Want Some Answers ???


Hi Anonymous from an anonymous university

I mentioned we don't find any series of fossils showing part-limb, part-wing; part-scale, or part-feather etc. You replied,

>>No part-wings, huh? Read 'em and weep my friend. (webpages provided) And if you don't, you must accept that there are transitional forms.<<

I didn't "weep" but laughed. You provided 12 webpages, of ALL the SAME "Bird - dinosaur" claim (which is a fake!). It shows no sign of the crucial scale-feather or limb-wing transition. The paintings were very funny. The artists have vivid imaginations and should work for Hollywood making movies. Where are the rest of the missing links? The ones that prove evolution occurred? Please tell me. Millions of fossils have been discovered and identified but those 'missing links' have not. I'm surprised if you have no knowledge of this.

There should be millions of transitional forms. Where are they? If the Stone Age lasted for at least 100,000 years as they say, there should be millions of skeletons. Where are they? The idea of a time-scale and any evolutionary sequence is an utter shambles in the fossil record. Even on the 12 web pages I read, "What may be the first flying feathered dinosaur" and the words repeated - "
may have been". Don't get carried away with the paintings and artist pictures drawn to make you think what they may have looked like. They did the same things with ape-man ideas, and fooled many for years, without the truth and hard evidence. If reptiles evolved into birds as evolution claims, there should have been thousands of types of animals more bird-like than reptiles and yet others more reptile-like than bird. Where are they? Where are the half-feathers and half-scales? There's none!

Evolutionists claim that Archaeopteryx is a transition between reptiles and birds, basically a feathered reptile. It is one of the most frequently cited by evolutionists and shown in most textbooks. Since the 1980's several prominent scientists have charged that the two Archaeopteryx fossils with clearly visible feathers are forgeries. [Dr L.Spencer 'Is the Archaeopteryx a Fake? CRS Quarterly vol.20 Sept.1983 p.121-122].

Archaeopteryx's fame seems assured, not as a transitional fossil between reptiles and birds, but a bird. The Piltdown hoax fooled leading scientists for 40 years but the Archaeopteryx fame has lasted for 125 years. Yet if anything, it's a fully developed bird with feathers. It's a fraud to fit the Archaeopteryx into an evolutionary framework to spread a deception. And the British Museum [Natural History] must assume blame.

>>Perfect fossils are rare. So what? We have plenty of fossils which do document evolution.<<

Nonsense! Darwin evolutionists have made 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 this planet. There are many billions times billions of invertebrate fossils, many billions of fossil fish, untold 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, rare. There are massive fossil graveyards world-wide. All with signs of rapid burial and bones mixed together [Noah's flood].

In the natural history museums of the world are to be found 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 no longer legitimate. If as evolutionists believe, several millions of species have gradually evolved during hundreds of millions of years, a vast number of intermediate stages would have arisen, and the number of intermediate or transitional forms that would have lived and died during that enormous stretch of time would have been many billions times billions, and billions again.

If evolution were true, then in our museums today would unquestionably transitional forms. But there are none! With or without 'punctuated equilibrium' there would be 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 (what we have). Each of the basic types of plants and animals, are created kinds without transitional forms. You quoted the 'transitional fossil challenge' from Adam Marczyk -

>>The claim that "there are no transitional fossils" is very common in creationist literature, however, it's never backed up. In fact, every creationist who's ever been given this challenge, by me or others, has run away or otherwise refused to substantively respond to it. Let's see if you can do any better.<<

Which doesn't prove wrong what I wrote. You have overlooked that my quotes were NOT from "creationist literature" but evolutionists. Eg., Darwin -

"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 Dent & Sons Lon.1971 p.292-293].

You went on to say, but -

>>1954!!! A lot more fossils have been found since 1954 and our technology has advanced greatly since then and we've got a clearer picture of their attributes.<<

And what do modern evolutionists say? The transition bones are still missing -

Dr Ramp (Curator of Geology Museum Chicago) writes, "The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classics cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information" ['Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin' vol.50(1) Jan.1979 p.25]. Note the date. I won't quote "
creationist literature" since you haven't read it. Marczyk says,

>>1. Define for us what you think a transitional fossil is. 2. Give a hypothetical example of a fossil that you would accept as transitional if it were found.<<

Those who question the theory of evolution really don't need to "define", or give "hypothetical examples" or any such thing. It's not up to me to build the theory [Send this to Marczyk]. I rightly question why are there no series of fossils showing part-limb, part-wing; or part-scale, part-feather. You ignored the comments from S.J.Gould another evolutionist, "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" [Palaeobiology vol.6(1) Jan. 1980 p.127]. Is he wrong? Marczyk writes,

