Want Some Answers ???Evolutionism
Hi Tom, You wrote,
>>I apologize for taking so long to answer your letter. Judging from the correspondence you reprinted from others, you consider a tardy response a conspiracy of silence.<<
Not really, how people answer is up to them. You wrote,
>>I think you should take into account the fact that some of the people you've contacted are busy professionals with families that have to set aside time to answer lengthy emails from total strangers.<<
Your treatment of the Bible [on SFN website] is disgraceful - selecting verses and misrepresenting to make them sound foolish. Your ‘friends’ might think it's funny, but it's childish and misleading to those who know the Bible. Maybe it’s your age, but that dishonest handling of the Bible questions your creditability. You wrote,
>>As others have already pointed out, I'm an agnostic, not an atheist. I accepted Christ and was baptized when I was 9 years old, but later became disillusioned with the convoluted apologetics I was force-fed as an adult. And my transformation didn't occur overnight. It was a long and painful progression.<<
‘Agnostic’, are you sure? An ‘agnostic’ is one who doesn't know if God exists. Another name for agnostic is 'ignoramus'. There's two kinds of 'agnostics,' one who searches for God and the other doesn’t. Which are you? You are more like an atheist, God and Bible has no part with your evolutionary theory. You rubbish what you don't know. You rule Him out totally, and rubbish those who do know. Many Christians can testify that once they accepted the billions-of-years of secular rationalism they found themselves on a path of increasing confusion and uncertainty about how to interpret Scripture. Like you. On your website you rubbish the Bible, or do you take it seriously? You rubbish it and think I should listen to what you write. Comes across as a sham. I mentioned evolution is NOT a scientific proven fact. If Sceptics honestly evaluated the evidence they would KNOW this. You reply,
>>Since you get all your information from creationist sources, that doesn't surprise me at all.<<
Where did you get that information from? 99% of my quotes were from Evolutionists. I’ve read your website and other materials and shown myself ready to listen. I have an open mind and willing to read. You wrote,
>>I'm sorry, but judging from the content of everything else you've written, you reject all dissenting viewpoints that aren't your own.<<
No, I’ve read both sides & are no clone. As Prof. L Bounoure [President Biological Society Strasbourg] wrote – “evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless” [The Advocate thur,8 March 1984 p.17]. Many highly qualified scientists today reject evolution. You respond,
>>Of course! NOTHING is "universally" accepted. You even have creation scientists like Malcom Bowden who deny that the Earth orbits the sun. Click here http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/geocentr.htm. Malcom Bowden also writes the for the creationist "True Origins" website.<<
Yes but if qualified scientists reject evolution - take this seriously. There must be a reason. Read their studies, I’m convinced you haven’t [after reading your letter]. Many things are 'universally accepted' in science, but evolution is NOT. Concerning Bowden ‘jesus-is-lord’ website. I found he receives [quote] “...a pretty hostile response from professing Bible believers”. He believes what he wants, just like you. If someone believes in fairy tales, Little Green Men plus in God, I wouldn’t take too much notice of them. But the majority of creation scientists are sound. I provided evidence why I reject evolution pointing out the scientific community is not united on it, you replied,
>>If you look at your fifteen creationist book recommendations, I could ask you the same thing: Why can't creationists agree on whether the universe is six thousand or 14 billion years old when they all appeal to the very same scriptural proof texts? These "Bible believers" disagree by a factor greater than 2.3 million! How can they claim the same authoritative Word?<<
Not all my “book recommendations” are ‘creationists’. Some are just scientists who reject evolution. There are three kinds who reject atheistic evolution. Some without any Christian confession, some who take the Bible seriously [these you hate] and some who believe God used an evolutionary process. These ‘progressives’ you will quote are liberal, the Bible is not ‘authoritative’. Personal I believe there’s no conclusive evidence the world is over 6,000 years old. The ‘progressives’ would agree to anything. But why ignore the serious contradictions among evolutionists as you do? You wrote,
>>Furthermore, Michael Behe says that humans and primates share a common ancestor. Phillip Johnson, his colleague in the Intelligent Design movement, says they don't. Russell Humphrey's book "Starlight and Time" was regularly trashed in the Creation Research Society Quarterly for its pitiable physics. How can Bible-believing scientists have such a wide radius of thought?<<
There is not such a "wide radius of thought" with "bible-believing scientists" as you think. They would need to 'believe the bible' to qualify for this title you give them. Some might not believe it literally but those who do would be the most consistent. They might vary in details, but that because we are allowed to think, question and differ. Not like evolutionists who dare not think, question or differ with the theory.
Re. Humphrey. Often he states, his proposal is only a "preliminary outline", he has no problem with those who question it. But are you permitted to question evolutionary theory and disagree? No! I mentioned the scientific community not found one instance of change from one species into another? And you provided these websites -
>>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html<<
These don’t provide what I asked - “one species into another”. Nowhere on those websites is that information given. They say, “We simply cannot know whether two such groups would interbreed freely if they came together under natural conditions. This makes it impossible to delimit the boundaries of extinct groups using the BSC”. - “Dogs beget dogs, they never beget cats!” The "Talk Origins" archive is a atheistic website. It's very hard to find one article which contains reliable scientific data and sound reasoning. See www.trueorigins.org for rebuttals of essays found at all 'Talkorigins'.
