view, when someone dies, you blame God. But the Biblical way is to echo Paul, Rom 7:24 "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" Death is a punishment [separation, alienation] for sin and enemy of our body. Sin and death are interwoven, when sin "entered the world" death was pasted on to all creation. Evolution is the opposite of Christianity - sin and death have no relation.

>> Furthermore, creationists claim that after Adam and Eve sinned, God supernaturally metamorphosed a fraction of the animal kingdom to become predators. Funny, but the Bible absolutely does not say ANYTHING about God redesigning the anatomy and physiology of vegetarian animals to require a carnivorous diet.<<

Interesting prophecy in Isa.11:7 65:25 "The lion will eat straw like an ox". All creatures ate plants in the beginning but God will restore the earth to its former glory after He has dealt with what made the lion eat the lamb. The Bible does give details of how the change from plant-eating to meat-eating occurred after the fall: Two types of animals went into Noah’s Ark – clean and unclean. The clean is ‘positive’! These creatures were still doing what God created them to do, - eat plants. They were gentle and harmless. The unclean is ‘negative’. Such creatures had become scavengers on the dead bodies, as death began to pass to the whole Creation. It’s not until the days of Joseph creatures attack and kill people. So in Genesis 1 God made everything good. In Genesis 3 man sinned. In Genesis 4 and onwards; follows a down-ward degeneration of man and his relationships to God, people, plants and animals. The Bible indicates repeatedly man needs a Saviour. Evolution says the opposite; nature is red in tooth and claw but normal and man is evolving upward.

Today, there are records of carnivorous animals surviving on vegetarian diets. Have you heard about the lion that wouldn't eat meat? [W.G.L.Tyke. The story of a gentle vegetarian lioness Theo. Publ. House2 USA 1986]. So it's easy to relate to the Genesis account of animals living solely on plants before Adam's fall.

>> Again, I'm sorry Mark, but you and your fellow young-earth creationists are rewriting the bible to fit within your cushy doctrinal creeds and other progressive creationists let the Biblical passages speak for themselves without imposing contrived qualifications. It's young-earthers like you who corrupt the plain meaning of scripture.<<

Ross doesn't let "Biblical passages speak for themselves". Read what Ross believes -

Genesis clearly says God created in six days. Ross doesn't, he says 'billions of years' which "corrupts the plain meaning of scripture." Many of his corruptions are exposed in greater detail by others. He's always trying to fit evolution into the Bible.

>>Actually, the statement that the creation was "good" is vague and ambiguous. The word "good" can mean just about anything. The Bible doesn't say it was "perfect," "immortal," or "unencumbered from the effects of entropy." I'd assume that a creation that was really good wouldn't have "the craftiest beast in the garden" slithering around tricking people into ushering death and destruction onto the entire universe. After all, Henry Morris claims that Adam's sin caused stars to explode.<<

The words "good and evil" are contrasted in Scripture. One who wants to blur the distinction will argue, "Good is vague and ambiguous". The common problem after man's fall is to confuse good and evil. When God said "Behold it was very good" [Gen.1:31] I asked, was that a lie? 9 times in Genesis it says creation was good and you say it's "vague and ambiguous" yet it's clear and emphasized. God made the world "very good" and all creatures were vegetarians. Nothing died a violent death until man disobeyed. We are the reason for the problem – not God. God placed the world in the hands of man [Psa.8:6 115:16]. What happens here is our responsibility. Don’t blame God for sickness, death and destruction. The Bibles position is clear = death is not the result of a long life but sin.

>>If Adam and Eve were already immortal, why would they need access to the Tree of Life?<<

Because they fell into sin. "Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return" - It is evident from this that man would have been immortal if they never sinned, and continual life depended on obedience. The tree of life, was intended to be a means of continual preservation. Adam lived till he was 930 years Gen.5:5. Noah till he was 950. Have you seen some the giant fossils creatures, 4-5 times bigger than today's? Today we see ‘progressive degeneration’ not progressive creation.