>>3. The T.O. website has a large number of fossils claimed to be transitional by leading paleontologists at http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html. Pick one fossil from this list and explain why it's not really transitional using your definition<<

I looked and read carefully. And there were none! Why don't you check it out? On 'talkorgins' I read this -

"The first and most major reason for gaps is "stratigraphic discontinuities", meaning that fossil-bearing strata are not at all continuous. The second reason for gaps is that most fossils undoubtedly have not been found"

That's the facts! Still looking never finding!! The evolutionists advocate a "sorted and arranged" geological column from Cambrian, Ordovician etc up to Pleistocene. But the fossil column is not always uniform or "sorted and arranged". They are not in order, there are massive fossil graveyards around the world, indicating Noah's flood (ie. the Karoo formation in Africa thought to contain 800 billion verterate fossils). But you know more than today's leading evolutionists about missing links, you say -

>>Would you like me to TELL you 'where they are'? The transitional forms are briefly outlined in this link: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html<<

Did you know, that's the same "link" as above with no new information? How can I believe a theory without proof it's happened? The "Talk origins" archive is a atheistic website. Hard to find one article on that website which contain reliable scientific data and sound reasoning. See www.trueorigins.org for a number of rebuttals to essays found at Talk Origins.

>>And, by the way, All three of those quotes have been taken completely out of context. These writers were writing about the way that punctual evolution has overtaken gradualistic evolution as the best theory to explain the way that transitional forms are clumped so closely together. This tactic is completely unacceptable in any proper debate, and I will ask you to refrain from doing this in future (while you're at it, perhaps you could ask Mr Gish and Mr Morris to do so too). If you are quoting from other literature, youneed to get the source so you can see what the author is actually saying.<<

Did you read my last email? I don't have any books by Gish or Morris (yet). And that list of books I gave were not all by Christians. Yes some of the authors don't come from a biblical Christian/literal Genesis view or members of CRS, ICR. Here they - "Evolution: A Theory In Crisis" Dr M. Denton [NOT a Creationist ie AiG/ICR/CRS] "Darwin's Black Box". Pro M.J. Behe. [NOT AiG etc] "Not A Change" Dr L. Spetner [NOT AiG etc]. Why endorse a theory we don't see happening, no proof it has, and we don't know how it has. Evolution is wrongly "accepted as fact" by many [popular-misconception]. The scientific community have a wide radius of thought and not united on evolution. If it's a universal law of nature, why has the scientific community not found one instance of change from one species into another? You wrote,

>>The Bible says: "...there is no god." "A fool says in his heart, there is no god." See how the first quote has been completely taken out of context? Please don't do it again.<<

There is nothing wrong quoting evolutionists. And in fact, I agree with them. Don't you? Or am I not allowed to quote evolutionists or creationists? My quotes did NOT mislead, but indicate those "missing links" are STILL missing, they know it [but not you]. And they admit making stories that are speculation. That's not taking words out of context but telling you what they believe. I can quote many who know the facts, why can't you? Note this evolutionist he writes 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" [J. Keosian Origin of Life 1978 p.569-574]. Why ignore what they write? Maybe they should write more carefully, but if you don't like me quoting them, I can't help that. You wrote,

>>Futhermore, we have fossilsof other hominids with intermediate size brains. Modern Chimp : 390cc Australopithecus Afarensis : ~415cc Australopithecus Africanus : ~425cc Australopithecus Garhi : ~450cc Australopithecus Boisei : ~500-550cc Australopithecus Robustus : ~530cc Homo Habilis : 590-710cc Homo Erectus : ~900-1100cc Modern human : ~1350cc <<

"Brain sizes" don't prove evolution. I realize evolutionists have for years argued it, but I'm surprised you fell for that rubbish about "brain sizes". Evolutionists have dug up old 'Indian graves' looking at heads. And the whole subject of racial intelligence was born out of "brain sizes". They argued that everyone 'knew' the white man was the most intelligent, the Indian next, and the Negro least of all. No one was allowed to refute the hard facts of science, until some Christians did and they finally abolished slavery. Hitler was another. He had the idea that life evolved over millions of years -

"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]

These 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]

This evolutionary thinking helped cause WW2. But the fact is, man only uses about 10% of his brain capacity. Apart from wondering how this is measured, we may oppose the question, if this statement is true, and regardless of what percentage figures are attached, how is it possible that natural selection [or any other evolution mechanism] has provided us with a brain capacity far exceeding our use of it? From the evolutionary any standpoint this leads to the uncomfortable conclusion that 'nature' knows ahead of time the requirements (ie, a teleological process which replaces the chance mechanism of evolution by an intelligence). Men such as Darwin have been struggling against just this concept since Aristotle proposed it and it is clearly unacceptable. But at the same time, this lack of full use of our brain leads to an alternative dilemma that long ago man used his entire brain capacity and has ever since allowed it to fall into disuse.