So you think one species can change into another. Evolution demands simple creatures (ie one-celled amoeba) becoming complicated. Even though the simplest-known one-celled creatures are mind-bogglingly complex, they clearly do not contain as much information as higher life forms. They don't have instructions specifying how to make eyes, ears, etc. So to go from a simple amoeba to a fish requires many steps, each involving an INCREASE in information. Information coding for NEW structures, functions and complexity. If we saw this happening, even if only a few changes, this could be used to argue agnostics may, indeed, change into fish, given time. Natural selection is NOT the same as evolution. Living things are programmed to PASS ON information, to make copies of themselves. The DNA of man is copied and passed on via parents. That information is never improved, unless someone with a huge amount of information knows how to add new information to DNA [ie God].
No amount of breeding and selection will produce a variety of species where there has been a total loss of the information required. Natural selection can favour some information above others, and cause some to be lost, but it can't create new information. In evolutionary theory, the role of creating new information is given to mutation - random, accidental mistakes which happen as this information is copied. We know that such mistakes happen, and are inherited (the next generation makes a copy from a defective copy). So the defect is passed on, and ultimately another mistake happens so mutations accumulate.
I asked - where are the missing links in the evolutionary chain from primitive to modern plants? From cells to invertebrates, to fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, etc. And you provided useless web pages [which I read]. Apparently you have no appreciation of the missing evidence. Even Darwin wrote, “Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record” [Origin of Species Dent & Sons Lon.1971 p.292-293].
And today, the transitions 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]. Is HE wrong?
Read carefully the atheistic Marxist S.J.Gould? “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to reconstruct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution” [Paleobiology vol.6(1) Jan. 1980 p.127]. Do you know something Stephen Jay Gould doesn’t? Perhaps you should post him those webpages? There should be millions of transitional forms between the species. 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? To this you wrote,
>>Why do creationists believe that fossilization is the inevitable fate of all dead animals when, in fact, it's disintegration? Fossilization requires a carcass to be buried rapidly in malleable silt before scavengers destroy it, and then remain undisturbed for millions (or in the case of dinosaurs, hundreds of millions) of years in an oxygen-free environment with just the right pH and a host of other special chemical conditions, AND avoid pulverization from natural geologic processes like plate tectonics.<<
This doesn’t answer the question, where are they? Tom you have NOT read creationist literature. The fossil record shows signs of rapid burial, not slow and gradual. What's expected if taking the Bible seriously about Noah’s flood. There are countless millions of well-preserved fossils but no TRANSITIONAL FORMS. There’s fossil fish even showing scales, fins, and eye sockets [rapid burial]. In nature, a dead fish floats and quickly ripped apart by scavengers and decomposes quickly. Unless fish were buried quickly and sediments [mud, sand] hardened fairly rapidly, such features would not be preserved. Perhaps “the existing fossil record is heavily lopsided in favor of marine invertebrates” as you, insist. But rapid burial is a far better explanation than “..terrestrial animals are much less likely to be preserved in their idyllic state”. I am amazed at your lack of knowledge of the teachings of those you disagree with. You wrote,
>>Yet the question we should ask ourselves is not why the fossil record is so spotty, but why is it so darn good? The record we DO possess is nothing short of miraculous!<<
The fossil record fits ‘Noah’s flood’ the idea of over millions of years that dust covers bones is ridiculous. The fossil record is not "good" for evolution [as Darwin said]. We don’t find a series of fossils showing part-limb, part-wing; or part-scale, part-feather. Darwin said this was the “most obvious and serious objection” against his theory. Reread my quotes from Patterson and Darwin. I mentioned that Dinosaur bones that are not fossilized have been discovered - so they can’t be millions of years old. And you say,
>>Can you cite a specific reference for this claim? Creationists are notorious for perpetuating urban legends. Zoologist Tim Berra from Ohio State University claims that he wrote his book "Evolution and the Myth of Creationism" after he discovered how creationist textbooks frequently cite "The National Enquirer" in their bibliographies.<<
No, evolutionists are notorious for perpetuating stories. But these are true - “Unfossilized dinosaur bone” in 1992 Geological Society of America also, Davies in Journal of Paleontology 61 (1):198-200. ‘In Thailand’ [The Times. June 20 1996 - Nature August 22 1996 p.709-708 New Scientist]. Also, “The best-preserved dinosaur skin found to date is a recent discover…in New Mexico” [see ‘No feathers on Spanish dino’ Science 276:1341 May 30 1997]. And ‘The associated Press' release July 1997. DNA found in mammoths [Aust. Science Sept.1999 p.19-21]. The scientific world was stunned in 1938 when a coelacanth fish was discovered [evolution fossil record 65million] in a fish mall. ABC News <abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/coelacanth001201html> 4 Dec.2000. You should do some research.
I know about the ‘contamination’ story. There are other claims of ‘ancient’ DNA (such as that of a '120 million-year-old weevil’ which most evolutionists do accept as real DNA from that creature, not contamination. Since DNA should only last for thousands of years, this is powerful evidence for the fossils’ being young. Have you heard about the mud-springs at Swindon Wiltshire? It’s 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 evolutionist scientists from seeing what should be so obvious [Evidence for a young earth]. You wrote,
>>Ernst Haeckel never discussed missing fossils. Haeckel was a 19th century German biologist who proposed the theory of "ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny" where he suggested that human embryos revisit the adult stages of their evolutionary ancestors during development. That is, he thought our embryos passed through an adult fish stage, amphibian stage, reptilian stage, and so on until the fetuses became human. But "non-creation" scientists completely refuted this hypothesis in the 1920s.<<
I was referring to his fraudulent embryos, not missing links. Interesting how elusive you are and dismissive of evolutionists who exaggerate, distort and deceive. You overlook dishonesty and use a fine toothcomb on creationists regarding any slight discrepancies. But Haeckel did ‘discuss missing fossils’. He "perpetuated" a fabricated story about a ‘speechless ape-man’ "Pithecanthrous" - that was a "MISSING fossil".
