Want Some Answers ???

Evolutionism
Index
Home



Hello there,

You wrote,

>>I sincerely apologise for the rude joke that I artlessly and crudely left in my last letter. It was wrong and I can see that now. Please accept my apologies; it will not happen again.<<

I accept your apology. But it did happen again [much worse] before answering this letter. Having discovered the public record of our mail - you lost control of yourself. Posting “angry” emails crying, “dishonest DESPICABLE ...dirty” and liar. Demanding I give “the audience a way of contacting” you [To debate them?]. Your ‘brother’ wrote calling me “immoral –unjustifiable – liar – slanderous”. Why are you afraid of others reading your defense of evolution? Why is personal abuse and ridicule part your “debate”?

So where are the ‘transition fossils showing part-limb, part-wing; or part-scale, part-feather etc’, proving evolution occurred? You replied ‘
define what you mean by transitional fossils’. I've done that before and I’m not the one proposing the theory. Evolutionists should explain their evidence. So where are the ‘mutations’ that prove one species changed into another? There are many stories from evolutionists how it “might” have happened but no proof!! And then you provided 12 webpage addresses of ALL the SAME "bird - dinosaur" claim. As if that answered the dilemma of missing fossils. Was that the best you could do? If biology is your "specialty" you are not convincing. And the 12 web-pages? You say,

>>They were the same claim, yes. This shows that the claim is backed up by many scientists all around the world. That is how science works.<<

This indicates you haven’t a clue regarding the problems with the Dino-bird claim. (Reader write to me for info on this fake -mark@answers.net.nz ). Either they are still unknown or you don't care. I realize now that you believe what you want, regardless of anything. The 'claim' is NOT "backed up by many scientists all around the world”. The Dino-bird fossil claim is a fake held by diehard evolutionists. You wrote,

>>Yes, there was an incident in which a Chinese fossil was tampered with to make it worth money (that is why commerce and science should be separarated). But that was a singlular incident.<<

It was NOT the “
Chinese fossil” Dino-bird that was “tampered with” but the evolutionist’s claim regarding the so-called Archaeopteryx as a transition between reptiles and birds [Mentioned on one of your 12 web-pages]. Some scientists have claimed the Archaeopteryx fossils are forgeries [Dr L.Spencer ‘Is the Archaeopteryx a Fake? CRS Quarterly vol.20 Sept.1983 p.121-122]. But if genuine, it has fully formed wings and feathers and would fly like a bird, so it's a bird. It shows NO sign of the crucial scale-feather or limb-wing transition. No wonder the atheistic Marxist S.J. Gould wouldn't mention this among his list of transition forms.

But the tampering is not a “
singular incident” it’s commonplace in the history of evolutionism. If you knew it was “tampered with” why offer it as proof of evolution? You accused me of "propagating lies, misinformation" so "would you accept this of an example of how" evolutionists, "even yourself, can propagating lies, misinformation"? [to quote you].

You conveniently overlook the hundreds of stories constructed by evolutionist about these so-called transition species, their eating habits, behaviour etc, all from the imagination. And all the paintings, drawings, wax-modals etc based on fakes. You wrote,

>>I don't think you can really deny that there have been fossils found with reptilian skeletal features and birdlike feathers. If these fossils do not qualify as (possible) intermediates between birds and reptiles then what would? Well, I mean you CAN keep denying it. But why should we keep going in circles?<<

Yes I deny it. There should be millions of skeletons and transitional fossils, not just a Dino-bird that's a fake. Who says? “The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved” [W.E.Swinton. Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds A.J.Marshall Ed. Academic Press NY vol.1 1960 p.1]. If you think that’s out of context, another expert says the same – “Feathers are unique to birds, and no known structure intermediate between scales and feathers has been identified” [J.A.Feduccia The Age of the Birds Harvard Unis. Press 1980 p.52].

>>Evidence to falsify Evolution would be very easy: A clearly human skeleton carbon-dated as older than 5 million years, or found mixed up with dinosaur skeletons (in non-ambiguous circumstances) would clearly falsify the evolutionary framework we have now. Tell me: What piece of evidence would it take to falsify the Creationist model of the Flood?<<

The ultimate question in the two conflicting theories on origins is, did it all happen by properties inherent in matter and naturalistic processes or by act of an intelligent deliberate Creator? Ultimately it's not possible to falsify either general proposition, although from each emerges subsidiary hypotheses which are potentially capable of falsification. To me, evolution is a theory without evidence, whereas the ‘flood model’ is an explanation for the evidence, - 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].

Darwin evolutionists for hundreds of years 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 billions of invertebrate fossils, billions of fossil fish, untold millions of fossil-bearing amphibians, reptiles and mammals locked into fossil-bearing strata. Yet no transitional forms, you respond –

>>I have already told you, the intermediates (or evolutionary chains from ancient to modern fossils; ultimately the same thing) are outlined in this website. http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html<<

Kidding yourself? Fossils should prove evolution, not words, web-pages and colourful paintings. The "
Talk origins" archive is a atheistic website. It's hard to find one article on that 'website' which contains reliable scientific data and sound reasoning. See www.trueorigins.org for a number of rebuttals to essays found at 'Talk Origins'. Because of the so-called ‘millions of years' and all those transitional forms that have supposed to have occurred – there should be millions bones in museums and which would be over-powering evidence. You are making excuses for lack of evidence and ‘intermediates’. You lack substance and fail to deliver.

>>Let me give you a singluar example (perhaps the website is too detailed for you). This is an example of the series of fossils leading from amphibians to early reptiles. This transition (although you will probably never accept it as having occurred, or even having the possibility of occurring) would falsify the Creationist prediction of no transitional forms between Kinds, would it not? Proterogyrinus or another early anthracosaur (late Mississippian) – Classic labyrinthodont-amphibian skull and teeth, but with reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, humerus, and digits. Still has fish skull hinge. Amphibian ankle. 5-toed hand and a 2-3-4-5-3 (almost reptilian) phalangeal count. --> So it has both amphibian and reptilian features. Links back to the amphibians.<<

What? Still has "
skull hinge"? What good is half a jaw? Or half a wing? What kind of function would that have? This is evolutionary story telling. The fact is there is “no transitional forms between Kinds” (not just a “Creationist prediction”) a statement of fact! If the above were a so-called ‘missing link’, it would be a BIG story in all the text books.