>>The process of assimilation in the digestive tract IS death, decay, and decomposition. If there were no death in the world, why would animals require nourishment in the first place? You're not making any sense!<<

The Bible does not say '
decay and decomposition' did not exist before original sin. It says death as we know it did not exist before the fall. Paul wrote, "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned [Rom 5:12]. Plants, fruit, vegs, nuts etc were created by God for food. Harvest time in scripture is God's blessing. The whole system God created was "good" and the process didn't involve pain, disease, suffering and death. Even so, death of a plant is not as the death of animal. A dead tree does not revolt aesthetically. A prize winning photo is a bare branch tree silhouetted against a setting sun, but you can't do that with a dead cow. The stench of rotting flesh makes one retch. The impact on our senses is different from that of a plant. Man and animals [but not plants] were blessed by God to multiply and it's only because of this plants are able to flourish at all.

"Decomposition of plants" wasn't wasted material. Don't think of the world then as you see it now. It's evolution that teaches death is an undisputed essential factor for life. Biologist H.Mohr states "If there were no death, then no life would have existed. There is no other way around this axiom of evolutionary theory" [Human Evolution Heren Text 1983 pg12]. I don't have a problem with the clear message of Genesis but I can see how evolution is yours.

>>Look at the implications of what you're saying. In Genesis chapter 2, we read: And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the DAY that you eat from it, you surely shall DIE." (Genesis 2:16-17) Do you think that God's talking about literal, physical death here? And the woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, "You shall not eat from it or touch it, lest you die.'" And the serpent said to the woman, "You surely shall not die! For God knows that on the DAY you eat from it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." (Genesis 3:2-5) The serpent told Eve that if she ate the fruit, she wouldn't die. And he was right. She didn't. The serpent also told her that if she ate the fruit, then she would be "like" God only to the extent that she would acquire the knowledge of good and evil. And that's exactly what happened, just as he said it would. So if you're going to argue that Genesis chapter 3 tells the story of how physical death entered the world, then you're making the serpent the hero of the story because he told Eve the truth, while God did not. But I can already predict your response. You'll attempt to harmonize the conflicting accounts by parsing the text in such a way that the word death can mean either "physical" or "spiritual" depending upon the criterion YOU choose for its specific context. It's funny how so-called "Biblical literalists" practice a selective fundamentalism.<<

No it's evolutionary theory that twists 'the story' opposite to the real meaning. You regard the "serpent" as "right" and God a liar who deceived Eve. That's NOT "what happened". You are deceived by the serpent's lie. A Hebrew scholar says, "Thou shalt surely die" (Heb. moth tamuth). Literally, a death thou shalt die; or, dying thou shalt die. Thou shalt not only die spiritually, by losing the life of God, but from that moment thou shalt become mortal, and shalt continue in a dying state till thou die. This we find literally accomplished; every moment of man's life may be considered as an act of dying, till soul and body are separated. Other meanings have been given to this passage, but they are fanciful and incorrect."

>>Paul never said the creation was cursed. He said it was in bondage to the pangs of childbirth right up until the present day while awaiting its redemption. As I told you before, this passage refers to future glory, not original sin.<<

God says (Gen.3.17 4.10-12 6.13). And Paul says, "creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay" [Rom 8:21]. Why liberate something from what's not cursed? There's no Gospel if sin, death and curse were not a problem. Paul [by God's Spirit] would have figured that out and stopped preaching. John says "No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him" (Rev 22:3). That refers to this creation under a curse and a future one without. To say the earth is not cursed defies the evidence. What about the natural disasters, storms, earth quakes, deserts, etc they prove the earth is cursed. Surely an omnipotent and omniscient God could create one planet without faults?

>>Conventional geologists insist there isn't a single, solitary speck of evidence for a global flood.<<

What do we see? 'Millions of dead things, in rock layers, laid down by water, all around the earth'. What about the flood legends? What about rapid buried fossils, Grand Canyon, oil and coal deposits, sea-shells on top of mountains, buried forests, deserts where were once forests, the rainbow, sedimentary layers laid down by water all around the world? The Bible is clear - "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed" [2 Pet 3:5].

The evidence for the flood however is convincing! Geologists - E.Kennedy [BS MS Ph.D Geology] "I see evidence that it consistent with the worldwide flood as it is described in Genesis. The reality of this event resolves for me many areas of conflict between the interpretations of the geologic community and the biblical account of creation...It took me several years to learn how to differentiate between data and interpretation" [J.F.Ashton In Six Days New Holland 1999 p.294].