As for "completely refuted this hypothesis in the 1920s" that's nonsense. Even today modern evolutionists still support the long-discredited embryonic "recapitulation" theory (See p.126 'The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism' Niles Eldredge W.H Freeman & Company NY 2000). Haeckel's series of drawing appear even today in graduate level biology text books [ie 'American Academy of Science' B.Albert's Molecular Biology of the Cell] (And no statement that the pictures are a blatant fraud!) A deluded Darwin described them as the 'strongest single class of facts'. [p19 Technical Journal Vol.15(2) AiG 2001]. Even Pro. D. Futuyman [Evolutionary Biology] was not aware until Feb.2000 regarding Haeckel's dishonesty. This was not 'science' correcting itself but a creationist correcting him via an internet forum.
>>I'm not aware of any "frauds" surrounding Lucy. Can you be more specific?<<
Wow, haven't done your studies? Johnson thought he had a hominid skeleton [about 40% complete]. But without the skull no estimate of brain capacity can be made. The announcement and publicity was carefully orchestrated for maximum effect [for money too]. When ‘Lucy’ was formally presented at the Nobel Symposium on Early Man in 1978, the scientific establishment wasn't impressed because of no skulls [hence no hard evidence, no proof]. Yet the news continued to circle the world that it was the missing link. "Johanson and his workers affectionately named their prize "Lucy" after the Beatles record that was popular at the time." p.248 In the Minds of Men. Ian Taylor TFE Publ. 1996).
>>As for the other "frauds," only Piltdown Man (not "Pitdown") genuinely fooled people. The other specimens you cited were only "believed in" by their original discoverers.<<
No they fooled many. And there will be many more awaiting their moment for public birth. And the media and you will run to believe them. It happens ALL the time. The last ‘missing link’ I remember was cited by the BBC. A week later, the story changed – they found similar bones - in a London zoo [a monkey - not a hominid]. Alas, the news correction was never given the major place on the news as the first story. Many of these fakes find their way into student’s textbooks and dictionaries as 'proof', but they disappear from the next edition. No matter how old they say the bones are - a human bone is still a human bone today - they haven’t changed. Ape bones claimed to be 400 million years old are still an ape bones today - they haven’t changed.
>>Besides, these all occurred between 72 and 112 years ago. And those mistakes were exposed and corrected by other evolutionists! If paleoanthropologists were engaged in a conspiracy to dupe the public about human evolution, why would they publicize their own errors?<<
They genuinely fool people like you and those wanting not to believe in a Creator. They “publicize their” discoveries for money. More money, more field trips, more bones. More bones, more field trips, more bones etc. But what I said was true there have been many fakes trying to excuse it won’t do. Why endorse a theory we don’t see happening, no proof it has, and we don’t know how it has? Since we don't have proof, evolution is one of the greatest hoaxes ever. And to extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. ‘Big Foot’ ‘Minnesota Iceman’ ‘Yeti’ etc wasn’t “72 years ago”. You wrote,
>>Young-earth creationists, in contrast, have a gloomy history of perpetuating their own "Piltdown" hoaxes that they're loathe to abandon, which are also more recent. Like the Paluxy, Olmo, Calveras, Castenadolo, and Onyate "pre-flood" men. Kent Hovind was fooled by "Onyate Man" only two years ago.
Really? Can you offer evidence or is it just a “rhetorical contention”? ‘Pre-flood’ men are mentioned in Genesis and named already, no need to a 'hoax' anything. Strange how newspapers have ignored so called young-earth 'hoaxes’ for years. They just quote the evolutionist who never stop telling us they HAVE FOUND the ‘missing link’, yet it turns out to be a hoax. To this you relied,
>>I think they're more committed to mainstream science, where biological evolution is merely conventional<<
They are committed to those who make-up stories, who say 'we think’ or ‘it may be' or 'perhaps this happened' etc. Scientists who accept evolution will bend their observations to fit evolution. Even though it remains an unproven hypothesis in the laboratories of science and without proof. Like S.J Gould wrote, “Paleontologists (and evolutionary biologists in general) are famous for their facility in devising plausible stories: but they often forget the plausible stories need not be true” [The Shape of Evolution Paleontology vol.3 (1) 1977 p.34-35]. I mentioned "Christ" has changed drug addicts, cheats, murders and liars. You reply,
>>All world religions change the lives of their converts. That's why their adherents join<<
Evolution certainly doesn’t transformed life for the better. Church organizations have done more good than evolutionary theory. You replied,
>>"Good" in what sense? Has the church explained bacterial inherited resistance to antibiotics better than evolutionary biology?<<
Giving money, support and food to needy. Helping sick, homeless, dying, schooling, guidance to lost souls. Giving hope and meaning to life. Or is the world is just an accident and meaningless? Life's a sick joke if there's no absolutes – nothing right or wrong – no values. Evolution can’t provide answers; it has nothing. Those Christians you dismissed - Michael Faraday, James Maxwell and William Thomson and Lord Kelvin 'explained bacterial' better. They were the foundation of modern science. You wrote,
>>Hitler didn't was born a Roman Catholic, baptized as an infant in Austria, became an altar boy, and was confirmed as a "soldier of Christ" in that church. The worst doctrines of that church never left him. He was steeped in its liturgy, which contained the phrase "perfidious Jew." This anti-Semitic statement wasn't removed until 1961. In his autobiography Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote, "I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work.". In his speech on signing the Nazi-Vatican Concordat, Hitler said, "Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without religious foundation is built on air; consequently all character training and religion must be derived from faith." (April 26, 1933)<<
I can’t find those quotes anywhere, what page? Was he a creationist too? Did you see the Lynchburg Story? How the USA evolutionist taught the Nazis. One evolutionist actually stated "The Germans are beating us at our own game" [the Lynchburg Story produced B Eadie Worldview Pictures – Discovery Networks Chan.4 1993]. The beginning of the 1920s (laws were made) many in the USA were sterilized to prevent ‘undesirable breeding’ – for mental retardation – broken homes [the sort of people the church helps]. The genetics movement started by Sir F.Galton [Darwin’s cousin] encouraged ‘the survival of the fittest’. Hitler campaigned on a platform of naked evolutionism – ‘survival of the fittest’ and eugenics laws became one of his first acts, not ‘religious instruction’. Not only did the Nazis copy the US ‘unfit’ sterilization idea but went for ‘racial hygiene’ policies.