There’s no fossils verifying this so-called, half reptilian, half amphibian mutation species. Who says? The experts, “…unfortunately, not a single specimen of an appropriate reptilian ancestor is known prior to the appearance of true reptiles" [R.L.Carrol 'Problems of the Original of Reptiles' Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society July 1969 p.393]. Note this too - "The reptiles arose from amphibians of some kind, but the details of their early history are not clearly understood and current ideas about them are in a state of flux" [A.Bellairs Encypedia of Reptiles & Amphibians Equinox Oxford 1986 p.60]. And from the fish to the amphibians? No fossils there either - "...there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world” [G.R.Taylor The Great evolution Mystery Harper & Row NY 1983 p.60]. “Although this transition [from fish to amphibian] doubtless occurred over a period of millions of years, there is no know fossil record of these stages” [Ency., of Reptiles & Amphibians Equinox Oxford 1986 p.4].

>>Limnoscelis, Tseajaia (late Carboniferous) -- Amphibians apparently derived from the early anthracosaurs, but with additional reptilian features: structure of braincase, reptilian jaw muscle, expanded neural arches. ---> Apparently evolved from the last one, and has more reptilian features Solenodonsaurus (mid-Pennsylvanian) -- An incomplete fossil, apparently between the anthracosaurs and the cotylosaurs. Loss of palatal fangs, loss of lateral line on head, etc. Still just a single sacral vertebra, though. ---> Apparently between the last fossil and the next. However, still has some amphibian features. Hylonomus, Paleothyris (early Pennsylvanian) -- These are protorothyrids, very early cotylosaurs (primitive reptiles). They were quite little, lizard-sized animals with amphibian-like skulls (amphibian pineal opening, dermal bone, etc.), shoulder, pelvis, & limbs, and intermediate teeth and vertebrae. Rest of skeleton reptilian, with reptilian jaw muscle, no palatal fangs, and spool-shaped vertebral centra. Probably no eardrum yet. Many of these new "reptilian" features are also seen in little amphibians (which also sometimes have direct-developing eggs laid on land), so perhaps these features just came along with the small body size of the first reptiles.--> Now this series of fossils link to the reptiles. Let me guess: you deny the flat possibility of this transition? Fine. But what _scientific_ evidence do you use to deny it?<<

(I emboldened & underlined). Note the words “perhaps” “probably” and “apparently” [6 times]. Why do I deny this is a so-called ‘transition’? Because it is "an incomplete fossil'. It's all theory, i.e. 'We think that probably this evolved and apparently that evolved from that'.- It's ALL STORY, when you don't have any FACTS you have no right to build a STORY. There’s NO FOSSIL hands-on proof, but things claimed to have happened. Ie., painting pictures what they THINK happened and it only takes seconds to look at the pictures to realize the absurdity [Like those silly looking half Dino half bird paintings].

Listen to Patterson, “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].

The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly it's safe to conclude that the gaps are real, and they will never be filled. As N.H.Nisson states, "It may therefore, be firmly maintained that it is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of palaeo­biological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of the material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled." [Synthetische Artbildung (Lund, Sweden Verlag CWK Gleerup 1953) p.1212].

Listen to Dr Newell, “….experience shows that the gaps which separate the highest categories may never be bridged in the fossil record. Many of the discontinuities tend to be more and more emphasized with increased collecting”. [N.D.Newell (former Curator of Historical Geology at the American Museum of Natural History), 'The Nature of the Fossil Record," Adventures in Earth History ed. P.Cloud (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Co 1970) p.644-645].

Listen to Dr Davidheiser,A person may choose any group of animals or plants, large or small, or pick one at random. He may then go to a library and with some patience he will be able to find a qualified author who says that the evolutionary origin of that form is not known”. [B.Davidheiser, Evolution and Christian Faith (Phillipsburg, NJ The Pres. and Reformed Pub. Co 1969), p.302]. Davidheiser, a Ph.D. zoologist and a creationist, goes on to list over 75 additional examples on the above point.

>>Also on the basis of Creation is that the fossils would be sorted by the flood, or at random. Yet we never find fossils of different eras in the same sediment, regardless of similarity in body size, morphology or similar aspects which Creationists claim would result in sorting by water (what is the technical name? hydro-something?). How do you explain that?<<

Some creationists have held to an ordering in the fossil record as the progressive destruction of the ecological habitat by water (Noah's flood) ie as the water reached higher ground (but this is remains to be demonstrated). Evolutionism says “we never find fossils of different eras in the same sediment" but a sorted and arranged geological column from Cambrian, Ordovician up to Pleistocene. But, the fossil column is not what they say. There is much data manipulation in the construction of these evolutionary scenarios. The fossil graveyards have all the signs of rapid burial and many bones are mixed together. The coal seams and oil deposits are also more evidence of global flood.

High Schools teach one strata layer per year, millions of strata -
millions of years. However, the Mount St Helens explosion and aftermath [and other studies in strata/rock formation] taught us strata form rapidly in days, not over millions of years. Layers of mud and ash quickly turned into hard rock. It happened at Mt St Helens and scientists now rethink their ideas about how long rocks take to form. I’ve seen photos of cliffs of strata layers at Mt St Helen’s, which were all formed in one day. If no one had seen it happen we would have thought the cliffs of strata took millions of years to form. Liquefaction is also an interesting subject and the absence of meteorites in deep sediments is consistent only with a rapid deposition of all the sediments.