I mentioned 'Whether gradualist or punctuationist the fossil record provides the only historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms'. You respond,

>>Hmm? Why could these not possibly be transitional forms between us and apes? Good, so you accept that life has evolved from simple to more and more complex forms. That, at least, is a start. Hang on! - why are we having this debate if you accept 'historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved'?<<

I never wrote, 'life HAS evolved from simpler to more complex forms". But "the fossil record provides the only evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms'. The problem, "the fossil record" doesn't have "evidence" for the theory.

>>How does Creationism explain the fossil record? It has not been widely accepted because it resolves a dilemma, but because it more closely predicts what we find in the fossil record. The PE theory was introduced to explain the pattern of speciation (i.e. the pattern of transitionals) that are visible in the fossil record, not the absence of it. We usually see transitional fossils clustered in geological time. We don't usually see minute, gradual changes over millions of years although we certainly do see some changes that happen that way. Most of the changes seem to happen in geologically short periods of time interspersed with periods of stasis.<<

Creation modals don't advocate a "sorted and arranged" geological column from so-called "Cambrian, Ordovician etc up to Pleistocene". The fossil column is not in an evolutionary order. But there are millions of dead things in rock layers all around the world laid down my water. The fossil graveyards have all the signs of rapid burial and bones mixed together. The coal seams and oil deposits are also evidence of a global flood. "No flood" you say? What about the many flood legends? What about the rapid buried fossils? What about the Grand Canyon? What about the huge oil and coal deposits? What about sea-shells on the tops of mountains? The petrified forests [in Yellow Stone] that were buried? What about the deserts, where were once forests? What about the rainbow? I believe the Bible is right - "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]. And what do some 'expert' evolutionist say about fossils?

Dr.M.Ridley [Zoologist Oxford] "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation" [Who doubts evolution New Scientist vol.90 25Jun. 1981 p.831]. The idea of a time-scale and any evolutionary sequence is an utter shambles in the fossil record.

(Dr L.Watson Science Digest, vol.90 May 1982 p.44) "The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!"

(J.Reader. (Missing Links New Scientist 26 March1981 p.802). "The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, but it has spawned a science because it is distinguished by two factors which inflate its apparent relevance far beyond its merits. First, the fossils hint at the ancestry of a supremely self-important animal - ourselves. Secondly, the collection is so tantalizingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmentary and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present"

I mentioned we don't find the gradual morphological trends predicted by Darwinian evolution, so some argue change occurs with the sudden appearance of new, well-differentiated species Not gradual but rapid. This model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground. You reply,

>>No, it is not an ad-hoc explanation, it is a testable theory and it does not rest on shaky ground. It is documented by the dispersal of transitional fossils as they appear in the fossil record.<<

I'm sorry I was quoting R.Ricklefs [Dept. of Biology Univs. Pennsyl USA] and didn't give the context. So here it is - "The Eldredge-Good concept of punctuated equilibria has gained wide acceptance among paleontologist. It attempts to account for the following paradox: Within continuously sampled lineages, one rarely finds the gradual morphological trends predicted by Darwinian evolution; rather, change occurs with the sudden appearance of new, well-differentiated species. Eldredge and Gould equate such appearances with speciation, although the details of these events are not preserved. They suggest that change occurs rapidly, by geologic standards, in small, peripheral populations. They believe that evolution is accelerated in such populations because they contain a small, random sample of the gene pool of the parent population (founder effect) and therefore can diverge rapidly just by chance and because they can respond to local selection pressures that may differ from those encountered by the parent population. Eventually some of these divergent, peripheral populations are favored by changed environmental conditions (species selection) and so they increase and spread rapidly into fossil assemblages. The punctuated equilibrium model has been widely accepted, not because it has a compelling theoretical basis but because it appears to resolve a dilemma. Apart from the obvious sampling problems inherent to the observations that stimulated the model, and apart from its intrinsic circularity (one could argue that speciation can occur only when phyletic change is rapid, not vice versa),the model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground." R.E. Ricklefs (Department of Biology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA), 'Paleontologists con-fronting macroevolutton.' Science, vol, 199, 6 Jan.1978, p 59,