But if your comments are correct, then the Catholic church is to blame for been ‘bluffed’ by the ‘scientific claims of evolutionists [which since have changed and will keep changing]. Better to take a stand on the true history of creation. A stand for Biblical reality. You replied,
>>The Thirty Years War pitted Catholics against Protestants in the early 1600s and killed more people in Western Europe than World War II did for the entire planet. Of course, this was a war that pitted Christian against Christian, creationist and creationist, which undermines the dogma that only "atheistic evolutionists" slaughter people en masse.<<
This sounds like ‘conspiracy theory’. The Reformation was nothing like WW2. Do you reinterpret history from a distorted viewpoint? Find a good history book, don’t believe everything atheists write.
>>Furthermore, evolution is random only in the sense that it's not adaptively directed, but it's NOT random in the sense that each change must start again from scratch. Heredity in its evolutionary application lends itself readily to quantification and precise reasoning. This is the subject matter of population genetics, a field well established by the 1930s. Population geneticists can deal with such quantities as mutation rate, frequency of recombination of genes on the same chromosome; expected rate of replacement of alleles by better-adapted mutant forms; expected levels of chance deviations from expected rates as a function of population size and other variables; differences in these rates between recessive and dominant genes; and many other influences on the evolutionary process. These quantitative variables can be related to one another algebraically, and evolutionary conclusions can be expressed as solutions to algebraic equations.<<
Talk of “mutation rate...mutant forms...better-adapted mutant forms” is nonsense. Professional evolutionists know "mutations" are harmful or meaningless genetic noise. There's no ‘upward’ "mutations" adding information. And those we call 'better' are downward although an organism might survive better in a given environment. Eyeless fish in caves survive better as they are not prone to eye injury. Wingless beetles do better on windy rock by the sea cause they are less likely to be blown into the sea. But the LOSS of eyes and the LOSS or corruption of the information necessary to manufacture wings is - a defect – crippling of a previously functional piece of machinery. Such changes though ‘beneficial’ in a purely survival sense. But do we see any real ‘upward’ increase in information – new coding for new functions, new machine programs? No.
>>Think Mark, examine the facts, do some research! If you believe that the earth and universe are only 6,000 years old, you're not just rejecting evolution - you're rejecting ALL the natural sciences!<<
“Think” I have, and “examine the facts and research” I have. So I’m correcting you. Perhaps next mail you could use ‘all the natural sciences’ and describe why the universe is millions of years old.
>>A theory, in the scientific sense, doesn't mean the same thing as a "guess" or a "hunch." Theories must explain a collection of facts, and evolutionary biology has itself evolved to explain that process with greater precision, accuracy, and clarity. To discount a theory, you must instead present an alternative set of facts to falsify it, and to date, creation science has failed to do that on every single solitary count.<<
Evolution is not really even a theory. A theory must be workable evolution is not. It doesn’t have a collection of facts [other than Tommy’s web-page]. Evolution might be explained with “precision, accuracy, and clarity” but it's not proven with such. It's a scientific religion which people believe regardless of vital missing fossils. And genetic information doesn’t add itself to genes. Real science only deals with things observed or measured. It depends on measuring or watching something happen, and checking by doing it again. Evolution as Darwin believed, cannot be detected within the lifetime of a single observer. That’s why I can “discount” it.
>> For example, young-earth creationists claim that the fossil record is arranged in a stair-step progression from the simple to the complex because Noah's flood picked up all the dead animals and miraculously sorted and arranged their carcasses that way. I suppose that would qualify as a "theory," but there is absolutely NO scientific support for such a hypothesis.<<
Evolutionist advocate a “sorted and arranged” geological column from Cambrian, Ordovician etc up to Pleistocene. They “claim that the fossil record is arranged in a stair-step progression from the simple to the complex”. You could rightly argue the fossil column is not uniform or “sorted and arranged”. It's not in order, there are massive fossil graveyards around the world (ie. the Karoo formation in Africa thought to contain 800 billion verterate fossils). The fossil graveyards have all the signs of rapid burial - many bones mixed together. The coal seams and oil deposits are more evidence of a global flood.