>>As for Biblical interpretations of a "local" flood, Hugh Ross is quick to remind his critics that when the Bible talks about "the whole world," the "whole world" only encompasses the Middle East....[snip]<<

After this you then quote many verses that Ross uses to argue that 'all the earth' means 'some of the earth'. He doesn't want a worldwide flood, why? Let me ask, was there any flood? Do you believe there was? I will wait your reply before explaining why Ross is wrong.

>>Lucy was not the first australopithecine ever discovered. Paleoanthropologists had already uncovered a number of australopithecine skulls. When Dr. Johanson found Lucy, she was remarkable only because she was the most complete skeleton of her kind yet recovered. And her skull wasn't completely missing. Dr. Johanson found shattered pieces of her cranium and a complete mandible, so it wasn't difficult to compare her jaw to other australopithecine jawbones. I'm still at a loss to comprehend why you're calling Lucy a "fraud."<<

Johansen only found 197 bones from maybe 13 individuals Young, old, and both sexes, and were called 'family.' No skulls were found except for the lower "V" shaped jaw (humans are "U" shaped). There was no head, hands or feet. He said her hip was perfectly like a chimp. And invited Lovejoy to investigate. Lovejoy said Lucy died in a swamp and a buffalo stood on her and crushed her hip making it look like a chimp. So Johansen watched Lovejoy make a plaster copy of the hip then take an angle grinder and cut it until it was shaped like a human hip (Nova PBS 1/3/94).

Lucy was kept secret for nearly 4 years. The scientific establishment was unimpressed without a skull [no proof]. Lucy was initially presented as evidence all australopithecines walked upright like humans. But studies of Lucy's entire anatomy, not just a knee joint, now show this is very unlikely. [F.Spoor "Implications of Early Hominid Labyrinthine Morphology for Evolution of Human Bipedal Locomotion," Nature, Vol.369, 23 June 1994. pp.645-648]. She probably swung from the trees [W.L. Jungers, "Lucy's Limbs: Skeletal Allometry and Locomotion in Australopithecus Afarensis," Nature, Vol.297, 24 June 1982, pp.676-678].

Australopithecines is probably an extinct ape. "There is indeed, no question which the Australopithecine skull resembles when placed side by side with specimens of human and living ape skulls. It is the ape so much so that only detailed and close scrutiny can reveal any differences between them." Solly Zuckerman, "Correlation of Change in the Evolution of Higher Primates," Evolution as a Process, editors J.Huxley, A.C.Hardy E.B.Ford (Lon: G.Allen and Unwin Ltd. 1954) p.307. "We can safely conclude from the fossil hominoid material now available that in the history of the globe there have been many more species of great ape than just the three which exist today" [Ibid., pp.348-349]. Do you ignore the studies of Zuckerman? He spent 15 years studying fossils of the australopithecines both he and Dr C.Oxnard who have uncovered these frauds did not use the eyeball type of examination but the most sophisticated methods of anatomical analysis available [C.E. Oxnard. The Order of Man Yale Univ. Press NH 1984].

"...the only positive fact we have about the Australopithecine brain is that it was no bigger than the brain of a gorilla. The claims that are made about the human character of the Australopithecine face and jaws are no more convincing than those made about the size of its brain, The Australopithecine skull is in fact so overwhelmingly simian as opposed to human that the contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white." [Zuckerman. Pg78]. Get the idea?

>>As a matter of fact, yes, Adolf Hitler WAS a creationist<<

You say, he was a "creationist", he certainly didn't BEHAVE, THINK or ACT like one! It didn't matter what he said, what he did indicates what he believed. He wasn't a 'creationist', he was Darwinian. Jesus said, "My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends" [Jn.15:12-13]. Did Hitler do this? May be like a 'Progressive Creationist' (like you) more than an 'atheistic evolutionist'. He had the erroneous idea that while ‘God created the earth’ yet life evolved over millions of years. Hitler wrote,

Should the Jew, with the aid of his Marxist creed, triumph over the people of this world, his Crown will be the funeral wreath of mankind, and this planet will once again follow its orbit through ether, without any human life on its surface, as it did millions of years ago. ……..People may laugh at this statement; but our planet has been moving through the spaces of ether for millions and millions of years, uninhabited by men, and at some future date may easily begin to do so again – if men should forget that wherever they have reached a superior level of existence, it was not the result of following the ideas of crazy visionaries but by acknowledging and rigorously observing the iron laws of Nature” [Mein Kamf]