So you can see I only said what evolutionists themselves say. I mentioned the truth about evolution - whether evolution has occurred at all. Evolution then, is proven by a totally separate set of arguments without evidence. One theory to back up another theory to back up.... etc. You respond -

>>That is an utter lie. Evolution is based soundly on the available evidence in the fossil record.<<

No lie. Once again these words originate from evolutionists themselves. Billions of tax dollars are spent yearly to solve evolution related problems. And every new story overturns the previous idea. I know it's hard for you to accept that the missing fossils are still missing after years of looking. But its true. Note what Dr D Ager [Dept. Geology Univs. Swansea UK] writes "It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student, from Trueman's Ostrea/Gryphaea to Carruthers' Zaphrentis delanouei have now been 'debunked'. Similarly, my own experience [sic] of more than 20 years looking for evolutionary lineages among the Mesozoic Brachiopoda has proved them equally elusive" [The Nature of the Fossil record' Proceedings of the Geologist Ass. vol.87(2) 1976 p.132]. I wrote that the fossil record indicates species continue as they are. No changes. You respond,

>>Another lie. The fossil records document many changes of species.<<

Not so. There are no trans-mutations in the fossil record. As most evolutionists know and have said so. I mentioned human fossils have always been human fossils. Whether 100 or 100,000 or 500,000 years, they haven't changed. You wrote,

>>Another lie. Here is the list of some transitional hominid fossils - hominids with a mixture of modern and ancient features : Australopithecus Afarensis Australopithecus Africanus Australopithecus Garhi Australopithecus Boisei Australopithecus Robustus Homo Habilis Homo Erectus<<

No lie. These so called 'transitions' only exist in the minds of evolutionists and are suggestions how a transition might have evolved. They get an idea then go looking for proof. But in reality, there's no proof, no bones. As evolutionist Dr.Watson wrote, "The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!" (Dr L.Watson Science Digest, vol.90 May 1982 p.44). I mentioned information in DNA code is never improved by mutation or chance, you respond,

>>Here's an example of new information: "...the origins of the vancomycin- resistance gene are well understood. It didn't come from junk DNA that suddenly switched on. It came from a coding sequence of DNA that underwent duplication, then a point mutation, causing it to produce an enzyme that, while chemically related to one it already produced, had a completely different new function." - Adam Marczyk, talk.origins newsgroup. Why do you deny so strongly that new information is impossible?<<

Not good enough. Man's DNA is copied and passed on via parents. That information is never improved on. And neither will "duplication" and "mutation" produce a new variety of species where more information required. And natural selection can only favour some information above others. And can cause some of the information to be lost, but it can't create any new information. I suggest you get your head into some real decent books [as suggested]. If you are really searching for the truth, why not? You wrote,

>>Some mutations are beneficial to the organism and they get passed on until, for example, scales evolved into feathers for keeping a reptile warm. http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html If a mutation occurs which reduces the amount of 'information' in a genome then what is stopping another mutation from restoring that 'information'? And if that is possible, What is to prevent another mutation from adding to the information? The impossibility here is created by your refusal to accept ANY evolutionary explanations.<<

Generally "mutations" are not beneficial. In evolutionary theory, the role of creating new information by random accidental mistakes, when information is copied. Mistakes happen and inherited (the next generation is a copy from a defective copy). So passed on and somewhere down the line another mistake happens, and so mutational defects accumulate. They go down hill never up hill. As this evolutionist writes - Pierre-Paul Grasse [Zoologist] "No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution. 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.88,97,98]. Mutations are never neutral, they detract from the organism's nature.

>>There's also Kolmogorov-Chaitin Information Theory which is a different type of information theory [than Shannon info. theory] that also allows for the increase of information that we see in nature. Basically, K-C theory states that random noise contains the maximum amount of information. Mutations are the mechanism which introduces this noise into the genome thus increasing the amount of information in that genome. Natural selection then acts on that information, filtering out any information that hinders the survival of that individual and leaving in any information that helps the survival of that individual.<<

What? Another random theory to explain a random theory? You can propose all you like or what you think, but we can only base what we believe on what we know today.