A “sorted and arranged” fossil record is vital to long-age evolution, yet I agree, there might be “absolutely NO scientific support for such a hypothesis”. In any case, we look at the evidence differently - you see one year per layer, I see evidence for one massive a flood. “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” [Dr.M.Ridley [Zoologist Oxford] '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.
>>To date, the earliest fossils appear in the Proterozoic more than 3 billion years ago. They possess clear microscopic impressions of prokaryotic cells, cells that (like modern bacteria) have no nuclei. Then, about 1.5 billion years ago, the first of a series of new microscopic fossils appear that have traces of what may be nuclei within their cells -- the eukaryotic cells. From this clear, unambiguous record, life had taken almost 2 billion years to gain a nucleus, then took several hundred million more to become multicellular. That means single-celled organisms dominated the earth during four-fifths of life's entire collective existence. The first multicellular animals fossilized almost 700 million years ago appear in the Ediacaran Hills of Australia. Still, these organisms may or may not be directly related to animals alive today. The next well-documented period, the Cambrian, clearly contains fossilized organisms ancestral to modern phyla. From this point on, new organisms appear in a pattern of historical succession that is very well documented. Shellfish and corals, for example, date to the Cambrian, more than 550 million years ago. The first true fish appear in the Ordovician, about 480 million years ago. Amphibians appear 380 million years ago, the first reptiles 40 million years later, and the first true dinosaurs nearly 80 million years later in the Triassic. The first true mammals show up around 210 million years ago; the first birds appear late in the Jurassic155 million years ago; and the last of the dinosaurs vanished at the end of the Cretaceous 65 million years ago.<<
There’s no proof from real science for any of those dates. Why not pull the numbers out of a hat? The dates are guesswork based on evolutionary theory. Dates change and stories differ depending on those talking. Or were you there? If the earth is "700 million years" old, how old is the sun? Various measurements by professionals [I have the data] indicate shrinkage calculated 2 feet or 5-6 feet or 0.6 feet or 1-2 feet or 1 foot per hour. That adds up over a year. Applying the most conservative calculation over a year its approx “1 mile per year”. We can’t even go back one million years because the sun would be too big for life and 210 million years ago it would touch the earth.
>>THINK, Mark! We're all living in a cursed creation because two nude people ate a piece of magical fruit endowed with paranormal powers of "forbidden knowledge," and they did this after being seduced by a talking snake that spoke perfect Hebrew without the benefit of lips or a larynx!<<
You are trying to make it sound funny and unbelievable as you do with history and science. The fruit wasn’t “magical fruit” and no mention of speaking 'Hebrew'. The idea of a perfect and completely difference world [to the one you know] is never given consideration by you. You can’t imagine anything but a suffering killing world full with death and no explanation. Genesis clearly says how evil entered the world. Explain evil, death and suffering? Or is there no such thing as ‘evil’ or ‘good’ in your evolution world? What happened in Genesis, explains the present earth very well. We see meaning in life, that God made us and what went wrong. Your mocking of Scripture is very revealing. It's a joke to you, to me it’s ‘the Word of Life’. You won’t accept it as true, YET you try to use the Bible's authority to disprove the Bible.
>>Are you trying to tell me that I'm not an expert, but you, in fact, are?<<
Are you 'telling me' you are? I'm saying your dishonest use of the Bible on your website questions your creditability. ‘Born again’ Christians have God's Spirit and God reveals His Word to them. We need a Spiritual rebirth to understand the deep things of God, like things in God's Word.
>>The Bible does not say that physical death didn't exist before original sin. The Bible actually implies that death existed before the fall. Examine the following passage from Genesis 1:30: "'And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground -- everything that has the breath of life in it -- I give every green plant for food.' And it was so."<<
One minute the Bible’s a joke, the next you take it seriously. The bible clearly says death came into the world because of sin [Gen.3:3,19 see also 1 Cor.15:21]. Read Gen.1:29-30. God told them to eat only plants. And the beasts and creatures of the ground also are to eat “every green plant” [vs.30]. The Bible says how death entered the world, “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned" [Rom 5:12]. You are saying when God finished what He made and said “it was good” it wasn’t, there was death, killing, suffering everywhere. “Behold it was good” was a lie [Gen.1:25,31].
>>If all the animals on Earth ate green plants for food, then death, decay and decomposition occurred before The Fall. How else do digestive processes work? Where does fecal matter come from? Did all the animals before The Fall take in food without eliminating waste? Isn't waste the byproduct of death, decay and decomposition? And does that verse really say that God prohibited animals from eating other animals? Although God says, "I give you every green plant for food," does that offer hold an implied restriction? Or is this an argument from silence? Most carnivorous animals are in reality, omnivorous. If you look at the number one ingredient in dry dog or cat food, it's not meat but ground corn meal.<<
So you blame God for 'death', not man. When man was told not to eat the fruit or die [“return to the dust”] it meant nothing because death was already everywhere. The fact is, God created a perfect world, free from death, and death is the result of man’s rebellion against God. You are in a state of rebellion – no wonder you don’t WANT to believe the simple truth of the Bible. When creatures ate fruit from the plants, they didn’t die. The “digestive processes” didn’t kill the plants but spread the seeds. Designed that way. There's thousands of examples of design in nature. Only an infinite wise God could have designed them. Design must have a Designer, or do you have another explanation? N. Eldredge Ph.D Paleontologist and Evolutionist wrote, “The only competing explanation for the order we all see in the biological world is the notion of Special Creation” Plants from a Biblical viewpoint are not alive in the same sense as humans and animals. The Bible makes a theological distinction between the life of animate beings [animals and man] and plants. They don’t have the ‘breath of life” or spirit. Never said to have mind or emotions they are living organisms but not classified as ‘living’ as animals and men.