No only did he believe in millions of years, but that evolutionary thinking should control actions and thoughts. He wrote –

The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel, and if he does so it is merely because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind; for if such a law did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all…….For it is a necessity of human evolution that the individual should be imbued with the spirit of sacrifice in favour of the common weal, and that he should not be influenced by the morbid notions of those knaves who pretend to know better than Nature and who have the impudence to criticize her decrees.” [Mein Kamf]

The kind of statements can be found in relation to the Aryan race the product of evolution - “Such people fail to recognize that this evolution had to take place in order that man might reach that degree of civilization which these apostles now exploit in an attempt to make the world pay attention to their rigmarole. The progress of mankind may be compared to the process of ascending an infinite ladder. One does not reach the higher level without first having climbed the lower rungs. The Aryan therefore had to take that road which his sense of reality pointed out to him and not that which the modern pacifist dreams of”. [Mein Kamf]

Creationists take the Bible literally and believe man is created in God's likeness. God didn't create a super German race but all men equal. Creationists view human life as good, precious, and all equal under God. Murder as foreign to God's created order. Abortion is murder because human life is a gift from God to be valued. Brotherly love, compassion, and goodness are Christian values. The value of a man can be seen in what God has done in Christ for us, in dying on the cross. These are concepts held by creationists and as Christ taught. When people say they are Christians [there's many] and don't live by these concepts found in the bible, their words mean nothing. Did Hitler live by these things?

If there is no God, there's no moral law. Nothings right, nothings wrong, there's no absolutes. Without an Absolute Moral Being, nothing's absolutely wrong or right. If nobody made us, nobody owns us, nobody sets the rules. We make and break the rules as we please. When absolutes are ignored, nations, business, society, and families breakdown. Atheistic evolution says human life is only animal life. We kill spare cats, why not kill spare kids? If there's no God, no ultimate authority, nothings really wrong or right, murder is circumstance and opinion. The opposite to Christianity. The Nazi campaign against Jews and Christians was void of Christian morality [The Way to Freedom D.Bonhoeffer Collins 1982 p.147-203].

The basis for morality is the absolute truth of God's Word which contains God's rules for right living. The teaching of evolution, rejects these. Hitler did not practice 'faith in God' but Haeckel's evolutionism which was the foundation for the militarism that eventually contributed to WW1. 'Social Darwinism, racism, militarism and imperialism finally reached their zenith in Nazi Germany under Hitler the supreme evolutionist. Nazism was the ultimate fruit of the evolutionary tree'. (I.Taylor 'In the Minds of Men' TFE Publ.1991 p,408)

You wrote, "
eugenics was based upon a wacky, pseudoscientific premise far removed from evolutionary biology". NOT so! Darwinism and his chief apostle Haeckel had a strong following in Germany. Haeckel was one of the "Thule Gesellschaft" a secret, radically right wing organization that played a key role in the establishment of the Nazi party. Hitler and Hess attended this group. Haeckel in his 'Wonders of Life' believed a newborn infant is deaf and without consciousness, from which he concludes there is no human soul or spirit at this point. He then advocates "the destruction of abnormal new born infants'' and argues this "cannot rationally be classed as murder'' (Haeckel 'Wonders of Life' NY 1904 p.21). Haeckel's logic took him further, he noted that "hundreds of thousands of incurables - lunatics, lepers, people with cancer, etc. are artificially kept alive... without the slightest profit to themselves or the general body'' (Haeckel 1904, 118). He suggested "the redemption from this evil should be accomplished by a close of solve painless and rapid poison.. under the control of an authoritative commission" (Haeckel 1904, 1 19).

This Darwinian prophet was followed by Hitler, himself a Darwinian. There was a strong connection between evolutionary theory and his objectives, "The German Fuhrer...has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution" [A.Keith Evolution and ethics. NY 1949 G.P.Putnam p.230]. This fact has been noted by a recent author, Werner Maser (Hitler's Mein Kampf Analysis. Lon. Faber and Faber1970 p.77) who shows from his analysis of Hitler's Kampf (1924) Darwin was the general source for Hitler's notions of biology, worship, force, and struggle, and rejection of moral causality in history. Another has traced the rise of Darwinism in Germany [A.Kelly The Decent of Darwin; Germany. Chapel Hill NC Univ.Nth Carolina 1981].

