Want Some Answers ???

Dear Tommy,  You wrote,

>>Looking over my previous correspondence, I think I let my frustration with you get out of hand.  So I will apologize for that. First, I was angry that you only posted your reply to my letter without letting your readers see what I had actually written.<<

Thanks. I wasn't going to reply but since you decided to apologize and were so frustrated -

>>I don't even care anymore. I'll just remind my readers that I let you tell your complete side of the story, but you didn't let me tell mine<<

So I answered your 'rebuttal' (on my web page) and this allows readers access to most everything written so far.

>>Then, when you  refused to open my enclosure, I instantly jumped to the conclusion that you were playing a game with me so you could declare on your website that I had conceded defeat.<<

No games and no attachments.

>>My sister was more sympathetic to your concerns about a virus infection. But if you noticed, I carbon-copied your enclosure to four people on SFN, and I found it hard to believe that you'd think that I'd deliberately infect them as well, just to harm you.<<

Yes I noticed. It's not "hard to believe". After reading your criticisms of Gish and your anger with me, I could believe you people would virus anyone.

>>You previously alleged that agnostics don't possess a sense of right and wrong.  But I do. And I would never KNOWINGLY forward a virus to ANYONE. Even if I had the power to send a malicious bit of code to shutdown the ICR and Answers-in-Genesis web sites, believe me, I would *never* do that. I reject censorship, completely.<<

Nice to know.  Now concerning 'quotes' you wrote,

>>Mark, you appear to be oblivious to the fact that the ICR has been embroiled in a lot of controversy PRECISELY because so many scientists have accused that organization of ripping their quotations out of context.  In fact, Phillip Kitcher, in his book "Abusing Science," devotes a whole chapter to Henry Morris and Duane Gish's "misleading quotations as a way of life."<<

I think this is a smoke screen behind which you try to conceal the fallacies and weakness in evolution theory.  There's a continual case made against creation scientists that they quote evolutionists out of context. Whether the scientist is a creationist or evolutionist, field or laboratory research frequently results in evidence that contradicts evolution. Sometimes this finds its way into 'scientific literature'. Evolutionists have just started to become cautious what they say.

Information in scientific literature published by evolutionists or creationists, belongs to everyone. But when it's published by evolutionists its especially valuable, because it cannot be argued the data was produced by those biased against evolution. Evolutionists often attempt to discredit arguments against them by claiming they are quoted 'out of context'.

For example look at Kitcher's anti-creationist book. His attempt to discredit Gish's refutation of the fossil record of horses as an example of evolutionary transitional forms, Kitcher says:

"At this point a new tactic emerges. Instead of offering a detailed argument, Gish simply appeals to authority. His sources are various. The maverick evolutionary theorist Richard Goldschmidt is quoted out of context" [Kitcher p.115].

Kitcher does not offer one shred of evidence to support that accusation - he does not because he cannot. He neither quotes Goldschmidt's statement nor gives a reference to Goldschmidt's publication from which it was taken. He provides no opportunity for the reader to verify his accusation.

The statement by Goldschmidt that Gish quoted, found in his book, "Evolution: The Fossils Say No!" [I don't have that book but checked it out from one who does] it reads as follows: "Moreover, within the slowly evolving series, like the famous horse series, the decisive steps are abrupt without transition." [Gish p.101]. What is the context of this statement? - taken from Goldschmidt's publication, [A Geneticist Looks at Evolution (American Scientist 1952 40;97).  

In Goldschmidt's book he is attacking the neo-Darwinian mechanism of evolution involving slow and gradual evolution via micro-mutations and natural selection. This attack is based mainly on the evidence provided by the fossil record, the evidence so powerfully employed by creation scientists, that the gaps between the major categories, phyla, classes, orders, and families, are systematic and almost always large, demonstrating beyond doubt that each basic type of plant and animal has appeared on this earth fully formed from the start. Powerful evidence for creation.

So much for Kitcher's book.  As mentioned in my latest reply, and previously to that,  "99% of quotes from my last letters were from Evolutionists" not Gish/Morris. I didn't have the books you mentioned. But I'm starting to locate a few now. If I quote "out of context" I'm sure you would have detailed the matter by now.

