Want Some Answers ???

Evolutionism
Index
Home



Hi David,

Thanks for the reply.

>>I take it that you would be interested in my comments, but I have to say it has got off to a bad start because you said you know what I believe but seem to have an uncertainty as to whether I am a Progressive Creationist or an Evolutionist for you attack these beliefs as if I hold them.<<

As I understand it, Darwin’s evolution theory existed first and then Asa Gray had his marvellous idea (Progressive Creationism). He tried to reconcile Darwin’s natural selection with Christianity’s belief in supernatural intervention. Gray wrote to Darwin to try and convince him, but Darwin rejected the idea. Darwin insisted that given enough time life evolved by itself without outside help. You (as Gray) might distance yourself from Darwin, but must defend the assumptions of his theory. The fully committed Darwinist is in the atheist camp, those who hold a literal Genesis are in the theist camp. However, those holding a theistic evolution, are really true to either camp. In their position, the foundation of Christianity has been replaced by Darwin while still retaining an illusion of a prayer-hearing God. Theistic evolution is clearly only a stepping stone to ease the theist into a new faith whose foundation is evolution.

>>I don't give a hoot what they believe and I resist any pigeonholes except that I am a Creationist who hold that human opinion must not be mixed with the Bible and pushed as Gospel Fact.<<

You may not care but Darwin’s theory is the framework of Progressive Creationism with most of the assumptions - death and suffering for millions of years, no flood, Genesis considered incorrect, nature teaches us, etc. They are not 'Gospel Fact', they're human ideas from Darwin's time.

>>These are the issues I will deal with. In line with your request, I will e mail some to you once I have assembled them. These are the aggressive part. But I will post one or two papers I have written that are not on the computer. These are non-threatening. You may well agree with it in total.<<

Thanks. But keep in mind I accept science too - the same evidence as you — the battle is not about the evidence or facts, they're the same. We live on the same earth, the same universe, plants, animals and fossils. I have no problem with true science; it’s the same science I understand and trust. The argument is not about science or about facts—ultimately it's about how we interpret facts — which depends on our belief (human opinion) about history. The real difference is that we have different “histories” (accounts about what happened in the past), which we use to interpret the science and facts of the present.

>>I am surprised that you folk accept the Paluxy hoax still, as I am surprised that the photos in Genesis Flood are still published. 1 John Morris is on record in "Time" 1985 as publicly accepting their error. (I'll post you a photocopy of this article). 2 The error was found by creationists, not evolutionists.<<

The AiG website indicates they do NOT 'accept' it. But if ‘the error was found by creationists not evolutionists’ then why did you say “Why Oh Why do Creationists listen to and not judge such fraud”? Because according to you, they did find and ‘judge such fraud’. Also you wrote, “but 37 years later in 1999 I found out that the Paluxy footprints were a hoax”. And obviously it was the creationist researchers that revealed the error. Why NOT thank them instead of hating them?

You wrote, “
the authors knew of before (1961) it was even printed”. Yet it was in 1986 creation researchers decided the evidence of supposedly human and dinosaur footprints had problems. They decided that, "pending further research to establish the correct interpretation of the prints, they could no longer be safely used as evidence supporting the fact (based on the biblical account of creation) that man and dinosaur lived at the same time". Not because its a "hoax", many more human-like prints have been discovered all over the US (Schoolcraft 1822) and Ingalls (1940) they can't all be carvings. But for this reason and vandalism they're put aside. Both human and Dinosaur tracks have been found together by creation researchers, soon as the location was known, an evolutionist (they suspect) destroyed them.

These things have been well documented in Creationist literature. AiG have exposed frauds, asked questions, published the research, and also exposed dubious and unsubstantiated arguments for creation. And will admit if they were wrong and make corrections (I've seen it). Unlike others who only admit they were wrong, if they can sore a point against six-day Creationists.