When paleontology-evolutionists discover human bones among what are claimed to be ‘older fossils’ they say the human bones must be a recent placement. Everything must fit into the theory. In other words, the fossils are dated to the theory. The ‘
Hydroplate Theory' is another subject, based on the assumption of interconnected continents – subterranean water and increasing pressure. It relates to Noah’s Flood. Concerning transitional fossils you wrote,

>>I did not run away from answering, YOU did. I simply asked you to clarify your statement of the non-existence of transistional forms, using these examples. I answered that there ARE transitional forms. You answer that there are NO transitional forms. I have showed you some examples of transitional forms, and yet you still answer that there are none. You will need to destroy my examples one by one (or by an overall statement showing that the entire science of biology is mistaken) or accept that there are transitional forms.<<

Yes you provided 12 web-pages of the one Dino-bird fake and the above of evolutionists theorizing of what “probably” evolved. But you avoid admitting the barrenness of the fossil record re., transitional forms [see your last letter]. You claim to be an biological evolution expert but if those are your best “examples” where's the others? I don’t “need to destroy” the Dino-bird claim others have. As for destroying the stories of evolutionists, they vary and constantly change so that’s impossible. I quoted evolutionist Dr Raup to explain [you won’t listen to creationists] that the fossil record doesn’t confirm evolution has taken place. You reply,

>>OK, fine. I will paste the actual quotation. You can read it for yourself and see why it has been taken out of context. See, Ramp does not conclude that evolution is in big trouble because of the lack of intermediate forms. He admits that the RARENESS of intermediate forms is a problem in general, yes, and that is why you quote this. But your quote does not include his statements that the record "does show change" or "there are not ENOUGH intermediates" (my emphasis).<<

OK here is the
context, the whole quotation doesn’t make a scrap of difference. He admits what you denied - "We must distinguish between the fact of evolution - defined as change in organisms over time - and the explanation of this change. Darwin's contribution, through his theory of natural selection, was to suggest how the evolutionary change took place. The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be. Darwin was completely aware of this. He was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would and, as a result, he devoted a long section of his Origin of Species to an attempt to explain and rationalize the differences. There were several problems, but the principle one was that the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution. In other words, there are not enough intermediates. . . .

Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. 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 classic 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 – what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection. Also the major extinctions such as those of the dinosaurs and trilobites are still very puzzling
".

You wrote, “
We have plenty of fossils which do document evolution”. NOT according to Raup! Even the web pages you provided admitted the problem - “The second reason for gaps is that most fossils undoubtedly have not been found”. You assumed [and still do] that fossils provide a very important part of the argument in favour of evolution. This is simply NOT TRUE. Note again what Raup says –

Darwin’s theory of natural select has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favour of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly TRUE” ['Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin' vol.50(1) Jan.1979 p.22]. (Emphasis mine).

>>Your quote implies that there are NO intermediates.<<

Raup's quote contradicted your claim - “We have plenty of fossils which do document evolution”. Raup disagrees. S.J.Gould [another evolutionist] says the same, we don’t have "plenty of fossils", which document evolution. Concerning Gould you replied,

>>Gould has never said that there are no transitional fossils. He said that there is an absence of the expected number as phyletic gradualism predicts. Here are a few quotes from Gould....<<

Your quotes prove both Gould and Raup are evolutionists. But that was NOT the reason for my quotes. It was because they were honest regarding the facts. There are not “plenty of fossils documenting evolution”. As Gould says, “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 Gould wrong and are you right? He says elsewhere that “we do not find interminable varieties connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps” [evolution’s erratic pace’ Natural History vol.LXXXVI(5) May 1977 p.14]. He conflicts with you and believes the record "does [not] show change” and “there are not ENOUGH intermediates” Concerning the evolutionist ‘geological column’ you wrote

>>It it not continuous in one place, but fragmented. But just as you can piece together a paragraph if you have sentences which include at the start or finish, (or both) the start or finish of the neighbouring sentences, you can put together the fossil record quite easily. It is backed up both by this rock-sequence evidence and radioactive dating of various kinds. Some Creationists think that this dating is circular reasoning, but actually they both stand alone very well also.<<

Evolutionists for years were telling us life evolved gradually changing from age to age and the rocks of each geologic age contained distinctive types of fossils unlike any other age. In 1949 they were dogmatic about this, but in 1957 they were just emphatic, but by the 1970’s some were asking real questions about the huge problems evolution has with the geological record. But today, the ‘circular reasoning in the use of the rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocksare not worth the trouble” [E.0’Rourke 'Pragmatism versus materialism in stratigraphy'. American Journal of Science, vol.276, Jan. 1976, p.47]. Radioactive dating does not accurately date fossils and all fossils are in all strata and sedimentary layers. Even Raup admits what you can’t. He “thinks that this dating is circular reasoning" and writes, "The charge that the construction of the geologic scale involves circularity has a certain amount of validity". [D.M.Raup 'Geology and creationism’. Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, vol.54 (3), Mar 1983, p.21].

'Out of context'? What about Rastall- “it cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by a study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of organisms that they contain.” [H. Rastall (Lecturer in Economic Geology, Cambridge Univ.), Encyclopedia Britannica, 1956, vol.10, p.168].

'Out of context'? What about Rourke - “The procession of life was never witnessed, it is inferred. The vertical sequence of fossils is thought to present a process because the enclosing rocks are interpreted as a process. The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning, if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales”. [E.0’Rourke 'Pragmatism versus materialism in strati­graphy'. American Journal of Science, vol.276, Jan. 1976, p.53].

>>And most fossils have NOT been found. There are still millions, if not billions, of fossils waiting to be found. When a perfect transitional form is found, you will still deny it, of course.<<

Perhaps you are confused? You claimed ‘We have plenty of fossils which do document evolution”, but now it’s confession time. Why did it take so long? According to evolution theory [if it took millions of years] there should be “billions of fossils”. Those millions of years should give us “billions” of fossils – with transition fossils. Why? Because all non-transition forms are excellently preserved, so those claimed to be transitions, should be there too.