>>The quotations I sent you came from Timothy Thompson's web page where he "spoofs" the very thing that the ICR is always accused of doing. I have firsthand experience of that, as well.  One evening, I called Hank Hanegraaff on his radio Bible Answer-Man show to openly challenged his assertion that Carl Sagan promoted Ernst Haeckel's discredited version of "recapitulation" to justify abortion. Hank insisted that he had "documented" evidence of it, and told me to buy  Sagan's book "The Dragons of Eden." So that very night, I went to a used bookstore and bought the ORIGINAL 1977 hardcover edition of "Dragons of Eden," and after some careful reading, I discovered that Hank had, indeed, quoted Sagan out of context to outrageous proportions.  I document that in my review of Hanegraaff's anti-evolution book on SFN, too.<<

 No underhanded 'quoting' can place evolution on the high ground once errors are exposed. Evolutionists believe it regardless of the facts.  Even today modern evolutionists still support the long-discredited embryonic "recapitulation" theory (See pg.126 'The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism'  Niles Eldredge W.H Freeman & Company NY 2000). Haeckel's series of drawing appear even today in graduate level biology text books [ie 'American Academy of Science' B.Albert's Molecular Biology of the Cell] (And no statement the pictures are a blatant fraud!) A deluded Darwin described them as the 'strongest single class of facts'. [pg19 Technical Journal Vol.15(2) AiG 2001]. Even Pro. D. Futuyman [Evolutionary Biology] was not aware until Feb.2000 regarding Haeckel's dishonesty. This was not 'science' correcting itself but a creationist correcting him via an internet forum.

Kitcher's religious devotion to evolution pervades his book. He leaves no doubt that to him evolution is fact, not theory [although the mechanism may be in doubt]. He says [pg.150] that "there is an ongoing debate about the fact of evolution". His dismissal of creation is as sharp as his embrace of evolutionary dogma is unrestrained. So he says, "Creationism does not merit scientific discussion" [pg.171], although his book is largely devoted to a scientific discussion of creation.

>>My life doesn't depend on [evolution]. Does your life depend on young-earth flood geology, which has been thoroughly discredited by other Christians, even other Christian anti-evolutionists?<<

It's yet to be "thoroughly discredited" to thousands of scientists and theologians. Nothing you've written discredits the evidence.  Christians who 'discredit' a "young-earth flood" also reject miracles, an all powerful God and they are called 'Progressive Creationists'. 

According to New Scientist, 24 February, 2001, p13. "FOSSIL TREASURE TROVE" palaeontologist researchers found in Chubut, Argentina several types of dinosaur and were surprised to find frog, fish, turtle, small mammal and plant fossils as well.

Such a variety of fossils is not unique. Many dinosaurs, including Australia's Muttaburrasaurus, have been found buried with remains of land and sea creatures plus plants. Such mixed deposits are much better explained as resulting from a large scale flood which has swept across varied environments, picking up many creatures, mixing, then dumping them. Every dinosaur deposit discovered has been a mixed flood deposit!  It's God's will we accept His Word as real earnest [Jer.22:26 Jn.8:47 2 Tim.1:13] Jesus frequently referred to the facts of creation [Mt.19:4-5] and no where in the Bible is any indications the creation account should be regarded other than a factual report. I mentioned that 'God has no part in your defence of evolution'. You responded,

>>God doesn't need to be invoked to defend natural science.  Do I have to invoke God to defend the science of magnetism?<<

Speaking of 'magnetism'.  Direct measurements of the earth's magnetic field over the past 140 years show a steady and rapid decline in its strength. This decay pattern is consistent with the view of an electrical current inside the earth producing the magnetic filed. If this were correct, then just over 20,000 years ago the electrical current would have been so vast that the earth's structure could not have survived the heat produced. So the earth could not be older than 20,000 years. [Dr.T.G.Barnes Origin and Destiny of the Earths Magnetic Field ICR 1983].

Evolution is not science its a scientific religion.  Real science only deals with things that can be observed or measured. It depends on measuring or watching something happen, and checking it by doing it again. Evolution at least in the sense that Darwin speaks of it, cannot be detected within the lifetime of a single observer.  "The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproven theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof" [L.Harrison Matthews FRS 'Interdiction to Darwin's Origin of Species' J.M.Dent & Sons Ltd. Lon. 1971 pg.xi]. I mentioned 'David didn't even know atheism and evolutionism go hand in hand'.