Mutations are random rearrangements resulting in the loss of DNA information and the opposite of what evolution requires - the additional genetic information. Natural selection does not produce new information either, but itís a process in nature which weeds out the harmful/disorderly effect of mutation, thus preserving a created kind. Information does not arise out of matter and increase by chance. I quoted Dr Gitt, "no natural process has ever been observed where information originated spontaneously in matter" You respond,

>>What is your definition of information originating spontaneously in matter? We see the face of Elvis in artichokes, right? Information is defined by the reader. It can occur from purely random processes<<

Sorry I should list more books for you to read [if you are "
on a mission to The Truth"]. Dr. Gitt is Director and Profss. at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology. He writes, that "no definition of information" is possible, "...because information is by nature a very complex entity. The five-level model indicates that a simple formulation for information will probably never be found" [W. Gitt "In the Beginning was Information" CLV 2000 p.124] He also points out there are 3 kinds of transmitted information. [1] Copied Information [2] Reproduced Information [3] Creative Information. And "creative information is the highest level of transmitted information: something new is produced. It does not involve copied or reproduced information. This kind of information always requires a personal mind excising its own free will, as original course. This generally entails a nonmaterial intellectual process which thus cannot be linked to a person who has cognitive capabilities, and it represents something new." [p113] You wrote,

>>1. Grow bacteria that cannot resist an antibiotic 2. Grow the bacteria on a medium that contains a mutagen (increases rate of mutations) 3. Observe as the bacteria quickly evolve antibiotic resistance.<<

Organisms evolving genetic differences? When germs/bacteria already resistance to a chemical survive, this results in drug resistant germs. They haven't "evolved". Bacteria that becomes resistant through mutation [information-losing process], results from a loss of a control gene. Although called 'Supergerms' they are not super, but generally weaker and don't survive outside a hospital. Some germs directly transfer their resistance [information that exists already] to others. No new genetic information [codes for complex structures] is added. You could argue for natural selection but not millions of years of evolution. So in the Neo-Darwinian automobile the engine is missing. I mentioned that a coding system of information can never originate in matter. There must be a coding system to store information about this protein so that it can be replicated at a later stage, you respond,

>>This is the irreducible information theory. Basically you argue that cells need machinery which could not come together by itself. This idea is refuted by the following essay: http://www.etsu.edu/philos/faculty/niall/complexi.htm If you do not read and comment on this esssay I will presume that you accept that the irreducible information theory is incorrect in its conclusion that cells must have been created by an intelligent designer.<<

Yes read and seen before. Written by an evolutionist, but not accepted by all evolutionists. Note the scientific experiments the article suggests. The "self-organizing chemical reactions to call into question Behe's analysis of the origins of biochemical complexity". In the lab with a great amount of skill and carefulness they attempt to show [although not completely] how chemicals might react to produce what they think could have happened. And yet admit, "Considerable complexity is observed at all levels". And we are asked to believe this has happened in the wild by chance, not partially but completely.

They say, "We do not claim to fill in the current gaps in our knowledge where Behe and others wish to insert an intelligent designer. Rather, we try to show how it is possible to fill in the gaps in a naturalistic, evolutionary fashion". There are many explanations for how life might have developed given enough time, the right conditions, etc. But nothing yet is hard evidence or better than a Master mind behind it all. Do you honestly believe 'nothing produced something and then matter produced life and life developed itself, all by chance and randomly? That's very hard to prove and believe.

I think Behe responded to that paper [not sure]. Taking the idea of a 'mouse trap' having ten parts. Behe said [I think] What they did was 'nail the mouse trap to the floor'. Dr J.Bergman [Ph.D Coml Unis. Biology] comments on this, "Life could not have occurred by a gradually 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 below this minimum is removed, the machine will cease to function. The example Behe uses is a common spring mousetrap, which requires ten parts to function. The trap will no longer function if just one part is removed. No one has been able to show this concept to be erroneous - only that under certain conditions a certain machine can operate with one fewer part. A simple mouse trap system is much more complex than it first appears". [In Six Days J.Ashton NH 2000 p.15].

To ask me to believe information rises out of matter by itself is to defile logic and reason. Order never takes place by chance. You need someone to put things in order first. Sir Fred Hoyle wrote, "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein'" [Hoyle on evolution Nature vol.294 Nov.1981 p.105]. If man could make ONE bacteria cell evolutionists would be screaming 'see life can happen by chance'. And ignoring the fact that it is only done with great intellect and great skill [ie God-like]. "The simplest form of life should have at least 600 different protein molecules. The mathematical probability that only one molecule could form by chance arrangement of the proper sequence of amino acids as far less than 1 in 10 [to the power of 450]. The magnitude of the number 10-450 can begin to be appreciated by realizing that the visible universe is about 10-28 inches in diameter" [Dr J.Bergman Ph.D Biology].