The transitions should exist in great numbers – at least millions. As you finally admit - “
a perfect transitional form” has not been “found”. Your last email said, “We usually see transitional fossils clustered in geological time”. And “The fossil records document many changes of species”. But now say they are “waiting to be found” which is it? We certainly don’t have transitional forms that prove evolution. You wrote we have a “series of fossils leading from amphibians to early reptiles” [to prove evolution no doubt] but now “a perfect transitional form” it seems is yet to be “found”. Which is it?

>>How can you deny that the fossils are not in order? It is not random. We never find fossils from newer times in older fossil beds.<<

The vertical sequencing of fossils is frequently not in the assumed evolutionary record. Eg, in Uzbekistan 86 consecutive hoof prints of horse were found in rocks dating back to dinosaurs [W.Lammerts published 8 lists totally almost 200 wrong-order formations in the USA alone. See ‘Recorded Instances of Wrong Order Formations of Presumed Over thrusts in United States’ pt.1-VIII” CRSQ Sept.1984]. Sometimes, land animals, flying animals and marine animals are fossilized side by side in the same rock [A.Snelling Fossil Bluff Ex Nilo vol.7 No.3 Mar.1985 p.8].

Dinosaur, whale, elephant, horse and many other fossils plus crude human tools have reportedly been found in the phosphate beds of South Carolina [F.Holmes Phosphate Rocks of South Carolina and the Great Carolina Mari Bed – Charleston Sth Carolina Holmes Book House 1870]. Petrified trees in the petrified forests of Arizona contain fossilized nests of bees and cocoons of wasps. The forests are supposedly 220 million years old, while the bees [and flowering plants which the bees require] supposedly evolved 140 million years later [S.T.Hasiotis Fosilized Combs Have Scientists Abuzz The Arizona Republic 26 May 1995 p.B7]. Evolutionist and textbooks systematically ignore discoveries which conflict with the evolutionary time scale.

Because of ‘
random’ out of date fossils and that fossils appear suddenly in the record that’s why another theory was suggested to solve the problems with the other theory. “Punctuated equilibrium” suggests there were no slow changes but transitions happened sudden and at punctuated moments. This theory has more problems than answers to what it tries to solve.

Evolutionists often interpret the data to fit their story, that’s why they puzzle at dinosaur foot prints and human foot prints side by side. But also humanlike footprints supposedly 150-600 million years old, have been found in rock formations in Utah. They are shoe prints and there is a trilobite squashed under the ‘heel’. According to evolution trilobites became extinct 240 million years before humans evolved. [M.Cook 'W.Meister Discovery of Human Footprints with Trilobites...Cambrian Formation' NJ Reformed Publ. 1970 p.185-193]. Fossils don't come with labels attached telling how old they are. The stories of millions of years are only for evolutionists who try to fit them into their mind set. Eg, 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 [Evidence for a young earth]. You wrote,

>>Tell me, what evidence could we supply that would convince you of evolution? Could we, in fact, IN PRINCIPLE, prove evolution to you?<<

Start with the transition fossils. But if there's no “evidence” there's no evidence. As a theory it's not plausible or creditable. Answering your mail is easy, but I keep asking myself why don’t you want to understand? Evolutionists have been trying to prove it for years, but lack convincing 'evidence'. No wonder the scientific community have a wide radius of thought and is not united on evolution. To that you wrote,

>>You are trying to attack the theory of evolution on the grounds that scientists do not have united views? How infantile is that? Science thrives on diversity of opinion<<

Not “infantile” it should make you realize there is a good argument against the theory which comes from science. It's evolutionists that reject "diversity of opinion". And you too when ignoring those books I recommended. 'All scientists are evolutionists' is a popular misconception.

>>Besides, the VAST MAJORITY of (biological, because they are the only ones who really count) scientists accept some version of evolution.<<

The “MAJORITY” was wrong about Noah’s flood too, but it didn’t stop the flood from wiping them out. The majority was wrong about alchemy – an erroneous theory held for 2,000 years. They could have done with some ‘diversity of opinion’. Since when has what the majority believe made anything right? There's a difference between biology and evolution. Biology is by it's very nature the study of living organisms while evolution is an attempt to infer how these organisms, and organisms now extinct came into existence in the first place. There is a difference between empirical science and history.

There's also plenty of biologists who are not evolutionists, but plenty always trying to prove evolution. As Whitten said, “Biologists are simply naïve when they talk about experiments designed to prove evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with it’s predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoveries will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants” [Pro. of Genetics Univs. of Melbourne Aust.] 1980 Assembly Week address]. It’s better to base scientific facts on various fields in science, not just biology. In fact you originally wrote, “Scientists are not qualified to comment on evolution just because they have PhD's! They must have studied the work, understood it, examined the evidence form all sides”. But now you are telling me biologists are “the only ones who really count”? Which is it? Concerning ‘quotes’ you wrote,

>>I think I have shown you above that at least some of your quotes have misleading implications. But never mind this. Thank you for the lack of quoting in this email<<

Is it wrong to quote evolutionary literature which state facts? I quoted precisely and correctly - not one word misplaced, deleted, or added. You had Gould and my mail side by side. I didn’t quote to mislead but prove the problems with evolution. If they didn't mean what they said, what did they mean?

If the only people you read why ignore them? It won’t matter who reveals problems with evolution you won't listen. The moment an evolutionists is quoted, its called ‘
out of context’. And a creationists? They are ‘debunked,’ into “conspiracy theory” and “low-down dirty scoundrels”. Why don’t you WANT to see the truth. In the end, you believe evolution because you want to. Concerning Lucy you wrote,

>>Once again, you are using the disagreements among scientists to try and refute the general consensus of Biology. Most scientists still agree that the evidence for Lucy being a human ancestor, or at least that Australopithecines were human ancestors, is overwhelming. Lucy is perhaps a bad example. Once again, to destroy the evolution side, you have to destroy each of the fossils one by one, of discredit the whole of evolutionary biology in one fell swoop.<<

Those who think australopithecines were human ancestors accept evolution at face value. They are now described as 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 Julian Huxley, A. C. Hardy, and E. B. Ford (London: George 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]. Why ignore the studies of Zuckerman? He spent 15 years studying the australopithecines with Dr C. Oxnard. They uncovered the fraud not using 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. P.78]. You wrote,


>>The brain sizes are an example of how the forms are in fact transitional.<<

Just because there are similarities in 'forms' it doesn't mean one species are a transition from another. But it could suggest one Creator made them all. Darwin had an idea about 'forms' which encouraged racism – that 'savages' are less evolved and closer to ape-man.