>>They don't!  The National Association of Evangelicals, National Council of Churches, and Americans for Religious Liberty signed a joint statement that said in part<<

You never completed this point but go on to quote an article about 'creation in schools'. Quoting that didn't prove atheism and evolution don't go "hand in hand".  Most people know they are bedfellows. Atheists constantly argue life evolved without God. It wouldn't matter what the 'National Association' of anything 'said'. You wrote,

>>The point of the above isn't to "prove" or "disprove" whether atheism and evolution go hand in hand, but to emphasize that many Christian scientists who accept biological evolution see no compromise between it and their Christian faith.<<

Yes but your "point of the above" doesn't "prove or disprove" evolution and atheism go together. You said, "they don't", but provide nothing to prove it.  You only  "compromised between evolution and Christian faith."  R.Lewontin [atheist] and professor of biology at Harvard University wrote, "Yet, whatever our understanding of the social struggle that gives rise to creationism, whatever the desire to reconcile science and religion may be, there is no escape from the fundamental contradiction between evolution and creationism. They are irreconcilable world views" [R.Lewontin in Ref.1 pgxxvi]. Yes indeed, they are 'irreconcilable'.

Regarding creation in schools. In light of the recent shooting in Massachusetts, let's see, I think it started when Madeline Murray O'Hare complained she didn't want any prayer in our schools, and we said OK.  Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school...the Bible that says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbour as yourself. And we said OK. Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves. Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'we reap what we sow'. And so the new prayer  -

Dear God,
Why didn't you save the little girl in Michigan?
Sincerely,
Concerned Student.

AND THE REPLY

Dear Concerned Student,
I am not allowed in schools
Sincerely,
God.

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how the lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene pass freely through Cyberspace, but the public discussion of Jesus is suppressed in the school and workplace. Funny how Tommy's more concerned about what other people think of him, than what God thinks of him.

>>Creation science isn't a "science" at all. It's just anti-evolutionism, pure and simple.<<

You pretend that only ignorance results in creationists, no, science is a major reason.  I note the practice of referring to evolutionists as 'scientists', while creation scientists are referred to as merely 'creationists'. Is your intention to convey the misleading idea that all scientists are evolutionists, while creationists are non-scientists?  A scientist is not one who has a possession of knowledge of irrefutable truth. What  makes a man of science is his persistent and recklessly critical quest for truth. 

A contradiction? You were saying "Christian scientists" who accept evolution "see no compromise between evolution and their Christian faith" but now you say "creation science" is "just anti-evolutionism". Make up your mind.  As I type I have a book in front of me titled "In Six Days"  Ed.J.F.Ashton - 50 chapters written by 50 Ph.D scientists. Some were evolutionists who found [according to science] the theory unconvincing. I just read a chapter. A University Professor who taught evolution and how he came to reject it as fraud.  I encourage you to read widely, not just what tickles your ears. You are not going to find many hard-line evolutionists detail the problems of the theory.

 But there's a way in which creation and evolutionism go together according to L.H.Mattews biologist and evolutionist [Intro Origin of Species]  "The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology and biology is thus in the secular position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special; creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof" ['Origin.' London 1971 pg.xi]. So if creation is a religion so is evolution.  The only part of Matthews statement creationists disagree with is that evolution is the backbone of biology and that biology is founded on evolution. It's not. Biology [by it's name] is the study of living/dead organisms while evolution is an attempt to infer how these organisms came into existence.

>>Evolution doesn't lie to people.  People lie to people.<<

As you misrepresent the truth the Bible teaches on your web page, that's lying. But evolution is a lie. Its so plastic it makes no difference what the data may be, there will be some way to fit the data into the theory. As Patterson wrote, "It is easy to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But the stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test" [Personal Letter 10April 1979 to L.D.Sunderland 'Darwin's Enigma' Master Books 1984 p.89].    And as Lipson [Prof.Physics Univs. Of Manchester] wrote,  "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". [Physics Bulletin vol.31 1980 p.138]. What do you call a theory that remains an unproven hypothesis in the laboratories of science and utterly destitute of proof yet claimed it's proven beyond doubt? 'Deception', yes maybe, I think a 'lie' is accurate as well. I mentioned that you think we have the 'missing links'.  You replied,

>>I never said that we possessed EVERY intermediate fossil ancestor to every living organism.  But we certainly possess a number of fossils that have shared derived characteristics across taxonomies.<<

Yet you took the trouble in your first mail to supply a web page for every one of the missing transitions between the species.  As if words (not bones) is the answer to the missing evidence for evolution. There should be millions bones. But we don't find any series of fossils showing part-limb, part-wing; or part-scale, part-feather etc. "All palaeontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt" [S.J.Gould 'The Return of hopeful monsters' Natural History vol.LXXXVI (6) June/July 1977 p.24].