>>In Genesis 3:20, the Bible says, "Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living. "Mother of all the living WHAT? People? Apes? Insects? It just says "all the living," period. If you're allowed to interject the word "people" here because you think that assumption logically follows, couldn't I "logically" assume that God placed no restrictions on the animal's natural diet? You're making Genesis chapter three more complicated than it really is.<<
It’s clear in Genesis God placed “restrictions on the animal’s natural diet” [Gen.1:30]. Christ said “Have you not read [Gen1:27] that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female? [Mt.19:4]. So the creation of Adam and Eve, as the progenitor of the human race, was “at the beginning”, not after millions of years of a pre-human population of animals.
>>After God reprimands Adam and Eve for sinning, does he then alter the laws of physics over the entire universe? No. He only kicks them out of the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:22-24)<<
But the laws of nature are valid through 'the entire universe' according to astronomical findings. They are not restricted to a certain limited space or time. They are valid on the moon. The laws of energy and of gravity were used to compute the quantities of fuel required for moon landings, the assumption of universal validity was justified. All creation has been effected by decay. All stars burn out. Your selective quote ignored the curse Gen.3:14-15 creatures, ground and man are cursed [3:17-19]. Now things die, the earth wears out. Creation has gone down hill since, many creatures have died out. Read the whole passage first and hopefully you won’t misunderstand it.
>>Now, let's look at the following passage from the Apostle Paul in Romans 5:12, 14, 17-18. Notice that the Biblical reference only says that death happens to all MEN because all MEN sin. Nowhere does it mention animals. Furthermore, it says that just as Adam's trespass condemns all men, Jesus' resurrection brings eternal life to all men. Did Jesus save all the world's animals, too? Should I baptize my cats?<<
Why take this verse seriously? Do you now suddenly take the bible as written? One verse you rubbish, the next you believe. No wonder you have crazy questions. ‘Progressive Creationists’ use the same words and verses you use to argue ‘millions of years’. From Romans we learn that sin and death are interwoven. Sin entered the world with an universal effect. It emphasizes death of men, but doesn't preclude death from the animal kingdom. “Sin entered the world” can refer to all creation. Other passages reveal sins effect on nature and this is also intended in Romans. And the fossil record is proof, a record of death on a worldwide scale!
The first death was when God killed an animal to clothe Adam and Eve. [Gen.3:21]. In those days men lived to over 700 years old before death. Death was not commonplace. The flood resulted in yet another curse on the earth and a change in diet as animals became wild, death increased. [Gen.9:1-16]. The earth changed because of the flood. Creation is running down, not getting better. Paul wrote, “the whole creation groans in pain together until now” [Rom.8:20-22]. Sin results in the innocent suffering.
And 'cat baptism? Man is unique among the animals made in God’s image. This “likeness” to this Creator is mental, moral & spiritual. So instead of being essentially like the lower animals, man is essentially different. Animals don’t know God, love, reason, speech, moral judgment, accountability or humor. Nor conscience-reflection, imagination, nor do they have power to preserve thoughts with the same recollection. And, no appreciation of beauty, design, order and complex mathematical laws of nature and universe. Man is undeniable unique in this world and clearly different from any animal. He resembles in form but not related in nature.
>>Paul repeats this more succinctly in 1 Corinthians 15:21-22: "For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." Again, the Bible makes it clear that Spiritual Death, not physical death, is the result of Adam's sin. And since most creationists insist that animals have no eternal soul or spirit because only humans are created separately in His image, how can Christ resurrect departed animals from the dead?<<
Physical death is certainly mentioned in Rom 5:14. And 'death reigned from the time of Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come'. Paul says the existence of physical death [prior to the giving of the law] demonstrated humanity’s sinfulness. Perhaps that’s why the phrase “and he died” is repeated throughout the genealogy of Genesis 5, a confirmation sin has brought the unnatural state of death into our world. It says physical death came through sin [Gen.3:19]. It’s said to be “an enemy”.
Adam wasn't created on top of a graveyard, he never would have died if he didn’t disobey [Gen2:16-17 3:22]. He was expelled from Eden so not to escape death [Gen.3:22-23]. So did God create an imperfect creation? Why say “very good” if it wasn’t? [Gen.1:31] Genesis provides us with a brief but tantalizing paradise wonderfully designed. Unlike our pain-filled, sin-worn world of degeneration today. A place of no catastrophes, diseases, parasites, plagues, degenerative mutations, damage to skin and eyes due to the sun’s ultraviolet radiation, no animals preying on man or animals.
>>Here's another passage from Romans 8:20-22 that most Christians misinterpret: "For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. "We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time." Notice that the passage in Romans is only talking about the future glory that will happen when God creates a new heaven and earth. It does NOT talk about the past. Nowhere, and I mean NOWHERE, are the words sin, trespass, or curse ever mentioned or implied in these verses. In fact, Paul says that the whole creation has been in bondage to decay since the BEGINNING. It has even been suffering from the pains of CHILDBIRTH right up until the present.<<
It does 'talk about the past'. The 'creation' as it was in Eden was 'subjected' (cursed) to a 'bondage' of 'decay'. It refers to “decay” from the “beginning”. But I understand what you try to say. Here’s the problem. In evolutionary thought death plays a fundamental role - a necessary precondition for the succession of postulated events. No life could have existed if there were no death. Death as such was not caused by evolution but the death of individuals is required to unsure the development of the tribe. There's no way past this precept, this axiom of the doctrine of evolution. Without death of individuals there would have been no evolution of life on this earth. If we regard evolution as a positive creating factory, then our own death is positive. The strong contrast with the Bible becomes clear, it clearly characterizes death as a hostile power [1 Cor.15:26 Rev.6:8]. Evolutionists regard death as the creator of life [anti-biblical].