>>I'M surprised you fell for that rubbish about literal Genesis.<<

Why is it that among ALL books, the Bible is NOT to be accepted and believed for what it says? What book makes any sense if we only treat it symbolically? It's written to be taken serious. Genesis has the answers you don’t. If there is a God, there is meaning to life and death. With atheism, no answers, explanation and no hope. Obviously you don't want take the Bible as true.

>>You can't argue against evolution by linking it with Nazis! I can link Christianity with the Inquistion and various other horrible historical events, but it is not a valid argument against Christianity.<<

The Inquisition involved a corrupt Roman Catholic Church killing Christians, (confessed long ago). The Bible indicates these "horrible" things come from the evil nature of man. Man has none to blame for these 'horrible' things but himself. True Christianity lives and practices love.

Adolf Hitler's treatment of Jews may be attributed, in part to his belief in evolution. P. Hoffman, in Hitler’s Personal Security (Pergamon, 1979, pg.264), said: "Hitler believed in struggle as a Darwinian principle of human life that forced every people to try to dominate all others; without struggle they would rot and perish.... Even in his own defeat in April 1945, Hitler expressed his faith in the survival of the stronger and declared the Slavic peoples to have proven themselves the stronger."

Sir Arthur Keith, (evolutionist), says Hitler was only being consistent in what he did to the Jews — by applying the principles of Darwinian evolution. In Evolution and Ethics (NY, Putman, 1947, p28) wrote: "To see evolutionary measures and tribal morality being applied vigorously to the affairs of a great modern nation, we must turn again to Germany of 1942. We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy.... The means he adopted to secure the destiny of his race and people were organized slaughter, which has drenched Europe in blood.... Such conduct is highly immoral as measured by every scale of ethics, yet Germany justifies it; it is consonant with tribal or evolutionary morality. Germany has reverted to the tribal past, and is demonstrating to the world, in their naked ferocity, the methods of evolution."

>>In fact there was once an agreement on Usenet groups that as soon as one side compared the other side to Nazis, they had lost the argument. I always think this is quite funny (and a tasteful quip, I hope you will agree).<<

According to atheistic evolution, man is only an animal. We kill spare cats, why not kill spare kids? If there's no God, there's no Ultimate authority, nothings really wrong or right, murder is a matter of circumstance and opinion. The Nazis held ideas based on evolutionary theory. Creationists take the Bible literally and believe men are created in God's likeness. God didn't create a super German race but all men equal. Creationists view human life particularly as something good, precious, and that everyman equal under God. They view murder and killing as foreign to God's created order. Abortion is considered murder because human life is a gift from God to be valued. Brotherly love, compassion, and goodness to all are the values men should live by.

And the value of a man can be seen in what God has done in Christ for men, in dying on the cross. These are concepts held by creationists and true Christians even as Christ taught. When people say they are Christians but don't hold these concepts and New Testament principles, their words mean nothing. You wrote,

>>The Grand Canyon was formed by millions of years of erosion. You have to turn the facts inside out to make them fit Genesis, Dr. Purchase. And that is why Creationism is not science and should never be taught in schools: It does not work the same way as science but is in fact religious doctrine. Separation of Church and State, or whatever.<<

Over a century evolutionary geologists tried to explain how the Grand Canyon may have formed slowly over millions of years. That the Colorado River eroded the canyon. Those who studied the canyon have said “The greatest of the Grand Canyons enigmas is the problem of how it was made….it has held tight to her secrets of origin and age” [E.E.Spamer The Development of Geological Studies in the Grand Canyon Tryonia 17 1989 p.39]. Evolutionists insist a little bit of water took millions of years to form the Canyon. While Creationists say, a lot of water in a short time formed the cannon.

In fact if you look at the parallel strata which typically lie parallel to adjacent layers. In the Canyon notice the in roads cut in mountainous terrain. Had these parallel layers been deposited slowly over millions of years, erosion would have cut many channels in the topmost layers. If you look at the river – there are 4 segments of this river – compare the relatively thin river with the canyons vast expanse and you will see that it is not possible that small amount of water could carve out such a huge canyon.

Discovered in the canyon are spores of ferns and pollen from flowering plants in Precambrian rocks – rocks deposited before life supposedly evolved. [G.F.Howe et al, A Pollen Analysis of Hakatai Shale and Other Grand Canyon Rocks. CRS Quartly vol.24 Mar.1988 p.173-182]. A leading authority on the Canyon published photos of horse like hoof prints visible in rocks, that according to evolution predate hoofed animals by more than a 100 millions years [K.D.McKee The Supai Group of Grand Canyon Geological Survey Professional Paper 1173 Wash.DC US Gov. Printing Office 1982 p.93-96,100].

Geologist Dr Steve Austin says, “The crystalline basement rocks exposed deep within the Canyon [schist, granite, and gneiss] represent some of earth’s oldest rocks, probably from early in Creation week. Tilted deeply buried strata (the “Grand Canyon Super group") show evidence of catastrophic-marine sedimentation and tectonics associated with the formation of an ocean basin midway through Creation Week, and may include ocean deposits from the post-Creation, but pre-Flood world. The Canyon’s characteristic horizontally stratified layers (the "Paleozoic Strata") are up to 4,000 feet thick [1,200 meters] and are understood to be broad sedimen­tary deposits in northern Arizona dating from the early part of Noah's Flood. Remnants of strata overlying the rim of Grand Canyon (the "Mesozoic Strata") are associated with a widespread erosion surface.” [S.Austin Grand Canyon - Monument to Catastrophe ICS 1994 p.80-81].