Adolf Hitler was dedicated to a Aryan super race to rule the world. And influenced by German translations of 2 American publications. "The Passing of the Great Race", by eugenicist Madison Grant (first publ. 1916) and purporting to show how the American was genetically polluted by the unfit to breed. Grant also provided the answer to Germany having lost WW1. Hitler included this in 'Mein Kampf' [A.Hitler Mein Kampf Ann. Edi. By J.Chamberlain NY Reynal & Hitchcock 1941 p.97]. According to Grant, so many of the big, blonde fighting men indigenous to the German nation had been killed in the 30 year war (1618-48) that the German armies of 1914-18 had been insufficiently stocked with their superior blood! [M.Grant The Passing of the Great Race rev. Ed. NY C.Scribners Sons 1918 p.184].

Another publication is Harry Laughlin's unabashed creed written in 1920s stating who were socially inadequate and subject to sterilization laws. The list grew beyond Goddard's feeble-minded people and now included the insane, criminal, epileptic, alcoholic, blind, deaf, deformed, dependent, and even orphans. Voluntary sterilization laws were in Germany since 1927, but when Nazi's came to power in 1933 with Hitler, they adopted not only Haeckel's ideas for infanticide and euthanasia, but most of Laughlin's list of race polluters. People destined for sterilization was no longer voluntary [P.Popenoe The German sterilization laws. Journ. of Heredity Wash.DC 1934 p.257]

After the collapse of Hitler's Reich, German records showed between 1927-33, about 85 per year were voluntarily sterilized. But the Nazis had at least two million forcibly sterilized, about 450 per day. These operations were not carried out by steel-helmeted storm troopers but by civilian medical doctors.

>>. Even Stephen Jay Gould ridiculed eugenics in his book The Mismeasure of Man. Funny, but I've never heard of rival "Darwinists" shooting, bombing, burning down homes, or killing each other's children over competing theories<<

(What about Stalin and Hitler?) Evolution teaches 'survival of the fittest' and nothing is ultimately wrong with suffering or killing people. The Nazi extermination of 6 million "racial undesirables" began with the quiet implementation of Galton's eugenics by the medical profession and within a decade had grown to become a 'industry'. Haeckel wrote - "The theory of selection teaches that human life as in animal and plant life everywhere, and at all times, only a small and chosen minority can exist and flourish, while the enormous majority starve and perish miserably and more or less prematurely" [Haeckel Freedom in science and teaching NY D.Appleton 1879 p.93]. In short the political doctrine implied by natural selection is elitist, precisely the Fascist ideal of the Nazi Party that ruled by the elite.

>>For someone with a Ph.D. who loudly condemns others for their "historical ignorance," your unfamiliarity with the Thirty Years War certainly reveals your own ignorance.<<

Tom, you can't speak. There's a difference between "
ignorance" because of lack of information and deliberately promoting error. To err is human, but the other is dishonst.

>>The thirty years war began in 1618 when Protestant leaders threw two Catholic emissaries out of a Prague window into a dung heap. War flared between Catholic and Protestant princedoms, drawing in support religious armies from Germany, Sweden, France, and Italy. Sweden's Protestant soldiers sang Martin Luther's "Ein Feste Burg" in battle. Three decades of combat turned central Europe into a wasteland of misery. (James A. Haught, Holy Horrors: An Illustrated History of Religious Murder and Madness, Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1990) Herbert Langer, in his book The Thirty Years War (New York: Dorset Press, 1990) claimed that this war killed more than 14 million people in Germany alone, and more than one-fourth of Europe's population perished as well. In contrast, World War II killed 15 million people in a conflict that was spread out worldwide over many continents.<<

Amazing you have details on the Thirty Year War. Yet know nothing about (1) missing links (2) DNA problems with evolution (3) fossil record (4) the frauds of evolution. Why? The 30 year war? "What was the war about? In the 17th century, the Christendom of Europe was different from today's Christendom. The ideal concept for Europe, which they imagined, was a unity where a single ruler was to occupy the position of monarch. It was, however, a matter of dispute who that should be. The most promising candidates for such a universal monarchy were the Habsburgs, who held the emperorship of the Reich and the Spanish kingship and controlled the resources of the New World. The French and, surprisingly, the Swedish king were their competitors. At the same time the Bohemian revolt and the formation of the Dutch state jeopardized the position of the Habsburg Empire and unleashed the war.