>>There's an interesting parallel between this verse and Genesis 3:16 where God tells Eve, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children." Did you notice that God said he would greatly INCREASE Eve's birth pains? He didn't say that he would "introduce" them. How can you increase something that doesn't exist in the first place? That's like multiplying by zero!<<
Eve didn’t have her first children till after the fall [Cain - Adel Gen.4:1-2] so as such there was no 'birth pain' before the fall. Why take this verse literally (pain increased in childbearing) but ignore others? Why not take the whole Bible literally, it's withstood every test for 2000 years and is credible. You disagreed,
>>The following sites would disagree with you.
The fact is, it’s been translated into over 1200 languages, its the number one seller. No other ancient book is attended by such a vast number of MSS. There's thousands of MSS and they prove God has preserved Scripture. We have less excuse today than ever before in history when ignoring the Bible. Instead of modernism destroying the Bible by unbelieving claims, it's caused men to fervently study and research. And thus verify the faithfulness of God in giving us and preserving for us an infallible Word of God. So God has preserved the Bible by its enemies and friends, by circumstances and calamities as no other writing has ever been preserved. I mentioned the powerful 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a serious obstacle for naturalistic evolution. You replied,
>>[rubbish]. Entropy is only one part of the second law -- which is written in terms of the energy available to do work in an isolated system. Entropy is one way of measuring this availability. Living systems are, by definition, NOT isolated -- they continue to take in additional energy from their surroundings in order to continue to BE living systems Objections to thermodynamics must be expressed as mathematical formulas, not metaphors. Creationists have not offered any mathematical calculations to explain how genetic variation violates the second law of thermodynamics. The second law is applicable to biological organisms, but creationists don't apply it correctly. It restricts possible changes in entropy when a system makes the transition from one state to another. It requires that the initial state, as well as the end state, be in equilibrium, and that throughout this transition, the system must remain thermodynamically isolated. In turn, this leads to non-equilibrium thermodynamics. This is the proper tool for analyzing the hermodynamic behavior of the earth and its inhabitants, but creationists never address that. They must apply the second law to describe the overall non-equilibrium system as a collection of sub systems, each of which is in thermodynamic equilibrium, but not isolated. Their analysis must then identify the sub systems that are sources of entropy, and the entropy and energy flow between sub systems. This is an enormous task to apply to living organisms, and it's no wonder that creationists don't pursue such a momentous technical challenge. But it's the only proper way to describe the thermodynamic behavior of plants and animals that change over the course of geologic time.<<
Sounds like a long story. Evolution demands an upward trend – increasing order and complexity, so the 2nd Law is a real problem for naturalistic Evolution. The universe is heading downhill, all systems tend to move from order to disorder. Dr Gitt comments -
"While no laws of nature can be proved. They are identified and formulated through observation. It’s often possible to formulate conclusions in exact mathematical terms ensuring preciseness and generality but this is not the case for the laws of nature. Mathematical formulation of an observation should not be confused with a proof. The laws of nature are nothing more than empirical statements. They cannot be proved, but they are nevertheless valid. The law of conservation of energy for example has never been proved – it’s unproveable as all other laws of nature. So why is it universally valid? Because it's been shown to be true in millions of experiences with reality. It has survived all real tests." (In the Beginning was Information CLV).
World-renowned Evolutionist and avid anti-Creationist Isaac Asimov confirmed that – "Another way of stating the second law then is, ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way we can see the second law all about us. We have to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down wears out, all by itself- and that is what the second law is all about." [Isaac Asimov, "In the Game of Energy and You Can't Even Break Even", Smithsonian (June 1970), p.6]. S Gasstone Ph.D writes, "The total amount at entropy in nature is in increasing” [Textbook of Physical Chemistry (NY Nostrand 1946]
Obviously evolution involves transformation, and natural transformations. And nature transformations require energy. Such a description of evolution would require tremendous quantities of energy and many energy transformations. The process of evolution requires energy in various forms, and Thermodynamics is the study of energy movement and transformation. The two fields are clearly related. Scientific laws that govern thermodynamics must also govern evolution. Has the 2nd Law been circumvented? No', says expert Frank A. Greco: “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. USA Lab. Vol.14 (Oct 1982), p.80]
“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]. You quote Frank Steiger’s web pages to that I reply, “Of all the statements that have been made with respect to the theories on the origin of life, the statement that the Second Law of Thermodynamics poses no problem for an evolutionary origin of life is the most absurd…” (D.Gish Ph.D biochemist).