Austin says that these features suggest tectonics, sedimentation, and erosion during the last half of the Flood year as the Colorado Plateau was lifted more than a mile above sea level. 'The catastrophic erosion of Grand Canyon [probably a result of drainage of lakes] was associated with river-terrace gravels, lake sediments, landslide deposits and lava flows of the post-Flood period”. You wrote,

>>You can't use statements from evolutionists to destory evolution. All or most these quotes are taken out of context and used against each other. Please do not do this. It is intellectually dishonest. You again try to discredit evolution by pointing out 'trouble in the ranks'. This is not good. Can I discredit Creationists by pointing that many believe that God created the world using evolutionary principles? No, they just have a different view.<<

If you regard the only good scientist as an evolutionary scientist, who else can I quote? I note they are more ‘honest’ with the facts than you. They differ with your claim there are “plenty of fossils documenting evolution”. None of my quotes mislead but all indicate there are serious problems with evolution. There is nothing wrong in quoting evolutionists for what they say. If I only read Creationists you would accuse me of failing to read other views and been ‘narrow minded’. But I suspect it wouldn’t matter who tells you about the problems of evolution you are NOT going to listen. And that sounds ‘intellectual dishonest’. Why ignore problems with evolution? Regarding creationists, if you quote and read them, it might suggest you know what they say. And after all, understanding the fallacies and weakness in evolutionary theory can only really be done by reading those who have exposed them.

>>Evolutionists do not believe that cells came together in one momentous coincidence. Please learn about self-evolving molecules and other sub-cellular processes.<<

For one who claims “biological evolution is my specialty” you have strange ideas of “self-evolving molecules” Do they decide what they want to be and set out to make themselves? They must truly have great intellect and skill, God-like qualities. The more we learn of the incredibly complex biological cell, the more impossible is an evolutionary origin. No living scientist was there to observe the first life forming in some primeval sea. But have you never heard about the 'hopeful monster'? It was postulated evolution occurred in big jumps. [R.Goldschmidt The Material Basis of Evolution Yale Unis, Press NH CT 1940]. So it was claimed "the first bird hatched from a reptilian egg" [Goldschmidt p.395].

>>Just complexity does not mean things cannot evolve. We have explanations down to a certain level, but we are only human. Give us time and computer modelling, and we may come up with a complete picture of how life evolved from molecules to man (mutation by mutation) (that metaphor that you Creationists hate). But even then, you Creationists wouldn't be satisfied, would you?<<

Time plus chance plus energy does not produce complexity. And natural selection weeds out misfits, the mistakes which occur but it is not a creative force. Mutations destroy "complex" coded information, and natural selection also eliminates genetic information. If a population of animals has individuals with various lengths of hair and the environment changes such that it gets very cold, the short-haired animals will die, with only the long-haired surviving. The population has adapted to cold conditions but has lost the genetic information for short hair. Loss of information occurs with both natural selection and artificial selection or breeding.

What do evolutionists say about complexity? "But let us have no illusions. If today we look into the situations where the analogy with the life sciences is the most striking— even if we discovered within biological systems some operations distant from the state of equilibrium—our research would still leave us quite unable to grasp the extreme complexity of the simplest of organisms."

[Ilya Prigogine (Prof. and Director of Physics Dept, Univ. Libre de Bruxelles), "Can thermodynamics explain biological order?" Impact of Science on Society, vol. 23 (3), 1973, p. 178].

>>No, everything came from the Big Bang. The Big Bang did not come from nothing. I must excuse myself from this part of the debate; again, biological evolution is my specialty. It is a scientific virtue to admit ignorance.<<

But you wrote “Scientists are not qualified to comment on evolution just because they have PhD's! THey must have studied the work, understood it, examined the evidence form all sides”. It appears to me you are NOT prepared to examine the evidence from all sides.

>>How can I convince you that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has NOTHING to do with Evolution? Have 50 PhD scientists explain it to you, perhaps? Look up the technical definition sometime. Please do not continue this line of argument.<<

Can I suggest you are 'ignorant' about the 2nd Law. And why are there so many subjects you are afraid to discuss? Are we to make up rules? I must not quote evolutionists. I must not mention the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I must not refer to the Big-Bang. Or mention creationists with PhDs, or Genesis. I must only refer to what you suggest. But if Christians must "examined the evidence form all sides" why do you ignore what you haven’t studied? Creation is supported by various scientific fields not just one, the evidence should be seen as a whole. It also appears whenever we get onto a subject that refutes evolution you want to drop it. Why?

You have no choice but to say what you do, for the 2nd Law makes evolution scientifically untenable. This proven and observable law explains why everything is running down. Evolution masquerades as the grand mechanism that has produced all natural things from a simple to complex. This is not observable or proven. Matter does not have an inherent tendency to, or intrinsic ability to transform itself from disorder to order, from simple to complex. No scientist yet has ever detected such a property in matter, it’s not known to science. There is however, a natural law which describes just the opposite tendency – the 2nd Law . This is accepted by scientists today. All evolutionists must believe otherwise - they have no choice. They accept as an article of faith that evolution is true. You wrote,

>>No we do not accept it as an article of faith. It is the best theory we have so far, and it has stood up to all challenge. But if new evidence becomes available, the theory CAN change.<<

But it changes repeatedly. When one part of evolution becomes so crazy in the face of new evidence the theory changes. I agree with Pro. Bounonre [Biological Society Strasboury] “Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless” [The Advocate Thur,8 Mar.1984 p.17]. As far as standing up to ‘all challenge’ you are deluding yourself. The reason scientific theories change is because we do not know everything, is it not? We do not have all the evidence. But we will never know everything. And we will always continue to find new evidence [you agree?]. Then, that means we can't be sure about anything and certainly about evolution. "Oh, no! Evolution is a fact," you say. And you are caught by your own logic and demonstrating how your view was determined by bias.