I mentioned that 'Consider the 'simple' E. coli bacteria. If you unravelled the strand of DNA it would go around the equator 3 times! How long do you think it would take DNA 'Data' to randomly fall in place. You wrote,

>>This is such a glaring error that I must ask you if you are serious! Where did you hear that?!?!?!? E. coli bacterium DNA: 1.36 millimetres Human DNA: 90 cm long Lily DNA (mostly repeated chromosomes): 10 metres long This is just one example of the kind of utter lies/misinformation/false information that your Creationist literature is saturated with.<<

The quote didn't come from "creationist literature", nor did I make it up. It was from someone writing to me. I agree, it sounds crazy [I take it back]. "If all the DNA in a human body was laid end to end it would stretch 50 billion kilometres (from the sun to the edge of the solar system) Each cell in the human body contains more information than the entire 30 vol. set of the Encyclopedia Britannica" (p.64 Investigate June 2002 Ian Wishart) "If all your DNA strands were stretched out, they would reach to the Moon 6,000 times" (p.25 Science Facts for kids G Campbell & M Devins Egmont Books Ltd. Great Britain 2002).

Even E.coli bacterium refutes the idea 'life arrived by chance'. The huge amount of 'data' the equivalent to thousands of library books and the impossibility of mutations producing this vast amount of information. That POINT was made and you ignored it. Eg.

"Cells are the fabric of life. Even the most primitive cells are enormously complex structures that form the basic units of all living matter. All tissues and organs are composed of cells. In a human an estimated 60 trillion cells interact, each performing its specialized role in an organized community. In single-celled organisms all the functions of life are performed within the confines of one microscopic package. There is no life without cells" (Hickman Integrated Principles of Zoology Duduque IA 1997 p.43). This is not some hair-brain theory, it's a fact! If you don't know these things that's a "
glaring error". Another Biologist writes,

"Even most bacteria require several thousand genes to carry out the functions necessary for life. E.coli has about 4,639,221 nucleotide base pairs, which code for 4,288 genes, each one of which produces an enormously complex protein machine. The simplest species of bacteria, Chlamydia and Rickettsia, are the smallest living things known. Only a few hundred atoms across, they are smaller than the largest virus and have about half as much DNA as do other species of bacteria. Although they are about as small as it is possible to be and still be living, these two forms of life still require millions of atomic parts" (J.Trefil 'Things Everyone Should Know about Science' NY Doubleday 1992 p.28).

Like I said cells divide into cells. But even the simplest-known one-celled creatures are mind-bogglingly complex. With never an accidentally increase of information. Ie, a coding for new structures, functions, greater complexity. Any changes don't involve increasing information but a decrease. So the origin of the genetic code is another baffling aspect for evolution; there are no laboratory models. For evolution to occur an increase of information to the DNA is vital. And to mention RNA [as you did] even makes the chance of cells spontaneously popping out of the soup even more unlikely.

If scientists create life, it will be a simple form and done with a great amount of information, skill and difficulty and with all the right conditions. Which proves my point, the only way to create life is to have Intelligence first. You replied,

>>Then we would have God-like intelligence (sort of!). Are you comfortable with that possibility?<<

God created, man in His "likeness" [Gen.1-2]. So man has a "God-like intelligence" now and he's accountable to God for it. Man loves to create and make things also. Some things are more complex than others. But what God makes is FAR above our intelligence. We can reproduce and copy when we understand how they work. Many things God has made are so clever and amazing we don't have a clue how they work or how He did it. "O LORD, how great are thy works! and thy thoughts are very deep". [Psa 92:5].

>>But don't you see, we can ask the same question about YOUR model of the Universe's origins: Where did the comic God come from?<<

The Bible tells us about the Great Creator - "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God". [Psa 90:2 Mic.5:2 Hab.1:12]. Eternity is hard for the human mind to understand since we think in past present and future. But the Bible says, "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the 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 1:18-20]. If God's "eternal nature" is a problem - look at the stars and think about the huge universe beyond our ability to see the beginning or the end. God has shown us His "eternal nature" in what He has made, and we know this today more than ever before. Concerning the 'big-band' You wrote,

>>That is cosmology. I specialise in biological evolution, you will have to talk to different experts about that. I believe your objections are arguments from ignorance anyway.<<

But evolution is order out of disorder. It's "big-band cosmology". All the natural laws, material stars, and galaxies, everything came together without outside intelligence and created themselves. A big accident, an explosion that in the end results in a three-pound human brain containing about 12 billion brain cells with about 120 trillion connections. Today it's still a marvel as how it works - or in the case of an evolutionist - how it doesn't work. The evolutionist and anti-Creationist Isaac Asimov, "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]. You have no explanation for life. It has no meaning or purpose. Things just pop out of the sky and jump together out of nothing. And then make a 747. How could blind change produce a seeing eye?