I mentioned there are experienced and intelligent scientists who find all forms of evolution exceedingly unsatisfactory in providing a credible explanation for the origin of the cosmos. And you replied,
>>There are experienced and intelligent scientists who have all sorts of problems with flood geology as well. Especially Christian geologists and astrophysicists. Just ask Glenn Morton, Hugh Ross, and Alan Hayward.<<
Name one “Christian geologist” to confirm this. Ross [you quote] is a long ager. Read what he believes -
There are always those who don’t take the Bible literally and believe it. They believe and ignore parts they like and don’t like. When the Bible says the flood covered the whole earth and every living thing died [Gen.7:19-23] they reject it. The evidence for a worldwide flood however is very convincing! Another reason why the Bible can be trusted and believed. Let me go through your quotes from creationists -
>> It is absurd to think that Adam could name all the animals in part of a single day.... Science requires us to believe that the days of creation week were long ages instead of literal days. (Henry Morris, Adam and the animals, ICR Impact 212)<<
What’s the problem? Naming of the animals occurred after the creation days were over. Morris teaches six-days were six-days NOT "long ages" Next quote -
>> All living forms have arisen from a single form of life by slow gradual changes. Thus, the time between the origin of life and the abrupt appearance in the fossil record of the many complex invertebrate forms of life is now estimated to have been nearly three billion years. The time required for one of these invertebrates to evolve into the vertebrates, or fishes, has been estimated at about 100 million years, and it is believed that the evolution of the fish into an amphibian required about 30 million years. (Duane T. Gish, Ph.D. (1980). The origin of mammals. ICR Impact 87) “ ...all living things have arisen through a naturalistic, mechanistic evolutionary process from a single source, which itself arose by a similar process from a dead, inorganic world. (Duane T. Gish, Ph.D. Creation/Evolution. ICR Impact 4)<<
D.Gish is describing what evolutionists believe, not stating what he believes. Read what you quote first. He's done almost 300 debates on evolution, (an expert on the arguments for and against) and he defends creation science against the distorted inaccurate nonsense of evolutionists. Next quote -
>> 1. Dinosaurs and many other animals are pre-historic. Most of the earth's history took place long before the Bible or any other book was written and long before any man existed. 2. It is a scientific fact that the earth is exceedingly old--perhaps 5 billion years. 3. Evolution is a fact. God did not create the world as portrayed in the Bible. 4. There once was a time when the land was inhabited only by reptiles--the Great Age of the Dinosaurs. 5. Dinosaurs and other animals evolved into completely different kinds of creatures. Every creature evolved from lower forms of life, even man. Man is just an animal--a highly-evolved primate. (Paul S. Taylor (1982). Dinosaur Mania And Our Children. ICR Impact 167)<<
Again you quote selectively and dishonestly. Taylor isn't an evolutionist he states what they believe. If you read “The Illustrated Origins” [Eden Com. 1954] I doubt very much you would have such a distort view regarding what Taylor believes. Next quote -
>> Fact of speciation leads directly to the fact of macroevolution (Kenneth Cumming, Patterns of speciation, ICR Impact 215) “This (radioactive) decay has occurred over billions of years at constant rates. (Larry Vardiman, Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, ICR Impact 301)<<
There is so much contrary data in "radioactive" dating with unresolved problems and ad hoc explanations for discordances, that it's unreliability cannot be ignored [See Radioisotopes & the Age of the Earth. Ed. Vardiman, Snelling, Chaffin. ICR El Cajan CA & CRS St Joseph MI 2000]. Can I make a point? When you misrepresent people ie Gish, Taylor, Morris [above] and imply they taught evolution, it's dishonest and questions all your quotes. You have not read a single book or word. I wrote it's amazing how Sceptics think they understand and read the Bible more correctly than theologians. You replied -
>>It's amazing how fundamentalists think they understand and read the Bible more correctly than skeptics.<<
After reading the way you misquote people and the Bible no wonder you are criticized. 'Fundamentalists' take the Bible seriously. What's your Bible training? "It's amazing" anyone would go to "skeptics" for help understanding the Bible. If I prescribed medicine without qualification or license would you take it?
I mentioned that we don't see evolution happening. Every living thing contains a program [eg. DNA -- information written on a long molecule]. Even the simplest-known one-celled creatures are mind-bogglingly complex and never accidentally have an increase of information. That is, a coding for new structures, functions, greater complexity. So you quote a lengthy ARTICLE full of ambiguous words, I doubt have any common sense. But say this. I base what I believe on what I DO know, not on what I DON’T know. The ARTICLE an explanation how information is added to DNA. Information is added to the DNA and all it needs is a (quote) “finger (F) inserted between the two G domains” and evolution will work (a nonsense article too long and too stupid to repeat).
The human DNA stores an immensely complex code long enough to fill 1,000 books – each with 500 pages of small, closely printed type. That’s a lot of information to come together by chance. Nowhere else can a higher statistical packing density of information be found. The major flaw in your quote, is no matter how chemicals are mixed they do not create DNA spirals or any intelligent code whatsoever. Only DNA produces DNA. There is not enough chances or time for life to be formed by natural processes. No laboratory in the world has yet succeeded in creating living organism from inanimate organic matter and even if they could the key factor is having information to start with and with a huge amount of information [skillfully, carefully with expertise] bring life about. Which proves my point, someone with a huge amount of information and extremely Wise made life [ie God]. But even with a simple cell, it must go up the extremely complicated pathway of more complexity. I asked if any of your 'Friends' read the books I mentioned? And you replied,
>>Yes, and that's PRECISELY why I'm an evolutionist.<<
So your friends tell you what to believe? Why don’t you read yourself? You haven’t or you wouldn’t misquote or misunderstand the issues. Your concluding remarks in your letter appear childish rather requiring attention, so I'll leave them. I’m not perfect either, that’s why I need Christ as my Saviour. Waiting your reply.