Concerning the insults of your last letter you wrote,

>>Yes, I am still sorry for this. Debating evolution to non-science people may be easy; they cannot easily refute your often spurious claims. I bet I have lasted longer than most debates, hmm? And challenged you a bit more, perhaps? I certainly won't let your false arguments and misinformation get very far.<<

Apologizes accepted. But in you have nothing about evolution as creditable or plausible. I can answer your arguments (although there are far better people that could, than me!). I mentioned 'Random chance' will not improve or add information to DNA code.

>>Why not? You are simply stating that it cannot increase information. You keep repeating this, and I keep trying to show you how it can. This is actually a very simple process. 1. Original Genome 2. Genome Doubles or otherwise increases in LENGTH (this has been observed COUNTLESS times) 3. Mutation changes, varies information within Doubled genome 4. Once in a Million times, the mutation works and is beneficial. Which one of these four simple steps do you deny can occur?<<

But will you listen to anything I say? No. So I can only quote what the experts have written and hopefully they will indicate the flaw in your ‘4 steps to evolution’. I agree that "mutations" are the only known means by which new genetic material becomes available for evolution. But rarely, if ever, is a mutation "beneficial" to an organism in its natural environment. “Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event” [F.Ayala, The Mechanisms of evolution Scientific American vol.239 Sept.1987 p.63]. Almost all observable mutations are harmful; some meaningless; many lethal - "The process of mutation is the only known source of the raw materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution .... the mutants which arise are, with rare exceptions, deleterious to their carriers, at least in the environments which the species normally encounters." [Theodosius Dobzhansky, "On Methods of Evolutionary Biology and Anthropology," American Scientist, Winter, Dec.1957 p.385]. If you think that’s out of context how about this?

"Accordingly mutations are more than just sudden changes of heredity; they also affect viability, and, to the best of our knowledge, invariably affect it adversely" [C.R.Mann, "A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution," American Scientist, Jan.1953, p.102]. "Mutation does produce hereditary changes, but the mass of evidence shows that all, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably pathological and the few remaining ones are highly suspect " [Ibid., pg103]

Each mutation occurring alone would be wiped before it could be combined with the others. They are all interdependent. The doctrine that their coming together was due to a series of blind coincidences is an affront not only to common sense but to the basic principles of scientific explanation” [A.Koestler, The Ghost in the Machine NY: Macmillan Publ. Co., 1968 p.129].

"There is no single instance where it can be maintained that any of the mutants studied has a higher vitality than the mother species." [N.H.Nusson, ‘Synthetische Artbildung’ Lund, Sweden: Verlag CWK Gleerup, 1953. p.1157]. “It is, therefore, absolutely impossible to build a current evolution on mutations or on recombination's”. [emphasis in original] Ibid., p1186].

"No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution." [Pierre-Paul C ‘Evolution of Living Organisms’ (NY Academic 1977) p.88].

"I have seen no evidence whatsoever that these [evolutionary] changes can occur through the accumulation of gradual mutations." [L.Margulis, as quoted by C.Mann, "L.Margulis: Science's Unruly Earth Mother’ Science, Vol.252,19 Ap. 1991 p379].

"It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species or genus, etc., by macromutation. It is equally true that nobody has produced even a species by the selection of micromutations." [R.B. Goldschmidt, "Evolution As Viewed by One Geneticist," American Scientist vol.40 Jan.1952 p.94].

"If life really depends on each gene being as unique as it appears to be, then it is too unique to come into being by chance mutations." [F.B.Salisbury (Plant Science Dept, Utah State Univ. "Natural Selection and the Complexity of the Gene" Nature, Vol.224, 25 0ct. 1969, p.342]

"Do we, therefore, ever see mutations going about the business of producing new structures for selection to on? No nascent organ has ever been observed emerging, though their origin in pre- functional form is basic to evolutionary theory. Some should be visible today, occurring in organisms at various stages up to integration of a functional new system, but we don't see them: there is no sign at all of this kind of radical novelty. Neither observation nor controlled experiment has shown natural selection manipulating mutations so as to produce a new gene, hormone enzyme system or organ." [M.Pitman, Adam and Evolution (Lon, Rider, 1984), pp.67-68].

As you can see your “simple” evolution model has too many problems to be workable. You then wrote –

>>Mutations cause cancer. It does NOT follow - how could it - that all mutations are bad.<<

In the light of the above quotes only an evolutionist could believe “mutations” are an increase of information. Loss of information - loss of wings. Maybe good for some creatures but not for others.

>>I do disagree with you on principle because you are wrong. I do insist those things because they ARE there. Can't you see them? Can you even think of any ways that Creationism could POTENTIALLY be discredited, proven incorrect? No? Fine, but if it cannot be falsified it is not science (Karl Popper).<<

Yes you disagree ‘on principle’ – narrow mindedness – whatever I say or quote must be wrong. Why bother writing in the first place if you had NO intention of hearing me? Why waste time? Why not stay on one topic? I mentioned ‘Men know intuitively there's a God it's apart of their nature at birth.

>>I don't know intuitively that there is a God! Perhaps I am the exception that proves the rule?<<

Do you regard yourself as merely an animal? Animals have no concept of a God. Perhaps your evolution dogma has convinced you that you are just matter. The Bible on the contrary indicates man’s “likeness” to this Creator is in his mental, moral & spiritual nature. Only fallen man in his darkened mind confuses the two creations. Both creations are different in kind, character and destiny. One ends in the earth from where it came, the other lives on parallel with His existence whose inbreathing produced it. So instead of being essentially like the lower animals, man is essentially different. Animals do not know God, love, reason, speech, moral judgment, accountability or humour. Nor have conscience-reflection, imagination nor do they have power to preserve thoughts with the same recollection. And have no appreciation of beauty, design, order and complex mathematical laws of nature/universe.