The fossil record indicates species continue as they are. No changes, mutations, trans-mutations, etc. Fossil bones of men have always been fossil bones of men. Calculate them 100 or 100,000 or 500,000 years, the fact is, they haven't changed. Those with no evidence to prove their theories, are away with the fairies.  The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions and our inability to even imagine and construct functional intermediates is a continual problem for evolution.

Prof E.J.Corner (evolutionist) [Tropical Botany Cambridge Univs UK] wrote, "I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation....can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would brake down before an inquisition. Textbooks hoodwink...The point, of course, is that there are thousands and thousands of living plants, predominantly tropical, which have never entered general botany, yet they are the bricks with which the taxonomist has built his temple of evolution, and where else have we to worship?" ['Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought' (Ed.Macleod & Codley) Oliver & Boyd for the Botanical Society of Edinburgh 1961 pg.97].

The reason why Gish is so good at debating is not because he took lessons, it's because his opponents can't produce scientific evidence for evolution because there isn't any. When the debates are framed as scientific debates, evolutionists are disadvantaged. The best evidence offered is a couple of questionable transitional forms, certain morphological or molecular resemblances which they misinterpret as relationships and minor mutational changes within basic kinds. They like you, will not give any real scientific evidence for evolution, because there's none. It's all theory.

By the way, fossils don't need millions of years to become fossils. There are many examples of things becoming fossilized in short periods of time.

>>To a creationist mind, biological evolution and the origin of life are one and the same topic.  But they're not.  Evolution is based on well-established biological principles.  The origin of life is based on speculations in the realm of chemistry.  I'm sick of listening to people claim that refuting one effectively disproves the other. That would be like me denying your existence because I don't possess your  birth certificate.<<

You are yet to provide proof "Evolution is based on well-established biological principles". Lets ask a biologist if what you say is true.  Jerry Bergman [2 Ph.D's Biology consultant more than 20 science text books]. He writes, "The thesis of this chapter is that the origin of life could not have occurred by a gradual process but must have been instantaneous. The reason this must be true is simple. Every machine must have a certain minimum number of parts for it to function, and if one part this minimum is removed, the machine will cease to function....Biologists know only that all life derives from preceding life, and that the parents organism's offspring are always of the same kind" [In Six Days Ed.J.Ashton New Holland 1999 p.15,18].

 Evolution is defenseless. No one has ever seen real evolution take place in the present, or even in all human history. Since there are no true transitional forms with intermediate structures in the fossil record, there is no evidence that it ever happened in the past, any more than in the present. All you are doing is repeating the same anti-creationist polemics that others have used, making the same unwarranted accusations again and again. Evolutionists once believed that flies came out of dirt [life from matter] until a Christian 'Louis Pasteur' proved they were from eggs laid by other flies.  Life never comes from non-life.

>>I don't deny God's existence. He may very well, in fact, exist.<<

Yes you don't know; and are confused about the Bible. You can't be sure about any verse, yet give the impression you know more than others.  You wouldn't want God to exist. If He exists then He must be some kind of gruesome monster. He created stars and galaxies in their billions but when creating life He struggled slowly over millions of years trying to perfecting it. What kind of evil monster is He, creating a world fill of all kinds of suffering? It's your imagination. 

>>I only  challenge the assertion that the Bible is a flawless, watertight record of his dealings with humanity. We may discuss this at length in another email, but I'm afraid if I introduce this topic now, it will only stir the pot.  We'll have to put this debate on hold.<<

For centuries great minds have studied the Bible extensively, it hasn't been exposed as a fraud like evolution. The claims that - 'the Bible is full of contradictions' - disappear when they are examined.  Strange that you "challenge the assertion that the Bible is flawless" when you don't even know if God "exists".  You don't know anything is true, or if anything can be known. The Bible says it well, "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,  since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." [Rom 1:18ff].