'Everything came from nothing' is your motto. Yet 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? No reply from you, but your asking me to believe it DID come from nothing. I asked how can nothing produce matter and matter produce life? How can non-living matter jump the many hurdles required to form living cells? You respond,

>>Argumentum ad ignorum. You don't know how, so you say that it could not have possibly happened?<<

Again no answer. I do have an explanation, you have none. You have no explanation for life. It has no meaning or purpose. Things just pop out of the sky and jump together out of nothing. I mentioned that the most rational explanation to the reality of the universe is God. Without God there would not be any universe in the first place.

>>This is Philosophy. I specialise in biological evolution. I will try to convince you of evolution. I don't need to talk with you about whether or not there is a God; by his own rules we can believe in him or not, there is no proof, no argument that inescapably shows that there is a God. If there was, you could one-by-one convert everyone in the world.<<

But now you are ignoring reality. You can't accept anything that upsets the error of evolutionism. A mindset that won't allow thinking outside a worldview. Anyone who says 'God might be there He might not' and "I don't need to talk with you about whether or not there is a God" is ignoring reality. You say "by his own rules we can believe in him or not" is another error. To know God's 'rules' - start with God's Book. God says you don't have any choice - "he commands all people everywhere to repent" [Acts 17:30].

And "
converting everyone in the world"? "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare." [2 Pet 3:9-10]. So He will judge "everyone in the world". Looks like the Big Bang is not in the past but it's yet to happen.

I mentioned Evolution demands an upward trend - increasing order and complexity and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has a serious obstacle for naturalistic Evolution. You reply,

>>The 2nd law of thermodynamics says nothing about complexity, it's about thermal equilibrium and it's not a hard-and-fast law, it is a statistical law which can be 'broken'. Go here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html You are seriously mis- or un-informed about the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, I suggest that you do not use it as an argument because it has nothing to do with evolution. <<

But it does. That's why mutations happen because the tendency is downward. The 2nd Law also applies to the storage of information, there is always a tendency for information to become lost or garbled. This is easy to understand, for the transmission and the main information requires the expenditure of energy work must be performed. The origin of the universe, life, and the single-celled organism into man would have required an enormous increase in complexity, organization, and information content. Biological evolution would require the transmission and storage of information and a net increase in information content. Even Isaac Asimov agreed on that. And you replied,

>>Again, you take a quote out of context. Asimov was trying to explain the 2nd Law to a lay audience. When he discovered later that people like you were using his quote like that, he said something along the lines of "It was a kindergarten explanation for people with kindergarten minds."<<

But this law explains why everything is running down (observable and proven). Evolution masquerades as the grand mechanism that has produced all natural things from a simple to complex (not observable or proven). The fact is, the process of evolution requires energy in various forms. Thermodynamics is the study of energy movement and transformation. The two fields are related. Scientific laws that govern thermodynamics must also govern evolution. "An answer can readily be given to the question. 'Has the second law of thermodynamics been circumvented?' NOT YET" [On the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Frank A. Greco: USA Lab. Vol.14 (Oct 1982), p.80]. And again - "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].

>>No, DNA is not like reading a book of words. Not even close. For a start there are only 20 amino acids, and four nucleic acid bases. An amino acid is coded for by 3 bases. With 3 bases there are 64 combinations. There are some 'words' which mean the same thing - i.e. they code for the same amino acid, 3 bases read the same forwards as they do backwards IIRC, and there are 3 sequences of bases which code for 'STOP READING'.

Yes the DNA is very much more complicated but it is an information code that "stores the cell's master plans....the RNA transports a copy of the needed information contained in the DNA to the protein assembly station and proteins" [Bergman p17]. The DNA contains all the information for your body - the colour of your eyes, hair, skin, how high you will grow given the right conditions etc - it's all on the code. 'Random chance' will not improve or add information to DNA code. 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 of information, and in general the results are injurious. New blueprints for new functions or new organs cannot arise; mutations cannot be the source of new [creative] information [I was quoting Dr Gitt]. To that you replied,

>>Bad analogy. The genetic code consists of only 4 base pairs and evolution is not about random chance. Natural selection is non-random. It is the filtering that is done by natural selection which leads to an increase of information.<<

But you claimed that the DNA "...CAN be improved by random chance" It can't! And now you divert and say 'natural selection' increases information. What do the evolutionists say? "Gradual evolutionary change by natural selection operates so slowly within established species that it cannot account for the major features of evolution." [Steven M. Stanky (Dept. of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, US), 'A theory of evolution above the species level'. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science US, vol 72(2), Feb.1975, p.646].