The Bible says, “…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. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools" [Rom 1:18-22]. You wrote,

>>And even more tribes have been found that believe in multiple Gods. You cannot use this argument for God, because it is so easily turned against you.<<

What I said, was "if people don’t find or accept the true God, they make their own god or gods to satisfy their intuitive knowledge". In the Western world men fill life with material things that don’t satisfy. But evolution is a religion and you have more faith than I. You wrote,

>>The Bible can never be proven and can always be steadily discredited. Knowledge and Science do not require God.<<

Do you know more about God and the Bible than those who know Him and study the Bible? Or do claim to know everything and know there's no God? Then how do you know "knowledge" has nothing to do with knowing God? I base what I believe on what I know, not on what I don't know. Creation scientists have no fight with science. In fact, the facts of science convince them that creation is far more credible, scientifically, than is evolution. The battle is with the faith of evolutionary philosophy not science.

>>It is your own view that all these things are true. I think that it makes more sense that people believe in oddly irrational beliefs and that science is correct. It solves no problems, no. But what problems does Christianity solve? I am willing to move this debate in a more problems-with-Christianity direction if you wish.<<

I'm happy to discuss Christianity and the Bible, but this statement pre-dates your last letter. After watching you fly into a fit of rage, we won’t be ‘debating’ anything. Your tempter unfortunately means writing further would be an on going problem.

>>however, He has revealed Himself perfectly through His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." [John 1:18]. Thats right. Science does not touch on God at all. It is out of Science's realm. Some specific religious predictions are testable and apparently fall within the realm of science. For example, the virgin birth is impossible, therefore science can apparently conclude it did not occur. Of course the obvious comeback is that it was a miracle, but this is unfalsifiable and unscientific. That is the nature of all religious belief.<<

Many things transcend science with no explanation. But that doesn’t mean a scientists can’t believe God exists. It’s science that leads Creation scientists to believe a Creator is the best explanation for life. And when it comes to miracles [as the virgin birth], they are easy-pie to an all powerful God. If He placed the stars in sky, what Biblical miracle do you have a problem with?

A journal of the Australian Sceptics has 30 pages attacking 'creation science'. The last page reads: "Even if all the evidence ended up supporting whichever scientific theories best fitted Genesis, this would only show how clever the old Hebrews were in their use of common sense, or how lucky. It does not need to be explained by an unobservable God." [The Southern Sceptic, Vol.2 No.5, Autumn 1985]. Sceptics who vehemently attack creationists saying it's a religious group are themselves a religious group. They have really said that even if all the evidence supported Genesis they still would not believe it was an authoritative document. They are working from the premise that the Bible is not the Word of God, nor can it ever be. They believe, no matter what the evidence, there is no God. These same people are most adamant that evolution is a fact.

Evolution is basically a religious philosophy. Both creation and evolution are religious views of life on which people build their particular models of philosophy, science or history. So the issue is not science versus religion, but religion vs religion (the science of one religion versus the science of another religion). You wrote,

>>When I began this debate, I (stupidly) thought thought I might be able to help you past this brain-poisoning fundamentalist claptrap<<

That's very strong language for one who thinks evolution is sure and proven. And you don't sound very sure. Like I said, belief in God’s existence is in harmony with history, mans mental and moral nature, as well as the nature of the material universe. It’s the most logically and feasible worldview. Believing in God is not “claptrap" but the opposite. Rejecting God’s right over you as His creature is foolishness at worst. It's certainly 'stupidity' to think evolution is more convincing than creation. I think you refuse to accept anything that contradicts evolutionism.

>>I think you are a nice person, and you are acting perfectly rationally within your beliefs; that is good. I also think you are quite intelligent. But I ask you, as a human being, as a man who wants to be scientific, don't try to spread this horrible Creationism you have been infected with to people who know less of evolution than me. If you Creationists succeed in spreading your anti-science doctrine, future generations will not thank you. Your anti-evolutionist delusions are beyond help Yours sadly, Mr X. PS: THis was finished at 1.00 in the morning. Please excuse any small errors.<<

Why is spreading news about 'creation' so wrong? Almost all science journals and quasi-science journals refuse to publish articles by scientists who question evolution, or suggest the credibility of creation. Then these same evolutionists turn around and criticize creation scientists for not publishing their articles in standard journals.

Evolution is not "
science" but religion. Science, involves observation, using one or more of 5 senses (taste, sight, smell, hearing, touch) to gain knowledge about the world and to be able to repeat the observations. Naturally, one can only observe what exists in the present. Obviously no scientist was present over the suggested millions of years to witness the supposed evolutionary progression of life from the simple to the complex. No living scientist observed the first life forming in some primeval sea - observed the Big Bang that is supposed to have occurred 10 or 20 billion years ago, nor the supposed formation of the earth 4.5 billion years ago (or even 10,000 years ago!). No scientist was there—no human witness was there to see these events occurring. They certainly cannot be repeated today.

All evidence exists only in the present. The fossils, living animals, plants, the world, universe, everything, exists in the present. The average person is not taught that scientists have only the present and cannot deal directly with the past. Evolution is a belief system about the past based on the words of men who were not there, but who are trying to explain how all the evidence of the present (ie, fossils, animals and plants, etc.) originated. (Webster’s Dictionary defines religion as follows: "... cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." Surely, an apt description of evolution.)

Models of science are subject to change for both creationists and evolutionists. But, the beliefs that these models are built on are not. Sadly most scientists don't realize that it is the belief (or religion) of evolution that is the basis for the scientific models (the interpretations, or stories) used to attempt an explanation of the present. Evolutionists are not prepared to change their actual belief that all life is explained by natural processes and no God is involved. Evolution is the religion to which they are committed. A religion, not science!

Regards
Mark

I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has
[Malcolm Muggeride. Pascal Lectures Univ. of Waterloo Ontario Canada].


Index
Home