Thus new states rose and gained a position on the same level with the other powers. After a warlike learning process of thirty years all former candidates for universal power and the new-formed states had to recognize each other as equal members of a European system of states. This European war of state formation was a constitutional conflict between the Emperor and the territorial sovereigns. This was mainly about power, rule and political confrontation by those who use anything including religion
". You wrote,

>>This war pitted Christian kingdoms against Christian kingdoms, believers in Jesus' deity against believers in Jesus' deity, Trinitarians against Trinitarians, and Christian "creationists" against Christian "creationists" in one of THE bloodiest conflicts in human history. And what did this war accomplish? NOTHING!<<

That's your spin on history. Right from the very fall into sin you rewrite all with your anti-God madness. The villains of your story are God and Bible-believing Christians who say God didn't use evolution. And so all the wars become "creationists against Christian creationists". You twist facts, lie, and fool people.

But I'll play your game. What if you are correct? Then it's another example of failing to live up to the higher ideals clearly numerated in the Bible. Christians are commissioned by Christ, to take the 'good news' of God's love to man and share the hope and peace. The Bible cries out for justice, truth, peace, love and mercy. Atheism cannot compare to this, but leads to disappear. But in the end, what men do in the name of God, evolution or anything else doesn't deny the fact God created the earth. Wars are a sign of fallen humanity and there is something seriously wrong on earth. They don't deny God's existence, but prove Genesis correct, man has rebelled from God and now he's a mess.

Your acknowledgment of a higher good than man's goodness indicates 'there is a God'. How can there be 'good' if there is no ultimate Good.

The earth has the design and wonder that only an all-powerful and all knowing Creator could provide. When I look at things that are made, I know there's a maker. In fact, there's enough proof of a creator God just within the human body. Built far better than anything of man. Now, about the DNA. You quoted a lengthy article with many ambiguous words. I did not understand the details. But I base what I believe on what I do know, not on what I don't know. You replied,

>>I did not "quote" from a "lengthy article." I wrote a direct answer to a direct question you asked about increasing the information content of a genome. But apparently, you were unable to understand my "ambiguous words," because you again told me that a cell couldn't increase its information content. So in essence, you asked me the same question twice. Look at the three examples I gave you in my last email starting with the serine proteinase family, and if you still can't understand my "ambiguous words," I'll send you another example.<<

With all due respect it wasn't the "
answer to a direct question". Every living thing contains an information program. Called the DNA - information written on a long molecule. It never accidentally has an increase of information [ie, a coding for new structures, functions, greater complexity]. A serious problem for evolution which says there are changes all the time [some good some bad] and some naturally go upward into complexity. But the truth is, it can't and hasn't happened and we don't see it happening. We do see a downward loss of information, not an increase.

In fact, its very important that there are NO changes to the DNA code of information. I know it's possible with a great deal of intelligence to genetically breed a slightly different kind within a species. We need a plan, concept, blue print and a great amount of information. But we don't know how to add to the DNA and say, give flight back to a flightless bird. That requires a huge amount of information and a huge amount of expertise. Only God could bring life into insistence and it's crazy for evolutionists to think otherwise. Now your article was a joke, with all due respect. Either you haven't an idea what I'm talking about, or don't want to understand. The machinery in even the simplest-known one-celled creature is mind-bogglingly complex. We don't know how to make one, they don't just happen by them selves. Since there's no upward DNA complexity evolution is nonsense.

>>Congratulations, Mark. I've debated hundreds of creationists online, but this is the longest response I ever emailed to a single person. And I only went through this much trouble because your opening salvo called us all dumb, stupid, ignorant, uneducated "atheists" when you were wrong on every single count.<<

"Hundreds"? Another distortion? I have never used the words "dumb, stupid, ignorant", go back and read, in fact you used the word "stupid" 4 times in this mail. You are the "debater" and will debate anything without considering the evidence properly. You speak before you think and can't slow down enough to realize what's true.

You will disagree and I accept that, but you don't appear educated about science, theology, or evolution or "
on a mission for The Truth". On a few occasions correspondence is a 'waste of time' when people 'will not' listen, hope you are not one.


"But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee: Or speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee: and the fishes of the sea shall declare unto thee. Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the LORD hath wrought this? [Job12:7-9].