In case you think that's out of context, how about? - "In other words, natural selection over the long run does not seem to improve a species' chance of survival but simply enables it to "track," or keep up with, the constantly changing environment." [R.C. Lewontin (Profes. Of zoology, Univ., of Chicago, and Co-Editor of the American Naturalist), 'Adaptation'. Scientific American, vol 239(3), Sept.1978, p.159].

Or how about? - "The role assigned to natural selection in establishing adaptation, while speciously problem, is based on not one single sure datum. Paleontology (cf. the case of the trans-formation of the mandibular skeleton of the theriodont reptiles) does not support it; direct observation here and now of the genesis of a hereditary adaptation is nonexistent, except, as we have stated, in the case of bacteria and insects preadapted to resist viruses or drugs. The formation of the eye, the inner ear, of cestodes and the whale, etc., does not seem possible by way of preadaptation." [Pierre-Paul Grassi (Univ., of Paris and past President, French Academic des Sciences) in Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, NY 1974 p.170]. You wrote,

>>Also, you are confusing 'information' with 'meaning'. Your code "0W=e;ofefm sjdfoeifmsdf lksefiweflmwndf,sdk,dfko;welkqe" actually contains a lot of information even though it might not have any meaning to us. Random noise contains the most information but the meaning of a sequence of letters (or anything) only makes sense in the context of a reader.<<

It had no meaning full stop. All 'information' codes are entirely arbitrary. It's only that certain letters/words are said to mean something that gives the code meaning. I can write a book in Braille and the dots are entirely arbitrary yet convey meaning. One does not write books by 'random chance' [unless they're an evolutionist] and improve the DNA code by 'random chance'. And I said, "New information can't originate through mutations either" you reply,

>>Really? How about this: The dog sat on the mat. The dog sat on the cat. Oops, new information and we've only had to mutate a single letter. Let's carry this on further... The dog sat on the car. The dog sat in the car. The dog shat in the car. To illustrate thepoint about 'meaning' and information : Them dog shat in the car. Them dogs shat in the car. Them cogs shat in the car. Them creationists have XXXX in their brains.<<

Another insult? I'm not impressed, why waste time with insults in your argument. Maybe I'll answer your next mail, maybe not. But you have had your turn. I don't think your serious or "on a mission for The Truth". If you want to play games, find someone else. There's nothing in the rest of your letter that warrants attention, nothing earth-shaking, nothing important, so I'll conclude on your "illustration".

Your own illustration proves my point. Scientists know now [more than ever before] that even just a slight defect in our genes can be the reason why someone gets a certain sickness or cancer. This is not some kind of creationist conspiracy but commonly held in scientific circles today. Any small genetic defects [accidents or mutations] cause deformity, shortness of life, sickness etc. Because the DNA is so stable, it protects us and assures survivability of a species. The law's of the State discourage two mentally ill people from marrying because of passing on defective genes. Slight mutations cause a downhill slide, never an increase of information.

You can never admit these things or accept you might be wrong. You disagree on principle not on facts. You insist the transition fossils exist, but they don't. That the 2d law doesn't exist, yet it does, that DNA is improved by chance, but it can't be. It doesn't matter what the facts, your mind is closed. You debate for debate's sake,

>>Thank you for your time, Dr. Purchase. Eventually I will have to bring the real issue into the debate: The fact that the only reason you are arguing for Creationism is because you want it taught in schools, to indoctrinate children. That is what I will fight to prevent - with all my mind.<<

Children are not born with a natural belief in evolution, they are "indoctrinated". That's how the public education systems handles the Creation/Evolution issue. Brainwashing children to go a certain direction. And media censorship has existed for years about any news that doesn't support evolution. Newspapers, magazines and journals are committed to evolution. They focus on Darwin and neglect to mention such men as Michael Faraday, James Maxwell and William Thomson and Lord Kelvin, who at the time Darwin's 'Origin' was introduced were the giants of science. These men had great credibility among scientists of the day and rejected Darwin's theory.

Men ignore and reject God NOT because science or reason requires it, but simply because they WANT TO. "They did not like to retain God in their knowledge" Rom 1:28. "Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man" Rom 1:22-23. For those who desire to know God, He has revealed Himself. "No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son.... has declared him." [Jn 1:18].