>>The existence of God poses no problem for evolution, and evolution poses no  problem for the existence of God, unless you're a woolly-headed postmodernist.<<

"God's existence" means no evolution. Why? Because God is perfect "in Him is no sin" [1 Jn.3:4]. When a God with that character  creates something, it's perfect [Deut.32:4] and 'very good' [Gen.1:31]. Evolution is not wonderful it's gruesome. The way of development entailed an appalling measure of pain and sorrow. The Biblical testimony concerning God's nature is distorted when death and ghastliness are presumed to be creative principles. God becomes evil creating a suffering world. Nature cannot sin, so man cannot be sinful if he's merely the product of nature. You assume God used sin to create life and Adams fall into sin is seen as a myth instead of reality. The Holy Spirit declares sin to be sinful, evolution does the opposite. Aggression is the flywheel that actually set evolution in motion. The fist is the active instrument and proof of becoming human. Murder, hate and aggression are the eggshells of evolution without which men would not have developed.

If sin is not seen in this way, then you have lost the key for finding God.  "All wrongdoing is sin" [1 jn.5:17] and if the pardon through God's Son is discarded, "you are still in your sins" (1 Cor.15:17). Adherence to the doctrine of evolution conceals the real nature of sin, 'we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us' [1 Jn.1:9]. Jesus once told people who hold this view "that you will die in your sins" [Jn.8:24].  So I ask, Why take one verse literally and ignore others? You replied,

>>Listen, some creationists do, in fact, misrepresent what's in the Bible, and  I have the right, even as a nonbeliever, to point it out. As an evolutionist, aren't I entitled to point out this unbiblical fallacy? Answer: Yes.<<

Your idea of creationists misrepresenting the Bible takes sides with all those anti-Bible. If you knew what you were taking about, it might make a difference. But what gets me with your webpage is, that you set yourself up like some authority on what you are ignorant about. It comes across like a phony. You despise something you know anything about.  No one minds you having views on the Bible but I wish you knew what you write about and told the truth instead of misrepresenting the Bible. 

>>Actually, I have often asked God to reveal himself to me.  But he never does, unless you're asking me to accept an esoteric "feeling" as proof of his communication.<<

Jesus said that if you won't believe what Moses wrote you won't be persuaded even if someone rose from the dead [Lk.16:31]. The Bible promises "...if you seek the LORD your God, you will find him if you look for him with all your heart and with all your soul" [Deu 4:29].  "The LORD searches every heart and understands every motive behind the thoughts. If you seek him, you will find him; but if you forsake him, he will reject you forever" [1 Chr 28:9].

I suspect you would rather not know Him and decided to ignore Him long ago [Pro.14:12].  And can't even conceive you might have wrong ideas about the Bible. The way God 'communicates' to us is through His Word, but you reject that as a erroneous human text - no wonder you're mixed up. Until you humble yourself before Him and admit you're a sinner and need a Saviour, I doubt He can help you.

>>Just out of curiosity, are you a Pentecostal?  Seriously, I'm not making light of you.<<

No. Recently someone wrote to me that the DNA "CAN be improved by random chance". The fact is codes are only produced by intelligence, not by natural processes or chance. A code is a set of rules for conveying information from one useful form into another [eg. Braille, Morse code]. Information codes require both a sender and a receiver. So the existence of information clearly shows evolution could not be a means to explain life, but it points to God's existence.

The DNA is a code of information and read like words of book. The letters and words are a code to give information. I said, lets see what 'random chance' will do to my typing and for you understanding my code. "e;ofefm sjdfoeifmsdf lksefiweflmwndf,sd k,dfko;welkqe"  Did you get that? So much for improving a code of information by "random chance"!  The fact is new information can't originate through mutations either. That idea is central in representations of evolution, but mutations can only cause changes in existing information. There can be no increase in information, and in general the results are injurious. New blueprints for new functions or new organ cannot arise; mutations cannot be the source of new [creative] information.

We know now [more than ever before] that even slight defects in our genes can be the reason for sickness or cancers. Any small genetic defect, [from accidents or mutations] can cause deformity, short life, sickness etc. Because the DNA is stable it protects and assures survivability of a species.  The life of Adam was over 900 years, nothing wrong with his DNA code, today the life span is down to 80-90. The opposite of evolution has happened on earth.

Regards

Mark