>>3 The error is that the footprints are said to be footprints of humans, whereas they are footprints of smaller dinosaurs. 4 The footprint of a human is a different rock, and this is clear from the Genesis Flood shots. Even the published photos can't prove that the footprints were in the same strata, for they are two different photos (but I must admit I was hooked by them once).<<

So you once believed in a young earth? But after Morris's 'dishonesty' you rejected it? 'Dishonesty' governs how you interpret Scripture? "let God be true, but every man a liar" (Ro,3:4) all the more reason to trust the Bible as written than follow the ideas of scientists, you agree? But there's more evidence than a few photos.

And indeed if there were dino and human tracks – that’s the end of the assumption of millions of years. So what happened to the Dinosaurs - asteroid impact? There's no mystery if you accept the Bible account of history. Created the sixth day (Gen.1:20-25) they lived the same time as man. As the Bible indicates Job 40:15-24 Ps.74:13 Isa.27:1 30:6. And there are other records the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, the Sumerian story, Alexander the Great, stories from China, paintings, pottery, carvings, English, Irish and European stories of dinosaurs. In fact, ancient Indian rock drawings of the Sauropod Dinosaur in White River Canyon Utah show dinosaurs co-existed with man. And after all, crocodiles and alligators co-exist with man they are dinosaurs too. They had no change after the so-called millions & millions of years. No matter how old they say the bones are – the fossils are the same as living creatures today - no change.

Did you know unfossilised Dinosaur bones have been discovered? Proving they cannot be millions of years old. Fragments of DNA claimed to be in alleged 80 million year old bones buried in a coal bed (S.R. Woodward 'DNA Sequence from Cretaceous Period Bone Fragments' Science vol.266 18Nov.94 p.1229-32) Since DNA only lasts 1,000's of years, this is powerful evidence for young fossils.

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

Info about the “Unfossilized dinosaur bones” See the 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 pg.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 pg.19-21). The scientific world was stunned in 1938 when in a fish-mall, a coelacanth fish was discovered [evolutionists claimed they were extinct for 65 million yrs] . ABC News

abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/coelacanth001201html 4 Dec.2000.

Plenty of evidence suggest problems for the old age theory. How about the mud-springs at Swindon Wiltshire? Like a fossil conveyor belt with pristine fossils supposedly "165 million years old". Surprise! Many still have shimmering mother-of-pearl shells, and retain their iridescence, and bivalves still have their original organic ligaments. Even more amazing is the millions of years mindset that blinds hard-nosed rational scientists from seeing what should be so obvious.

>>5 I read somewhere (I think in RNumbers book which is endorsed by H Morris for unbiassed accuracy) that native Americans have a field day selling such alleged human artifacts which they sculpt. 6 Genesis Flood says the photos were supplied by CBurdick. That man is a fraud. According to Numbers: He told Morris in 1961 that the photos were suspect. Yet he supplied them. He also purchased his PhD degree from a fraudulent office in Arizona, just like John Davy did, except that Burdick is honoured by the book and given kudos whereas John Davy ends up in an NZ jail for fraud. Every thing he has "found" in the Grand Canyon is also unable to be verified. Why Oh Why do Creationists listen to and not judge such fraud? (Now don't respond by trotting out all the frauds of the evolutionists. Just accept the criticism and deal with it.) Yours sincerely David<<

I would love to have a photocopy of Morris's book. But we mustn’t mention the frauds of evolutionists? Very suspicious. A mind made up and no one can change it? I'm open to both sides of the debate. I don't know about those pictures, but I've seen pictures of human feet impressions in Limestone rock near St Louis, Missouri. First publ. by Harry Schoolcraft in the American Journal of Science for 1822. Remarkable THAT it was reported AT ALL in a professional journal of that date. Reports of similar findings would not be accepted by any reputable journal today (no evidence against evolution published).

Anyway, sounds like six-day creationists are your number one enemy.

Kind Regards
Mark

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].


Index
Home
Reply